1987-01-28

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 35-36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
/
, -5 -'i
S	<?
r ?.
- [DOT] * '
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] f
.r!
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, January 28, 1987


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadair, winner of the CF-18 maintenance contract after serious abuse of the tendering process, is now considering building a $20-million maintenance facility at Mirabel because it says it does not have enough space in Montreal to do the CF-18 work. In other words, after serious doubts were raised as to whether or not Canadair had the needed technology and personnel, we now learn that it does not even have the needed space or facilities to handle this critically important defence contract.
The question is how much will this cost Canadians? At the time the contract was awarded, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) told Canadians that we would not pay another cent for the Government's decision to accept Cana-dair's bid over Bristol's clearly superior bid. The bill Canadians will now have to foot will run much higher if Canadair seeks government support for this new facility, as a company spokesman anticipates it will.
To add further insult to injury, just last week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), in a speech to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, was quoted as saying the following:
By deliberately opting for Montreal in aeronautics, the Government is giving back-to the city one of its natural and historical roles-this is the background to the Progressive Conservative Government's decision last year to centre the aerospace industry in the Montreal region.
What does this say about the Government's commitment to other areas where the aerospace industry is important? How many other contracts will be finagled? I call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to repudiate those remarks, and I call upon the Government to examine this tendering process-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the people I represent are angry about the delays in reinstating capital punishment. It is no wonder. A beautiful teenaged girl from Standard, a married woman from High River, and a high school girl from Okotoks were all brutally assaulted and murdered. Two of them were covered with gasoline and burned, and the other was tied to stones and sent to the bottom of a lake. Now a peace officer has been murdered in cold blood.
More than 70 per cent of the people throughout Canada want the noose returned for those who deliberately plan and then kill another human being. There is no deterrent for planned murder now. Even when murderers are caught, we give them protection in the prisons, food and entertainment that working people cannot afford, and then let them out so that they can do it all over again. Where is the justice?
Our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is taking steps to correct this, and the sooner the better. Capital punishment will not stop all murderers, but it will stop a lot, and certainly no murderer will have the chance to murder a second time. I hope that it will soon be well known in Canada that if you deliberately kill another human being, you, too, will surely die.



DIABETES RESEARCH-EFFECT OF CLOSURE OF RAT BIOBREEDING PROGRAM

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, rats are hairy little animals with beady little eyes that people generally dislike. That is the evident depth of thought that has motivated our scientifically incompetent Government to close the unique biobreeding rat program at the Department of Health and Welfare, even though the diabetic rats produced there are indispensable to diabetes research in Canada.
Ideology and incompetence share a happy marriage in the Government. Cut the deficit, privatize the rats, even if it cripples essential Canadian research on the world's third greatest killer of mankind. Thus continues the Government's march to minor league science even in health research.

January 28, 1987
S.O.	21 SPORTS



REUBEN MAYES CHOSEN NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to draw the attention of Members to the achievements of a Canadian sports hero. The people of my hometown are justifiably proud of Reuben Mayes, a native of North Battleford, who has inspired sports fans in a football career which began with the North Battleford Comprehensive High School Vikings and continued with the University of Washington Cougars.
We all expected great things from Reuben when he was drafted last year as a running back for the National Football League's New Orleans Saints. Last week, by a landslide vote, Reuben Mayes was chosen Rookie of the Year by the Professional Football Writers of America. He rushed for 1,300 yards in his first pro football season and has won acclaim throughout North America.
On behalf of The Battlefords, indeed of everyone in Saskatchewan, I congratulate this distinguished young Canadian, Reuben Mayes, and wish him continued success in what is clearly destined to be a brilliant football career.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Three decades ago, Mr. Speaker, John Diefenbaker struck a resonant chord in the hearts of all Canadians when he evoked his vision of the north. The challenge and vast potential of Canada's frontier regions are as great today as ever.
The Government of Canada has a unique opportunity before it to help this country maintain its status as a world leader in cold weather technology. I am referring to the Centre for Frontier Engineering Research. This remarkable non-profit venture is doing pioneering research on the effects of low temperature environments on materials, design, and technology. This work is vital in increasing the productivity of the petroleum, mining, construction, and shipping industries. By improving our ability to work in cold climates, frontier research is indirectly helping us to reaffirm our sovereignty over the Arctic regions.
In order to further its research, the Centre needs a facility for cold regions engineering research which would include a low temperature structural laboratory and a downhole tubulars laboratory. The private sector and the Government of Alberta support the proposal. The assistance of the Government of Canada can make these specialized laboratories a reality. I urge the Government to support this centre of high technology excellence.
*
*



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory approach to government is waste, scandal, incompetence, and cronyism, as we have seen during the past week. However, nothing typifies this more than the phoney research project on dairy cattle by Dreamstreet Redgen which will cost the people of Canada $55 million in a Scientific Research Tax Credit. Responsible people in agricultural research, such as Dr. Larry Milligan of the University of Guelph, have condemned the scheme and said that it has to be insanity to allow the Dream-street research program to go ahead.
It is really only a scheme to save big corporations millions of tax dollars and funnel millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers back to the parent Dreamstreet tax shelter in the United States. Somewhere in the Government there is a guardian angel which allows this project to continue. Any honest, responsible Government would have cancelled it months ago.



COPYRIGHT ACT


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's artists have been waiting since the fall of 1985 for action on a new Copyright Act. They are beginning to be very disturbed by rumours that the Government is backtracking on the excellent proposals for reform unanimously made by the Copyright Committee. In effect, we are hearing that there will not be a comprehensive new Act but only some minor plugging of loopholes.

There are rumors that the Government has no intention of including performers' rights in the expected legislation, even though this is a major concern for the cultural community and agencies such as Union des artistes. Painters and other visual artists who are already excluded from copyright also have claims to make.

The only way for the Government to put to rest these most unfortunate rumours is to bring in a Bill soon with the
January 28, 1987

important and comprehensive recommendations of the copyright committee in it. Canada's creative people deserve no less.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, there is in Canada today an improved environment for foreign investment and a strong and co-operative spirit between federal and provincial Governments to encourage such investment. There is an improved labour relations climate. There is an increased emphasis on high technology industries. Are these claims from a Tory election handbook? No, that report card comes from across the Pacific, from the report released yesterday by the highly prestigious Keidanren, Japan's federation of economic organizations, following their 10-day trip to Canada last November when they visited many businesses and Governments across the country.
It has been 10 years since that group previously came to Canada. As a result of their recent visit, Mission Leader Kanao said they have found a new Canada. He predicted that with such improvements in economic and investment conditions there should be an increase of shipments of manufactured goods to Japan, more high technology joint ventures between companies of the two countries, and greater Japanese investment, particularly in Canadian manufacturing. We are honoured that those who have come to Canada with a clear view so quickly appreciate the opportunities available.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the City of Hamilton shafted by the Conservative Government. Can you imagine, Windermere Basin, part of the infamous Hamilton Harbour, which has been identified as one of the most polluted bodies of water in the Great Lakes, contains levels of hazardous PCBs up to 68 times what is considered safe.
The city, regional and provincial Governments are all prepared to commit millions of dollars for the clean-up, and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) comes to Hamilton last week and says it is not a federal responsibility. The federal Government has the responsibility to follow up on the International Joint Commission's recommendations to clean up the Great Lakes. By ignoring this desperate situation in Hamilton Harbour he is forcing the people of Hamilton and the Province of Ontario to continue to drink water from Lake
Ontario which is unsafe. I call on the Minister, if he is not afraid of the truth, to tell us why he held a private meeting with two Conservative Members of Parliament and ignored the Member of Parliament for Hamilton East in whose riding the Windermere Basin is found.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic indicators are looking better with each passing day. On the way up are housing and small business starts, building permits, consumer spending, international tourism, foreign investment, and the value of the Canadian dollar. On the way down are the Bank of Canada rate, the prime lending rate and mortgage rates.
Some of the indicators are nothing short of remarkable. Six-month mortgages are now available at 7.5 per cent, a rate unheard of since the 1960s and a fraction of the 21 per cent and 22 per cent being charged just five or six years ago. Clearly the foresighted actions of the Government deserve some of the credit. Initiatives such as the dismantling of the NEP and FIRA and the establishment of Investment Canada, together with deficit reduction and a spending control policy, have all added up to fiscal sanity and economic growth. We cannot stop now. We must do all we can to ensure that this welcome trend continues and that all regions of Canada benefit.

S)



DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY-EFFECT ON CONSUMERS

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when Canada's Energy Ministers meet this Friday they should look at the Conservative Government's bungling attempts to deregulate the natural gas industry. Canadians will have the dubious pleasure of paying more for their own resources at home than will American consumers of exported Canadian gas.
Beginning February 9, the Manitoba Public Utilities Board will try to find out why Inter-City Gas Corporation expects residential consumers in Manitoba to foot the bill, $60 million a year, for its contract to buy gas from TransCanada PipeLines for $3 per thousand cubic feet. At the same time, TCPL is selling gas in Houston, Texas, for $2.55 per thousand cubic feet.

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
Deregulation is not helping consumers. Consumers of natural gas in Manitoba and Ontario are paying $125 a year more than they should be. That costs $60 million in Manitoba and $600 million in Ontario. The Energy Ministers of Canada should look at this unfair and unequal situation.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SUPPORT FROM U.S. PRESIDENT

Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, last evening in President Reagan's State of the Union Address he pledged to conclude a "historic" free trade agreement with Canada, their largest international trading partner. This can certainly be seen as a positive indication of the Reagan administration's continued support of a trade enhancement deal.
Canada survives on trade. Over 30 per cent of our national income is generated by exports. As our most important trading partner, 78 per cent of our exports enter the U.S. market and 22 per cent of their exports enter through our borders.
No former Canadian Government has approached this 120-year-old problem in such a spirit of co-operation. Instead of cooperating with our closest and most significant trading partner, the previous administration chose to suffocate measures leading to a comprehensive trade agreement.
The Conservative Government is committed to further negotiate bilateral trade talks with our friends south of the border in order to ensure a framework which will create employment in every region in Canada and enhance our economic recovery.



DISASTERS


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, on New Year's Eve a tragic fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, claimed the lives of 96 people, two of whom were from my riding. It is with the greatest sympathy that I express my regrets to their families. The origin of this fire presumably began over a bitter labour dispute between the union and management at that hotel.
I have a recommendation for the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Transport. I suggest to the Ministers that there be regulations requiring airlines and travel agencies to inform their customers of the regions of the world where terrorism or political or labour-management unrest exists. This would provide the Canadian travelling
public with invaluable information when deciding where to holiday.
As a precautionary measure, Canadians deserve to be aware of violent disputes, and I strongly urge the Ministers to consider my recommendation.



THE SENATE


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, a recent survey by the Canadian Press revealed that less than one-third of the 104 Senators attended regular sittings of the Senate during the fall session. This was out of 19 sitting days.
Exceptional circumstances such as ill health are understandable, but such a lack of enthusiasm from this predominantly Liberal body calls for a reassessment of the role of the Senate and potential Senate reform. It is time that serious consideration is given to the concept of an elected Senate, responsible to the voters of Canada for its action or inaction.
The people of my Province of Alberta have long supported the concept of a Triple E Senate, one that is elected, equal, and effective. Many Albertans are impatient for such change as they feel that Alberta's proper place in Confederation can only be enhanced by an elected Senate.
The Senate is indeed a necessary part of our Confederation and its purpose for existence is sound. However, the time has come for Senate reform and the accountability of the Senate to the people of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last year French fishermen overfished off the coast of Newfoundland by about 21,000 metric tonnes of cod. The Minister may know that that is about nine million codfish. If one stretched those cod end to end, they would form a line from Newfoundland right across the ocean to Paris. Despite that, the Minister has authorized an additional quota of
15,000	metric tonnes. Surely it is enough for his Government to have sold out the forestry workers of Canada to the United States; why did he sell out our fishermen to France?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: First, Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not do his homework or at least read the
January 28, 1987

elements of the agreement that I announced yesterday. We have not offered any additional 15,000 tonnes of cod. In fact these amounts, which are provided for in the long-term agreement with France and the EEC, and as well the allocation in the 3PS area, are contained within the fishing plan which was announced last year, fully discussed and negotiated with representatives of the industry and the Governments of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic Provinces.


John Napier Turner: That is not what the fishermen are saying, or the Premier of Newfoundland. What the Minister has done is offered this gift to France in order to maintain cordial relations, so called, so that cabinet Ministers can continue to enjoy the cocktail circuit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Napier Turner: Why would the Minister cut the Atlantic quota for Canadians by 10,000 metric tonnes and issue those licences to Frenchmen for 15,000?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Shame.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The answer to that, too, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. In fact those licences were only issued so we could keep track of how many French vessels were blatantly overfishing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -in a disputed zone under provisions approved by the Government of which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was a part and which he endorsed as Prime Minister when he was Prime Minister for a short while.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Minister cannot substantiate that one whit.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: am going to try to make some sense out of this. I am going to go to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Johnston:: Good luck.


John Napier Turner: May 1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister to try to get together with us and look at what has happened here? The French Government is claiming in effect the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is like us claiming the Eiffel Tower. Yet the Government has authorized an adjudication before the World Court, sacrificing our sovereignty and the rights of our fishermen. Will the Deputy Prime Minister
Oral Questions
not overrule the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and pull us out of this absurd deal with France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has asked three questions and made three incorrect statements, which shows how ill-equipped he would he to lead a Government of this country.


An Hon. Member:: He has already proved that in the past.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Absolutely, and we will prove it, too.


Mr. McKenzie:: We saw what he did in Finance.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that France-


Mr. Penner:: Get rid of this Minister. He is a disaster.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -lays claim to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is pure poppycock. It is not the case. In fact what we are doing by entering into a period of negotiation with France is to find for once and for all a solution to a problem created by a Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a part.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER AND PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, that answer was amusing coming from a Minister who would obviously have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Atlantic Canadians and, specifically, Newfoundlanders, have been brutally sold out by this Minister, whom they will never again trust. The Minister was sworn to uphold their interests. Why did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans write to the Prime Minister on June 24, 1986, with respect to these negotiations and say:
I want to assure you that my goal throughout will be to manage our fisheries discussions with the French in a manner that does not jeopardize the cordial relationship between Canada and France-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who was putting presure on the Minister to go easy with France and brutalize Newfoundlanders?


Jacques Guilbault: Shame!


Thomas Edward Siddon: You know, Mr. Speaker, as is usual with members of the Opposition, they love to take quotes out of context. If the Hon. Member would wish to read the entire text-


Jacques Guilbault: We will table the whole letter, don't worry.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -he would realize that the Prime Minister said:
Your comments on the socio-economic importance of the cod fishery and the implications of the French claim are useful. I agree that in dealing with this

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one hand the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and on the other our bilateral relations with France.
That is a completely responsible statement from the Prime Minister.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Obviously the French hand was a heck of a lot heavier than the hands of the Newfoundlanders which were stretched out asking for help, because you turned us away.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning on VOCM's open-line in St. John's the Hon. Member for St. John's West said with respect to lack of consultation: "I can't see any legitimate defence of the fact that they were not present at this particular meeting. Let's just say that those responsible for this are certainly insensitive to the importance of the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador".
Clearly there is a split in the Cabinet over this issue. Will the Deputy Prime Minister declare this deal null and void, and fire the Minister of Fisheries, or will he leave the Hon. Member for St. John's West with no choice but to resign in protest against this bad decision for Newfoundland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to interpret the words of my hon. colleague. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that there is no split in Cabinet over this affair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: From day one the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, industry representatives, and other Atlantic provinces have known very well-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Are you calling them all liars?


Thomas Edward Siddon: -that our objective is to get France to agree to submit the unresolved boundary dispute to international arbitration so that we can stop once and for all their blatant overfishing of fish stocks which are for the benefit of the fishermen the Hon. Member represents, and which are being overfished to the extent of 20,000 tonnes per year, or $40 million. That is the opportunity we seek to turn to the advantage of Newfoundland, about which the Hon. Member is saying that its Government could not possibly address and that we should not possibly address that challenge.


REQUEST MADE BY NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister on the same subject.
I know he has assumed an interest in this subject.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Premier of Newfoundland wrote to the Prime Minister just before Christmas and made it very clear in his letter that the
Government of Newfoundland did not want any additional fishing rights given to France in one part of Canadian waters as an attempt to obtain a settlement of the dispute about St. Pierre and Miquelon? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the existence of that letter? Will he tell us how it was possible that the Prime Minister of Canada could ignore such a request?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, of course the Government of Newfoundland does not want additional quotas given up to France in other parts of those waters, in particular the area known as 2J+3KL. But the Government has had to consider the possible advantage of eliminating once and for all the overfishing by France which is extracting from Canadian fishermen some $40 million worth of value per year in exchange for some possible modest offsetting contributions elsewhere.
There is no commitment, and the Government will not make any such commitment between now and the end of the year without the full support of Newfoundland and the industry.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Fisheries has just said that a possible modest concession has been made. I point out to him that today the Premier of Nova Scotia said that that possible modest concession will cost Atlantic Canada $200 million. It may be modest to the Minister but it is not modest to the people of Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Premier of Newfoundland has opposed this deal, since the Premier of Nova Scotia has opposed it, and since spokespersons for virtually every Atlantic Government are in opposition to it, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the Government of Canada made a deal that pleases the people of France but is opposed by everyone in our Atlantic provinces?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the NDP would want to understand the facts as they are in truth. In fact no fish have been promised to France beyond the end of the present year, and those which have been promised to France within this year fall within the groundfish plan which has been negotiated fully with other Governments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Bull!


Thomas Edward Siddon: There is a small exception in the area to the very north. Those are surplus cod stocks which have never been fished by Newfoundland and which we do not believe France will fish either.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Come on, what are you talking about?
January 28, 1987


Thomas Edward Siddon: No commitments have been made. What we have done is we agreed to enter into-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You don't know what you're talking about!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -negotiation of the boundary issue. Those who are unwilling to negotiate are unfit to govern.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CANCEL AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Party that now governs made a commitment to provinces all across Canada that when their interests were at stake they would be full participants in negotiations. It was this Government that cut Atlantic Canadian provinces out of the deal completely. That is what this Government has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Furthermore, the Minister has said that there is a surplus of cod. There is not a surplus.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Since this deal that the Government has made is of an interim nature, and is opposed by all the Governments in Atlantic Canada that have spoken on it, and the industry opposes it, the fishermen oppose it, no rational Canadian, except in the Conservative Party, is in favour of it, will the Government now cancel the interim agreement?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is the folly of this place and this Question Period that questions of this type are purely designed to distort and exaggerate-


An Hon. Member:: Resign!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members would expect me to comment that the observations of the Hon. Minister are of great interest to me, but most of the time in this Chamber if those observations have to be made, I have to make them. Will the Minister please answer the question?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I agree with you absolutely, Mr. Speaker, as always.
We have agreed with France to sit down between now and the end of the year and negotiate terms of reference by which the boundary dispute, which is a long and unresolved irritant, would be referred to compulsory third-party arbitration. In exchange, we have agreed to negotiate interim fishing arrangements with France which would help us to curb the overfishing problem.


Mr. Riis:: Stop negotiating for us.
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: Both of those initiatives are to be negotiated by December 31. Both will bring benefit to Atlantic fishermen. If, in the process, the demands of France exceed that which Canadian fishermen and Atlantic Governments can support, there will be no agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT MADE BY PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has said that he has cut back the cod quota for Canadian fishermen in the interests of conservation, then declares the cod surplus and gives them to the French.


An Hon. Member:: That is right. Shame!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Premier of Nova Scotia has said that Atlantic fisheries will lose at least $200 million. He talks about cordial relations with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please put his question?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Does the Minister say that the Premier of Nova Scotia does not know what he is talking about? Is this cordial relationship being paid for on the backs of Atlantic Canadian fishermen in the amount of at least $200 million?


Thomas Edward Siddon: do not intend to comment on the remarks of the Premier of Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He also has not had very much time to reflect upon the elements of this agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: Keep going, that's good.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If the Opposition would quit floundering around and listen for a moment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are an expert on floundering.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -I would like to reflect on the comments yesterday of a former Liberal candidate and staffer in Prime Minister Trudeau's office who said:
"The fact that they (the French) put their names on a piece of paper is a great step forward," said Brian Flemming, Halifax lawyer and admiralty law expert.


IMPACT OF AGREEMENT ON CANADIAN FISHERMEN
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it true that, in making this agreement with France, the Minister has sold out the Canadian position by creating a floor

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
which will mean that Atlantic Canadian fishermen will never get a fair agreement from the international arbitration?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, that too is a rather senseless question.
Mr. Flemming, the former Liberal candidate and Trudeau staffer, Halifax lawyer, and admiralty law expert, said that:
-the initial loss to Canada may be necessary in order to arrive at a long-term agreement with the French over waters around St. Pierre-Miquelon, where nine French trawlers will operate under Canadian licences.
That was the statement of a former Liberal candidate and staffer-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands.


CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONSHIP
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Premier Peckford has pointed out that granting rights to France for northern cod has created a very unhealthy precedent which will open the way for countries like Spain and Portugal also to apply to have fishing rights in that area.
Considering this and all the other negative aspects of that agreement, the people of Atlantic Canada wish to know why the Minister and the Government are putting the interests of the relationship with France ahead of the interests of the relationship with the Premiers of Atlantic Canada, the people of Atlantic Canada, and the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Again, that is not the case. If we cannot agree to terms of reference to refer the question of the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary issue to compulsory third party arbitration, and if both Governments cannot agree to fishing allocations during the period when that process is under way, and I might add that if the fishermen and the Governments of Atlantic Canada cannot accept those conditions, there will be no agreement. We will not sell out the interests of Atlantic fishermen for an agreement at any cost.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have already sold out.


QUOTA OBSERVANCE BY FRENCH TRAWLERS
James Douglas Manly: wish to ask the Minister why the Government concluded an agreement with France without ensuring that France would at least respect the quotas that had been established by Canada for its trawlers? Did we receive that type of assurance? If not, why not? If those quotas will not be respected, will this agreement be cancelled by the end of this year?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Hon. Member's question indicates his misunderstanding
of the situation. What we consider to be illegal overfishing France considers to be its right to fish in an area it claims as its sovereign territory. Thanks to the previous Government, that arrangement was approved.
The Hon. Member opposite and his colleagues seem to say that they would rather fight than negotiate, or they would prefer to see France continue to abuse that resource and take fish and income out of the mouths of Atlantic fishermen. We do not agree. We want to solve this problem once and for all for the benefit of Atlantic Fishermen.


An Hon. Member:: Stand up for Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES, AND OF MINISTER OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING, OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John Savage, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia.
I also wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Stanley B. Hagen, Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training for the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the serious allegations that improper political interference was used to obtain parole for convicted drug trafficker, Conrad Bouchard. Will the Minister immediately order a full and complete inquiry to determine whether there was political interference in this matter, and to ensure that the integrity of the National Parole Board has been maintained?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: I can
advise the Hon. Member that I first became aware of these allegations on Monday. I immediately contacted the RCMP and the Chairman of the National Parole Board and asked them to look into these allegations. That is presently under way. As a matter of fact, it was under way on Monday.
January 28, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the Government should launch an immediate inquiry concerning those very serious allegations.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF BOARD MEMBER
John V. Nunziata: My supplementary question to the Solicitor General is this. Pending the conclusion of this full and complete inquiry, will the Solicitor General suspend National Parole Board member, Louis Laporte, in view of the allegation of Mr. Laporte's involvement in this matter? Can the Solicitor General assure the House today that no Member of Parliament improperly interfered in this particular case?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we have a system of justice in this country that a man or people are presumed to be innocent. Immediately upon learning of these allegations on Monday I asked both the National Parole Board and the RCMP to investigate. I think it is only proper and fair that I hear from them in a preliminary way before I take any action.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Is the Minister aware that the federal Government's agreement with the United States on softwood lumber exports has placed the financial arrangements of lumber companies with their banks in jeopardy? The situation is directly caused by leading banking institutions using the abundance of misinformation on Canada's settlement to their benefit. Could the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to get in touch with the banking institutions and inform them that the agreement between Canada and the United States on the lumber industry is a good one?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Did you vote yes or no on the Bill?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. friend for-


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust that under the circumstances the Hon. Minister will not be tempted to answer with just yes or no.
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: No, Mr. Speaker. I first want to commend my hon. friend for being alert to possible problems with regard to credit facilities for this industry. I want to make clear, first of all, that we expect banks to show the same level of reasonableness and fairness to all their customers. If we have specific instances of the kinds of scare tactics which he is mentioning, and if we could have documentation of them, I would like him to bring them forward, because certainly if there has been any instance of breach or violation of law, we will act accordingly.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. We have a Tory parole commissioner recommended by the Hon. Member for Joliette. We have a Tory lawyer who immediately hires an inmate liberated by that commissioner, after pressure has been put by the same lawyer. My question is this: Is the Minister ready to co-operate fully, not with the RCMP but with the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, to investigate on possible corruption and political pressure in connection with paroling in Quebec? Will he co-operate with the Standing Committee?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have previously advised the House and the other Hon. Member, these are allegations at this point. I do not know what truth, if any, there is to them. I immediately asked the RCMP and the National Parole Board to look into these matters. That was scarcely 48 hours ago. I think simple justice demands that no action be taken until at least I have some preliminary reports on what action should or should not be taken.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government and the Minister do not seem to understand that the role of the RCMP is not to look into this kind of allegation. It is to look into criminal wrongdoing, not political pressure.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE MEETING BE CONVENED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to convene immediately a meeting of the standing committee. Is he prepared to ensure that these very serious allegations of possible political pressure in the National Parole Board in Quebec will be fully investigated by that committee soon?

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite knows that for some seven years he and I have sat together on the Justice Committee, and that the Justice Committee, through its steering committee, will take up any topic any Member of Parliament raises before it. We will give it a full and fair hearing and decide what course of action we will follow at that time.


FORESTRY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The new softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States has provided new funds for the provinces to develop the forestry industry which have not been available to them before. These funds would be very useful to the scientific community to develop silviculture in a scientific way to rejuvenate, particularly, B.C. forests. Would the Minister undertake to discuss with officials in British Columbia ways of establishing, for example, a heritage fund?
Since the scientific community cannot use all the funds quickly and still use them properly in order to rejuvenate B.C. forests would he discuss with B.C. officials the possibility of establishing a heritage fund so that we can have the long-term benefits of these new funds?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and colleague advances a very interesting proposition. It is certainly worthy of consideration, particularly in a province like British Columbia. As my friend knows, the funds will accrue to the province. I will undertake to discuss this proposition with Premier Vander Zalm and, far-seeing and visionary as he is, I am sure he will embrace the idea.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Sam Wakim, the close personal friend of the Prime Minister from college days, is back in the news. After delivering the $20 million a year legal business of the Export Development Corporation to his firm in Toronto, and over the Christmas break arranging for two of the partners to become judges of the High Court of Ontario, one of whom was his former campaign manager, he appears to have-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jelinek:: Innuendoes left, right, and centre.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member for York Centre has a question. I hope that question will not involve the propriety or otherwise of members of the Bench. I would ask the Hon. Member to be most careful.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My simple question to the Deputy Prime Minister is to confirm that Sam Wakim, as was mentioned in Shirley Walker's diary revealed before the Parker Commission, arranged a meeting on behalf of Oerlikon to lobby DRIE-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say to the Hon. Member for York Centre that the Chair is having difficulty here. I know it is appropriate sometimes to lay out some facts upon which a question should be based. However, with respect, the Hon. Member has gone on for a little too long in the preamble, and I would ask him to put his question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm, or will he investigate and confirm, that Sam Wakim lobbied on behalf of Oerlikon-Litton for the low level air defence contract with the Department of Supply and Services, or with DRIE, or with the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, here we go again dropping names by the Hon. Member and attempting to smear the character of individuals and engage in innuendo, such as the Hon. Member for Sudbury suggested that no one in the House should do. The Hon. Member makes quite a habit of it. There is a police investigation. If there is any wrongdoing associated with anyone and if he has any evidence that there is wrongdoing, he should tell the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me simply ask aren't the Canadian people entitled to conclude from the spectacles we have seen and the revelations we have had that to do business with this Government you have to operate through close personal friends of the Prime Minister?


An Hon. Member:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that kind of question does not deserve the dignity of an answer. I am surprised that a long-standing Member-
January 28, 1987_____________________________COMMONS


An Hon. Member:: A Privy Councillor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -a Privy Councillor and a former Minister-


Mr. Beatty:: A former Solicitor General.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -a former Solicitor General, would engage in that kind of innuendo and smear.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Smear.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I have got the letters to show you, too.


John Napier Turner: Do you want to table them, Ray?


An Hon. Member:: Ray, go back to sleep.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members and Hon. Ministers will refrain from exchanging suggestions about what each other can do with the time which is available, unless those suggestions are at least sought through the Chair. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
DEBATES	__________________2779
Oral Questions
meetings, decided that there was a possibility of concluding an agreement within the terms of reference and conditions which had been agreed to and were well known to the various Governments prior to that date.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, obviously the French Government thinks it was a fine agreement. The people of Newfoundland are sick and tired of this Minister acting like a French poodle instead of a Labrador retriever.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is not here to keep Hon. Members from being hard on Ministers, but I think one might leave the dogs out of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I hope this place is not going to the dogs.


ROLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. Since in fact the Government of Newfoundland was part of the negotiations up until the last week before the agreement was signed, will the Minister not tell the House why he dropped that input from the people of Newfoundland? Are we returning to the days of the kind of federal-provincial relations which existed under Pierre Trudeau?
* *
*


FISHERIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and deals with the interim agreement that has been signed between the Minister and the Government of France. The Minister would have us believe from all his answers today that this agreement is a fine one. If it is such a fine one, why did the Minister not consult with the Premier of Newfoundland before he signed it?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I did not characterize the agreement as a fine one.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted. I do not know whether I should characterize the Hon. Member as a red snapper or as a fear monger. The fact is that the arrangements under which this agreement was concluded, an agreement which gives nothing away at this point, were fully known to the Province of Newfoundland. My office has been in daily informal contact, and while we can certainly appreciate the basis for Mr. Peckford's reaction we believe that when Newfoundland fishermen have to face a choice between ultimately resolving the boundary question or having this unsatisfactory situation continue, they will weigh the factors and decide to see the boundary issue resolved once and for all.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: In an issue as difficult as this, sometimes a measured step has to be taken toward a solution. In this case the Government of Newfoundland and the industry were fully involved up until the final occurrence, the final trip to Paris last week. French officials, after reconsidering previous


OERLIKON LOW LEVEL AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister said that Oerlikon's ADATS missile system was able to shoot down anything that could fly in any weather. In view of the

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
fact that documents I have right here in my hand say that such is not the case, will the Minister rise in the House of Commons to admit that his answer of yesterday was incorrect? Will he instead replace the words he used by saying that this system will shoot down anything that can fly in any weather providing it is not snowy, rainy, cloudy, or hazy outside?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been a busy boy for the last 24 hours going through these documents. I have the same document as the Hon. Member has. If he will look at the page, he will see that there are two elements to the Low Level Air Defence system, one of which is the ADATS missile and the other of which is the Skyguard gun. The Skyguard gun works in all weather. The system is all-weather operational. It is capable of shooting down anything that can fly in any weather, including the Hon. Member.


EXPRESSIONS OF DISAGREEMENT
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will know that the range of the gun is about four kilometres. The Minister's answers yesterday indicated that he wishes to treat concerns about the capability of our Low Level Air Defence system very lightly. It will be no joking matter if this system fails our troops in the field when it is needed most, regardless of weather.
Again, how does the Minister explain Ministers disagreeing with each other, officials disagreeing with each other, and Ministers disagreeing with officials? Who is right? The only reason this is a controversy is because we are hearing all kinds of different answers.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises the question of whether or not there is any disagreement as to whether it is an all-weather operational system. It is an all-weather operational system. It meets every element of the standards set in the request for proposals, as was fully explained to the Hon. Member in the briefing he received from DND.
The Hon. Member will be aware of the fact that tomorrow the Department of National Defence is offering for all members of the Defence Committee of the House of Commons yet another briefing. I understand the Hon. Member will be present representing his Party, and officials of the Department of National Defence will be delighted to take the Hon. Member step by step through every element of this to demonstrate to him that it is all-weather capable.


MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS-IMPACT OF FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. A senior American official, Daniel Amstutz, stated yesterday that the United States wanted basic changes in the operation of our farm marketing agencies. Can the Minister assure the House that no aspect of the operation of those agencies will be involved in the free trade negotiations?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question as it provides me with the opportunity to respond. I wish to begin my response by saying that the story to which the Hon. Member referred is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. We recognize, and it has been stated in the House by myself and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that of course marketing systems are part of the Canadian fabric. They have been designed and put together in close consultation with all sectors of the industry. They have worked well for producers, processors, and Canadian consumers.


REQUEST THAT MARKETING BOARDS BE PROTECTED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given that the SAGIT subcommittee on Marketing Boards has said that these boards should not be touched and that the marketing boards themselves are legal under GATT, will the Minister resist this latest attack on important Canadian institutions by directly communicating with the United States, indicating to the Americans that these will not be put on the bargaining table and that the functioning of these boards will be protected?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the SAGIT committee. He also referred to the position and recommendations conveyed to the chief trade negotiator on behalf of the SAGIT group. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of the membership of the SAGIT group.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that this will be the last question for Question Period. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
January 28, 1987


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister for Immigration and Cultural Communities in Quebec, Mrs. Robic, on a number of occasions has asked the Minister responsible for special help to assist the Quebec Government which is facing an influx of refugees who have taxed to the limit the financial and human resources of that department. After having said that Ottawa was definitely not ready to make any commitment in that respect, is the Minister now in a position to say yes to Quebec?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have said upon receiving successive requests from the Quebec Minister that there were no specific funds in the federal treasury to cover such situations. Quite the opposite! We ourselves have to support extra costs as a Government. I simply said that if there was any leeway in our programs, I would be willing to evaluate them. At any rate, 1 will be meeting with the Quebec Minister in Montreal by the end of January, I think.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a supplementary question. You will understand that since I have assumed new duties, I must try to find out to whom I should ask questions dealing with immigration.
Yesterday, the Journal de Montreal under the signature of Mrs. Monelle Saindon, reported that the Minister of State for Immigration had announced at the Centre social d'aide aux immigrants in Montreal that he would ask the federal Government to provide some assistance to non-profitable organizations and to the Quebec Government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know who is the minister responsible for Immigration, either the minister to whom I am addressing my question or the Minister of State for Immigration, and are both ministers working together to have precisely the same view on the same issues and on the same commitments?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Immigration said yesterday, and I am repeating exactly his comments, that he would urge the federal Government to assist charitable organizations dealing with refugees in Quebec. The question asked by my colleague earlier was about some assistance to be provided to the Quebec Governement. I think that the Hon. Member has nothing to fear. My colleague and I are constantly in contact with each other and I think that you now have before you the Minister for Immigration.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister of External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the 1985-86 annual report of the Canadian International Development Agency.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in my Budget of last February I indicated that the Government was prepared to facilitate the establishment of international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver.
[ Translation]
At the time, I made it clear that this measure would reflect our desire to promote Canada's trade and economic interests in Europe and the Pacific Rim. 1 also indicated I would initiate talks with the banking community and the provinces with a view to pursuing this important objective.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Hon. Members and the House that I intend to present a detailed Ways and Means motion for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of such international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver.

In recent weeks and months there has been considerable comment arising out of our proposal, in both financial and political circles. Sadly, much of that commentary has had more to do with pure fiction than with cold, hard facts. So let me set the record straight.
The Government is proceeding with the necessary measures to allow the establishment of international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver because we feel this very focused incentive will return to Canada some banking activities now being conducted abroad. These activities, which involve loans to and deposits by non-residents, now receive favourable tax treatment for certain transactions in such places as the Channel Islands and Panama. Our actions are aimed at attracting to Montreal business which now normally goes to the Channel Islands. Likewise, business which now originates in the Pacific Rim could move to Vancouver. In other words, we want to attract business that normally would not be conducted in Canada.

January 28, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Toronto is Canada's largest and most important financial centre. Our actions will not take anything away from that city. We have been careful in developing our proposal not to include banking operations now conducted in Canada which are not tax motivated and which would shift employment from one region to another. Only those banking activities which meet the dual test of attracting business currently done offshore while not displacing business which now exists in Canada are being considered.

It is our intention to further the national interest by strengthening the international competitiveness of our financial institutions, while providing for a reasonably strong presence of our international financial expertise in Montreal and Vancouver.

In fact, our action will complement the major initiatives which we have taken to enhance the competitiveness of our financial services industries to help the Canadian banking centres compete equally with the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Swiss and others. We are lifting the shackles on the financial industry with our new regulatory proposals which my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), announced before Christmas.
If there is one region or city which will benefit from this Government's action it is the Province of Ontario and particularly Toronto. Our proposals have sent a strong signal to the world that we believe in Toronto and have confidence in Toronto as one of the world's major financial centres. The vast majority of international business in our financial system is being done in Toronto and this business will continue to be carried out there. Our purpose, therefore, with this new initiative, is to bring new incremental business to Canada, not to move existing business from region to region or leave it offshore.
We will be monitoring the operation of this measure to ensure its effectiveness with respect to these objectives.

By establishing international banking centres in two of this country's major cities, we are sending a message to those who might go to other countries to take advantage of special tax provisions that they now have a second option and that option is Canada.

We have had extensive discussions with the financial communities, in particular the banking industry in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. This Government has been sensitive to the concerns raised by those interested parties. We have listened and now it is time to act. Unlike some of our critics who rely on emotional appeals to a narrow regional point of view without examining the facts, we as a national Government are addressing this initiative for the good of the country as a whole.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1), I wish to lay upon the table in both official languages copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and, pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of said motion. I am also releasing copies of technical notes to facilitiate the understanding of the proposed legislation.
In closing I look forward to participating in a reasoned consideration of this issue based on a full appreciation of our intentions and the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government has managed badly what could have been a good issue. It has created division, set city against city, and apparently needlessly if we accept the Minister's statement of intent today at face value, as of course we do.
The Minister told us today that he is interested in attracting new, incremental business, that he is interested in creating opportunities for Vancouver and Montreal, and that this will not hurt Toronto.
The Minister also talked about "cold hard facts". However, we heard no facts whatsoever in his statement. The Minister made a statement of good intentions. Since he is an honourable man, we will wait to see his good intentions acted upon. But look at what has happened up to now. Expectations have been raised in Vancouver and Montreal. The proposed international banking centre in Vancouver was included in a Regional Economic Development agreement. After having raised expectations, the only activities which will be covered are those concerning loans to and deposits by non-residents. The actual measure is much weaker than the one which the cities had come to depend upon.
Second, the Minister said that the aim is to attract to Montreal and Vancouver certain kinds of business which would not normally be conducted in Canada. However, the Ways and Means motion and the explanatory notes offer us nothing which would limit this tax break. The Minister complains that commentators have "dealt more with pure fiction than cold hard facts". However, the confusion was created by the Minister himself; he refused to allow his department officials to appear at committee before Christmas where they could have given us the facts, if they exist. The only facts which have been made available to the Standing Committee on Finance are two studies which indicate that the revenue foregone by establishing an international banking centre would not be compensated for by the advantages. Presumably, the Minister has other studies. Why has he declined to make them public? We hope that his officials, who are due to appear before the committee at 3.30, will give us this information today.
January 28, 1987

We presently have no cost-benefit analysis. It is a strange situation for a Minister, who has announced that he is committed to reducing tax expenditures, to tell us that he is going to give tax breaks to foreign banks without telling us what they are in return for. We do not know what the benefits, if any, will be. We still have no economic analysis. We have heard nothing about what kind of retaliation we can expect from other countries due to this very unusual situation which utilizes the national tax and fiscal policy to assist regions.
It is clear that the proposal before us has not been well thought out. If this measure helps Montreal and Vancouver, does not hurt Toronto, and brings new business to Canada which would not otherwise come, we will all be very happy. However, the proof remains to be seen. We still do not know what jobs will be created. We were told last night that Vancouver is very hopeful that new jobs will be created. Other studies have shown that this is highly unlikely.
I trust that the Minister will soon back his statements of good intentions with a very solid cost-benefit analysis which will allow us to reach a realistic conclusion on the value of this measure.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as an Ontario Member of Parliament, born in British Columbia, who is co-president of our Party's Quebec caucus committee, 1 believe that I can speak objectively on this proposal.
I am pleased that the Government has brought its intentions forward in a more precise way than it did in the Budget statement of last year which led the Vancouver Board of Trade, which appeared before the committee last night, to believe that it had a commitment, only to learn that that was not the case in the minds of many Members of Parliament. The circumstances under which this statement has been put forward are perhaps a bit bizarre.
The Finance Committee began to study this issue in December. We have made some progress. The Minister accused the Finance Committee of dealing in fiction rather than fact. It is the lack of fact received from the Department of Finance which has heated up this issue and led to unnecessary friction among regions on an issue which is proving to be quite difficult.
As the Minister knows, half of his caucus applauded his statement and the other half left the House of Commons as he delivered his statement. I need not say from where those Members come.

The Minister has made a statement, and it will certainly be helpful to the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and the study it is now working on, especially since witnesses for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are to appear before the Committee this afternoon. I think we will need specific information on the impact in terms of jobs and tax expenditures, to find out whether or not-as it says in a report by Governor Rasminsky and his assistant, Mr. Lawson, who made
Statements by Ministers
a study of this question in 1984-there will be a significant loss in terms of foregone tax revenue.
Are we going to see a significant loss of tax revenue or are we not? For the time being, we don't know, and in all the testimony received from the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Toronto Chamber of Commerce, and other witnesses, including those from Vancouver, we sense a general mood of uncertainty, and this is partially due to a lack of information from the Minister of Finance and his departmental officials.

New Democrats have concern, in general and in principle, about new tax concessions being made available, particularly in a year for which the Government has announced major tax reforms. We are particularly concerned because the estimates of tax losses range from an estimate of $1 million per year by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce to estimates from Toronto of very major tax losses.
We will be observing the job impact. The Minister says that he hopes there is a chance to bring back banking activities which are now in tax havens, in le paradis fiscal, as they say in French, such as the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Macao. Will this activity be brought back to Canada, or will we simply transfer activity which is now in Toronto?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my belief that all political Parties represented in Canada's Parliament endorse the principle whereby regional expansion incentives can be offered to urge investors to consider regions other than southern Ontario, for instance. And all Parties in office- which means the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and our own Party since we have been elected in western Canada- have used various means to promote investments in the manufacturing industry.
Now perhaps this is the first time we have to ask ourselves whether we should actively urge a service industry-international banking-to locate in one or more specific regions of this country.
I can say that in principle, especially these days when the service sector accounts for 70 per cent of our economy, we in the New Democratic Party are not against Government attempts to promote investments in the service industry. But it does not mean that we do not want to scrutinize specific proposals made by the Government.
In other words, if the regional development incentives are accepted, as they are by all Parties for location of industry, I do not believe we necessarily need to oppose the use of similar techniques for the location of service industries. However, we will have to look closely at the details, and particularly demand that the Department of Finance give us serious cost

January 28, 1987
Petitions
benefit studies on the tax impact and the employment impact of these particular measures.


PETITIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, this petition is certified correct as to form and content. It is signed by some 282 residents of the Main Square apartment buildings in my constituency. They state that the federal Government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have stated that rent increases in these apartments have been 10 per cent, 10.25 per cent, 10.6 per cent, and 11 per cent for 1986 and 1987 alone. The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that rental increases in the Main Square apartment buildings be rolled back to comply with the Ontario provincial guidelines which limit increases to 4 per cent per annum.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a number of petitions today. The first is from residents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan and, I believe, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, regarding the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act for drugs, which these individuals oppose.
I have a petition from an organization called the Concerned Citizens Organization also objecting to the federal Government's proposals which they believe will result in higher cost in provincial Government drug plans.
I have a petition from the Westford and east end and areas of my riding, which is a very old, established working class area, in which the residents suggest that the changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians.
From the residents of Atikokan, a small community at the western end of my riding, a considerable number of residents have petitioned the House and called upon Parliament to reject those proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
Finally, I have three sets of petitions from all over the riding, including workers at Can-Car Rail who join with other citizens of my riding in opposing the plans by the Government regarding generic drugs.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I want to submit one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen petitions bearing 1000 names from Windsor, Ontario. It is part of thousands of names fixed to petitions in opposition to the
Patent Act which reflects a surrender to American interests and an abbrogation of responsibilities to the Canadian people with respect to medical care and drug prices.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me advise the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) that I have received his letter in sufficient time. The application is completely in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 29 I request the adjournment of the House for the consideration of a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, specifically, the announcement yesterday by the federal Government of an interim agreement with the Government of France concerning additional fishing rights for the French fleet off the coast of Newfoundland.
This unilateral decision by the federal Government has enraged the people of Newfoundland to the extent that calls are coming in from all over the province, many of which are calling for Newfoundland to reconsider its position in Confederation. The Premier of Newfoundland has expressed his outrage at this unilateral action and last night he was joined by the Premier of Nova Scotia who said, "This is the straw that breaks the camel's back", claiming his province will be
January 28, 1987

seriously affected by this agreement, with a net cost to the Atlantic provinces of some $200 million.
Given the fact that such an interim agreement will not be brought before the House of Commons, and given the need to persuade the Government to reconsider this agreement before it is finalized, 1 believe an emergency debate is required now.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. The Chair is of the opinion that it is a serious matter of national significance and, under the circumstances, the Chair is prepared to agree that there ought to be an emergency debate under Standing Order 29 on the subject raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa.
Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair takes it that there is unanimous agreement in the chamber?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my obligation to advise all Hon. Members that the emergency debate will commence at eight o'clock this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p.2756).
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray), I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement today, this day's sitting will be extended beyond 6 p.m. by 17 minutes.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon when I commented on Bill C-18 respecting changes to Canada's transport regulations, I emphasized the fact that the situation in 1987 is not the same as it was 20 years ago, that things have changed. The situation has changed at home, Mr. Speaker, in the United States, in Europe, in Asia-deep changes have been made in market structures and those changes already have an impact here in Canada.
National Transportation Act, 1986
I asked many questions yesterday afternoon, and I will ask another one: In your view, Mr. Speaker, who has been and will remain the best analyst, the best judge, the one person who is best placed to adjust rapidly and efficiently to market changes? I sincerely believe that the best judge, the best analyst is the producer himself, the entrepreneur who must set his prices on the basis of his various costs with respect to manufacturing, delivery, the cost of materials, labour, and taxation. The question therefore is this: are we going to live at all costs within a regulatory framework that is rigid, constraining, outlandish, inadjusted, outmoded and regressive? My submission is: No, Mr. Speaker.
Three vital elements are of concern to me in this matter- the true public interest, absolute security, and the assurance that Canadian businesses from now on will have every opportunity to take their rightful place on the labour market, in the regional transportation market, in national and international transportation.
It has often been said, in terms of Bill C-18, that safety is a very serious and honest question in the minds of the public. It has been stated by the former Minister of Transport and our present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that safety will not be compromised. We have worked in the past, and will continue to work in the future so that safety will not be an issue. Canadians should today and in the future enjoy the peace of mind which comes from knowing that Canadian transportation is one of the safest in the world. We are continually striving to improve our safety programs. Suggestions that the National Transportation Act will jeopardize safety are completely without foundation.
The Government's commitment to safety is also evident in a variety of initiatives with respect to each mode of transportation. For example, in 1985 the Aeronautics Act was amended and strengthened in many respects. The Canada Shipping Act amendments which will improve marine safety will be brought back before the House. A uniform National Safety Code for trucking was approved by federal and provincial Governments in October and a new Railway Safety Act is being developed. Other safety initiatives in the transportation of dangerous goods, in highway programs and in accident investigation are being introduced.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we, as Canadians, are generally an informed, mature, competent nation that is quite capable of deciding by itself what service is best capable of satisfying our needs based on the quality/price ratio, especially in the area of goods and passengers transportation. I find it outdated that in a free country that is highly civilized, technologically well advanced, we should live with a transportation policy that does not serve the interests of passengers, suppliers of goods and services, producers and consumers. Consistent of course with the most basic standards of safety and good social conduct, we

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
must guarantee the free circulation of goods and people, without constraints, hindrance or intervention other than that of the free market, the free choice.
To provide all Canadians, wherever they live, and their communities with an extra opportunity to control their economic and regional development, the new transportation policy will have to stress competition between the various systems of transportation and between competitors within each system. This is what our reform is proposing. Yet, Mr. Speaker, people can still be found who continue to deny this fact, who would like the status quo to be maintained, and who strongly wish things would remain as they are now. Let us ask ourselves whether it is normal for consumers, contractors and passengers, in a country such as ours which relies very heavily on transportation networks, not always to be able to choose the carrier which they feel would provide the best service at the lowest cost.
In the various regions, the spin-offs from our transport reforms on economic development are many, and, in many cases, immediate. Our purpose in freeing the transportation network users from a whole series of constraints is to encourage the most enterprising Canadians to go ahead with the creation of new jobs and the production of consumer goods at competitive prices.
In Canada, the prices of ordinary consumer goods, among others, are closely linked with transportation costs. To limit, through regulation that do not reflect the new realities, the availability of various means of transportation and the free negotiation of rates could only be detrimental to the economic and social development of our country. The user must once and for all be freed from hindrances and obstacles through universal mobility. You know just how much I am dedicated to the promotion of the handicapped. These citizens should be able to avail themselves of the same services as all our other fellow citizens. Like them, from now on, they must be freed from these very hindrances and obstacles.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Federal Government made these major and long-awaited changes to the transportation network regulations. These changes are basic and can only be made here, in Parliament, through an amendment to the Act which is 20 years overdue.
The package of proposals found in Freedom to move is the result of a whole series of consultation with those who are directly or indirectly involved in the transportation world in Canada, as well as the Federal and Provincial Governments. These consultations were carried out in all parts of Canada by the Transport Committee.
The results of these meetings clearly show that Canadians want some major changes and a comprehensive reform in our transport system. Our will to change the transport system must be considered in its general context, that is within a comprehensive economic policy under which the "Made in Canada" principle constitutes a priority and is always present.
Let us look more closely at the contents of this Bill. First, I would like to speak about air transport. The situation of air transport in Canada is such that simply to maintain present economic regulations would be a disservice to air carriers, shippers and travellers. We began to make some changes in our domestic air transport policy in 1984 by reducing and simplifying the regulations.
But we could not stop there, Mr. Speaker. A large number of important issues had yet to be settled. We are now proposing to pare down economic regulations to take into account North American realities and specific objectives. These objectives are to improve and, if need be, increase services to the public, and to provide carriers with reasonable opportunities for competition on the Canadian market.
Another one of our objectives is to eliminate eventually needless costs and paperwork for the industry and consumers.
For an air carrier, the test to enter the Canadian transport market will be whether he can prove that he is ready, willing and able to provide a certain service while meeting the related safety and insurance requirements. For all practical purposes, passenger and freight tariff regulations are eliminated. However, in the case of services in a monopoly situation, the new federal control agency will be able to hear the complaints of users from a given region and make a ruling. Otherwise, users will be able to choose the company which provides the best prices and service.
In the regions north of the 55th parallel, our Bill aims at providing more competition for the benefit of residents of these regions while garanteeing essential services in those limited and remote markets. Our Bill also aims at preventing monopolistic prices. Northern communities and all carriers will be able to express their views on the issuing of operating lines to new contractors. Prices and rate increases will still be regulated. The abandonment of any service in the North will require 60 days notice. In other words, Mr. Speaker, everything in our reform has been done to respect the interests of citizens, even and especially if they live in a remote area.
The new legislation provides financial assistance for certain domestic services judged to be essential. To provide these services, we shall proceed by calls to tender whenever possible, as it seems to be the most effective and profitable method.
I would now like to speak about rail transport. I should point out that I have a personal interest in this sector as my father worked for the CN for 33 years. Once more, our Bill contains major reforms that will benefit both carriers and users. The new legislation will for the first time allow shippers to negotiate privately with Canadian railway companies. This means that both shippers and railway carriers will be able to negotiate better rates and better services. This is good news for railway clients but it is also very important for our Canadian railways which will then be able to compete with U.S. carriers for transborder traffic.
January 28, 1987

For instance, Mr. Speaker, ports on Canada's East coast are a major source of container traffic. The transport sector in the area, however, has a deadly competitor in a network of deregulated carriers that are conveniently located. The container shipping market in Eastern Canada will not survive unless it can truly compete with the American market. And it will survive only if it enjoys the same advantages and is subject to the same regulations on its own terrain. Setting common rates will no longer be allowed, although present protection afforded the Prairie grain shipping network will continue.
There is more good news for shippers. Shippers who have access to only one railway will be entitled to a better deal, Mr. Speaker. Interswitching limits and terminal running rights will be extended. Options are also provided for obtaining competitive line rates for the transport of goods carried by two companies. This is a key element and a crucial one in our railway freight network. All shippers, captive or not, will have access to better mechanisms to settle disputes with the railway companies. The new legislation provides for recourse to the federal regulatory agency which may then proceed by mediation or arbitration.
To deal with the issue of abandonment of branch lines that are losing money, the Government proposes to take a comprehensive approach. Instead of continuing the sterile debate on this matter, we intend to propose some significant new options with a view to improving transport services in areas served by branch lines and, when possible, allow them to be retained.
Under the present system, there is no provision for allowing a third party to acquire railway property and infrastructures and setting up a profitable railway company. As a result, there is no incentive for the other parties to maintain service, at a time when railway transportation over short distances is becoming increasingly attractive, especially in the United States where this new approach has in some cases proved to be very satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address that part of the proposed legislation which deals with extra-provincial trucking. Over the years, this sector has become an important link between shippers and their markets. Federal and provincial transport ministers are working together to develop a plan for regulatory reform of the trucking industry, the purpose being mainly to standardize provincial regulations across Canada.
Legislative and regulatory reform will provide an incentive for competition, leading to a set of new options for rates and services that will be as close as possible to the real needs of the shippers.
By freeing the trucking industry from its regulatory harness and by allowing healthy competition, this reform will have a direct impact on the price of consumer goods, since overall transport costs will tend to drop instead of increase. There are immediate advantages for the Canadian consumer, for the producer and for jobs.
National Transportation Act, 1986
The new situation resulting from the proposed reform will put small- and medium-sized businesses in a better competitive position, since this sector is necessarily an intensive user of trucking services.
The Government is therefore proposing to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act to bring it into line with the provisions of the agreement concluded between federal and provincial Transport Ministers in February 1985.
Thoses changes are included in Bill C-18 which will be more thoroughly discussed in this House. However, it should be acknowledged that Bill C-18 will complete the reform undertaken concerning other means of transportation. The transportation industry is constantly under development, Mr. Speaker. The Government's policy cannot be static. It should be periodically updated and readjusted.
The national transportation policy and the reforms advocated in the new legislation will have to be adjusted. Our bill has anticipated those realities.
Recognizing the need for review and periodic analyses, the legislation introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Transport provides for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the legislation four years after its implementation.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am proud of the legislation we have introduced. It is one of the major pieces of legislation which this Parliament will be discussing. Seldom do we have to consider reforms whose potential impact and implications that are so large and beneficial to all Canadians.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is part of an overall economic policy that is innovative in many respects. I am convinced, and I see that my time is coming at an end, Mr. Speaker, that all Hon. Members will realize the importance of the Bill and that we can discuss it with the utmost equanimity to the greatest benefit of the Canadian people who want to go on unhindered as we all want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke on Bill C-18 represents a remote area, Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine, a riding which is in fact part of the Gaspe area, right in the middle of the Gulf.


Mr. Girard:: It is a very beautiful area.


Fernand Robichaud: Yes, I know that area, it is one of the beautiful parts of Canada, just as Westmorland-Kent is. They are somewhat similar.


Albert Girard: It is right next to us, next to Restigouche.


Fernand Robichaud: I would like to have the opinion of that Member, and 1 will simply read to him a message from the Maritime Premiers, and I quote:

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Following a meeting in Fredericton last week, the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. denounced the proposed National Transportation Act, saying it would further widen the economic gap between central and eastern Canada.
The Premiers want Transport Minister John Crosbie, who tabled the proposed legislation in early November, to add a clause ensuring that regional development will take precedence over a profitable transportation service, when the two conflict.

I would therefore ask the Hon. Member for his opinion on that proposed clause to be added to the Bill, which would give regional development priority over profit.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has said, the Gaspe area that 1 represent is quite distant from here. As I said in my remarks, I sincerely believe that changing existing regulations will increase our opportunities for economic development.
But I should like to indicate to my friend the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) that I am very much concerned about the regional economic development in both our ridings. Experience has shown that in spite of the fact that they followed these regulations for years, the Gaspe area, the Maritime Provinces, the Magdalene Islands, Newfoundland and the areas north of the 50th parallel, are faced now, in 1987, with the same situation. I would not want to play politics with this, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot help mentioning that the previous Government had had 25 years to change these regulations and look into this problem.
Over the past two years, unemployment rate in my area has come down nearly 10 percentage points. The economy has much improved, thanks to low interest rates and increased employment opportunities. The regional development through Bill C-18 will mean increased competition, which is good not only for carriers, but for users and consumers as well. It is our duty here in the House to improve the situation, and that is what we are going to do.


Mr. Belsher:: I wish to commend the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) on his speech on this important subject in Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation.
The Hon. Member will recall when he was part of the Standing Committee that was holding hearings for the Freedom To Move exercise that we went though a little over a year ago, that in the Atlantic area we were asked to pay special attention or acknowledge that transportation did play a part in economic development. The Hon. Member talked about this in his question. Does this Bill acknowledge that transportation does have a part to play in economic development?


Darryl L. Gray: Yes. I had the honour and the advantage of travelling with the Standing
Committee. We met many groups concerning regional economic development. In looking at the Bill as proposed in the House, the major premise is to create an efficient transportation system, not a monopoly, but a transportation system that will give opportunity to isolated areas, such as the one I represent, the Maritimes, and the North, and give those areas an efficient transportation system in order that they can compete on a regional, national, and international market. When this is included in this regional development, as I mentioned before, it has not worked. We are attempting to reduce the regulations that we presently have on hand. Any individual who is willing, fit, and able to serve his region, regionally, nationally, or internationally will be able to compete. Regardless of our politics, we all know in the House that a sound economy is the most important factor for the regions and isolated areas.
In this Bill, by reducing the paper work and regulations, and always guaranteeing safety, and as we allow more people to compete and our economy builds up, we can look forward to more regional economic development.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) is a Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, and was a very active participant in the consideration of Freedom To Move, as well as other transport matters. I wish to ask the Hon. Member this. One of the things we heard during our hearings when we travelled in those three centres in southern Canada, then the trip through the western Arctic, was the concern about safety, tied in with the concern about viability of the companies. The former Minister of Transport categorically said that safety would be the number one priority and consideration. I wish to ask the Hon. Member what will be faced by the passenger on the last flight of an airline that is going bankrupt? What type of corners has the owner of that company had to cut in order to keep the plane flying for that length of time? Will he be guaranteed a safe environment, or is there a risk because of the cut-throat nature of the competition, that whether he wishes to or not, the owner will be forced to cut corners?


Darryl L. Gray: I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. We have talked at length concerning safety. I believe that in this Bill safety will not be compromised. There is no guarantee when buying a can of beans that if the company is on the verge of bankruptcy there perhaps may be more bacteria in that can of beans.
An agency will be set up to monitor the safety, and all operations of these airline companies. The employees of that agency will continue these check-ups and verifications for all companies. I would assume that, whoever will be hired to work with these safety regulations, if their job is not being done properly, they will be replaced by a more competent person. Personally, I do not feel or believe that safety for any airline, railway, boat, or truck that will travel in this country will be compromised because of this Bill.
January 28, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short question from the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


Mr. Reid:: In the moment left, may I ask the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) what the distinction is between the policy of this Government in its process of deregulation from that of the United States, so that it can be said to be truly a made-in-Canada piece of legislation?


Darryl L. Gray: This is a made-in-Canada Bill in the sense that this is economic regulatory reform. I should make this point, Mr. Speaker. We talk about deregulation, and perhaps at times Hon. Members would like to create fear that everything will become wide open. This is economic regulatory reform, not complete and utter deregulation. It is made in Canada in the sense that our economic situation today in 1987 is much better than what the economic situation was in the United States. The United States fully deregulated its transportation industry. This is not the case in this Bill. We look at our provisions for northern and remote areas. In the Alaskan situation, the Americans threw it wide open. We have not done that. We have kept regulations. We are guaranteeing essential services. We are leaving openings for contract to tenders for airline operations. This is truly made in Canada for Canadians to help Canadians from east to west.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in the debate on Bill C-18. At the outset I should like to thank the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) for agreeing to switching positions with me this afternoon.
I came to the House as a new Member in 1984 and I was fortunate enough to be assigned by my Party to the Standing Committee on Transport. It was an interesting experience to take, through a standing committee, a philosophical base, the Freedom to Move paper, to see the reaction from part of the country, to see the legislation which has been drafted, and now to hear the debate. It is not often that within two short years a new Member is able to experience that total process, and I feel pleased to have been part of it.
In preparation for today, I looked at my notes and scanned some of the interventions before the Standing Committee on Transport. As well as understanding more and more of what was happening in the House and in the country-


Mr. Mclnnes:: Just remember Robert Burns.


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, just remember Robert Burns.
It is clear that the changes to the National Transportation Act are consistent with the philosophy of the Conservative Government. They are consistent with the tack it has taken in a number of areas. Unfortunately that direction leads to the selling off or dismantling of the Canadian economy as we
National Transportation Act, 1986
know it today. It is a grand design which will lead to Canadians having less say over what happens and having less benefit from our own work and investment.
Let me briefly list those areas which are part of that grand design, as I see it. There is the whole question of free trade, of having things on the table, under the table, or beside the table. Things are out there for discussion between our neighbours to the south and ourselves. There are items to be negotiated such as the Auto Pact and now marketing boards. We all remember softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, hogs and sugar. There is also the Bill dealing with patent drug legislation, designed to give American multinational companies the freedom to make as much money as they can, with no protection for Canadian consumers. Natural gas is another example; we are under pressure from the United States, and we are deregulating it. Now there are threats by the American Government and its steel industry concerning steel imports to the United States. What will be next? Will it be hydro exports from Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario? Will it be water? Will that be on the table as well?
One thing which brings that grand design into focus is the impact of the National Transportation Act or the impact of the deregulation prescribed in Bill C-18. In our Canadian nation we work together as much as we can. We trade within and share resources from western Canada with eastern Canada and finished good from eastern Canada with western Canada. We have a road ribbon and a rail ribbon across the country from East to West. It will start breaking down and will be fragmented as we see those ribbons going north and south. We have already seen Canadian specialty grains going from Vancouver to Seattle and then being shipped out. We have seen potash from western Canada entering at the Saskatchewan-U.S. border and being railed to Chicago, bypassing thousands of miles of track and hundreds of miles of water in Canada. We are even seeing iron ore from the Labrador-Quebec area being shipped to the eastern seaboard of the United States and being railed back to Lake Erie for the American steel mills there. That rail ribbon which bound the country together and existed to create a link could be seen as no longer necessary because of north-south links. If Bill C-18 goes ahead, it will be the final icing on the cake. It will not only allow but encourage, because of its structure, that kind of north-south situation.
Quite frankly, CN and CP are as guilty as the Government because they are the ones that bought subsidiaries in the United States. They are railing Canadian products on their own lines through there, doing Canadian workers out of jobs. If we go to this north-south arrangement in trucking-and we are a little fish in a very big ocean in terms of North American transportation-we will find that large American trucking companies will gradually take over our smaller ones. The largest trucking firm in Canada is about one-thirtieth in terms of order of magnitude compared with United States firms. They have the economies of scale and the grid systems. All the hubs are in place. They could very easily come in and out

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
compete with us, driving our Canadian companies out of business. Some Canadian workers may obtain jobs with the new American-Canadian firms, but at what cost? Will it be at lower wages and American rules? That is not acceptable. Our sovereignty is too important to allow that to occur.
In the context of rail and road, people who live in larger centres such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Windsor, Vancouver, and other major corridors may do okay because they are major hubs. However, what about the medium sized and very small communities in between? In terms of trucking we have a regulatory system which provides stability. It is stability under monopoly; there is no question about it. There are those people who argue "give us free enterprise, allow the market-place to work, and drag prices down". But what about Terrace Bay, Sioux Lookout, or Atikokan which only have small numbers of consumers? Once the companies have fought it out and there is a winner, we are back to a monopoly situation. However it is a monopoly with a difference; it is a monopoly with no regulations to protect consumers. There is nothing to prevent such a company from jacking up its rates to a point where a town must close.
These are not my comments. During testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport, the Ontario Trucking Association and the National Trucking Association agreed that small communities would suffer, that their service levels would decline, and that costs to consumers would increase.
We are a country of small communities spread across the land. We must recognize that whatever laws are put in place they must be in balance. We must protect the weak at the same time as we provide rules which make sense for the strong. The same applies to rail. We will find situations where rail lines increase the rates to small communities rather than the cross-subsidization which now occurs.
Let me now turn to the air industry, an interesting aspect of transportation in the context of deregulation in that we are already half way into it. Thanks to the previous administration, the air industry no longer has the same restrictions it used to have. The ease of entry and exit has been greatly increased.
There are now a couple of interesting situations. We have turned the clock back to the day when we began to see the need for deregulation in the air industry. At that time, there were two major airlines in Canada. What do we have today? We have two major airlines. The big ones have been gobbling up the little ones and a medium-sized one actually gobbled up a big one. Now we have the Crown corporation, Air Canada, on one end and Pacific Western and CP on the other. I give the few smaller airlines that are left a year to survive before they too are either into some kind of management deal or company-to-company arrangement, or in fact are purchased or taken over by one of the other two.
The difference now is that these takeovers will occur without the rules that have protected consumers and the rules that
required cross-subsidization. Lots of money will be made on the Golden Triangle, Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, and perhaps even the run to Vancouver, but the profits will not be used to subsidize the runs to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, London, Halifax and any number of medium and small centres. We will be getting chaos.
Let me give the House an example of this. Last week, my office made a booking for a flight out of Thunder Bay for this morning. The person who was supposed to fly to Thunder Bay got to the airport this morning and was told that that flight does not fly any longer. When we checked, we found that that flight had never existed. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that increased service for the consumers of Canada? Of course it is not. It is total chaos. That chaos will continue until such time as we decide to reestablish a set of rules.
Fit, willing and able really sounds great, but what it replaces was even better. It replaces public necessity and convenience. Flights were to be necessary for the good of communities and for the good of airlines and they were also to be convenient. In this Government's blind devotion to free enterprise, it is again looking at the United States model. The Government clearly accepted the rhetoric without looking at the facts of the situation there.
During hearings on the Freedom to Move White Paper, we did not hear much about the American situation, primarily because the committee refused to go to the United States to learn of it firsthand. A couple of representations were made to us. One that interested me was, ironically, a presentation made in Halifax by officials from Newfoundland. I say it was ironic because they were telling me, a Member from Thunder Bay- Atikokan, that my neighbour to the South, Minnesota, had experienced a very negative reaction to deregulation in the air industry. We were told that over time, rates went up and service went down. In fact, one community went from having a jet service serving about 60 to 70 people a day to having a little putt-putt serving eight or nine passengers 10 times a day. There is no comparison whatsoever in the quality of service, comfort, noise level and ancillary facilities. Is that the kind of deregulation this Government wants? Does it want to turn a vast majority of our communities into areas served only by small commuter services? I certainly hope not.
One of the great myths of deregulation in the air industry is that there will be all these cheap seats. There were cheap seats for a while but the cheap seats were on the major runs, not the small runs. These cheap seats have gone. The industry itself dropped permanent cheap seats in favour of sporadic cheap seats. With only two competitors and markets that are becoming increasingly monopolized by one of the carriers, the cheap seats will disappear because the consumers will be captive. If they want to fly, they will have to fly with X company or Y company because only X company flies here and Y company flies there. They will spend more time going from terminal to terminal rather than being able to travel in a continuum.lt is clearly a myth that there will be cheap seats.
January 28, 1987

In the United States, rates have gone up approximately 50 per cent, well over the rate of inflation, over the past seven years. Service has gone down and communities are suffering. In Canada, the City of Sault Ste Marie no longer has Air Canada service, nor does the City of London. What is next? What other communities will see a withdrawal of a major carrier? What other communities will go from jet service to prop service, from service four or five times a day to perhaps once a day or even three times a week? No, it does not make sense.
The Hon. Member who spoke previously talked glowingly of the inclusion in the Bill of provisions for the North. There is a very good reason for that. Unlike southern Canada where there is a very clear difference of opinion between transporters and shippers about what should be done, there is almost unanimity in northern Canada. We saw the joyous situation of Chamber of Commerce after Chamber of Commerce telling Conservative members of the committee that they were out to lunch and did not know anything about the North. They told them that they needed regulation in the North because that is the only way to protect the industry.
What would happen if there were to be total deregulation? Rather than having an air industry and all its infrastructure based in the North, southern airlines would come North, skim off the cream in the summer months and desert the North for the winter months.
I give members of the Transport Committee credit. It took a while but they saw the light. They saw that the same rules could not apply in northern Canada. I argue that the same rules cannot apply in Atlantic Canada or the near-North as apply in the Golden Horseshoe of Toronto. We must throw out blind ideology. We must deal with the real Canada, the Canada that stretches from sea to sea and to the Arctic Circle. We are not dealing with the United States of America with its population of 250 million. We are dealing with a very small population spread over a very large land mass.
In conclusion, it is important to Canada that we chart our own future. It is important that we continue our independence and decide what is right for Canada and Canadians, not what is right in the context of our neighbour to the South.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP have stated a number of times that the smaller cities will be discriminated against and that seat sales applying to Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary will not apply to smaller cities like Moncton, Thunder Bay and Windsor. Could the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) explain the latest series of seat sales to places including Sydney and Yarmouth? Fares from Fredericton to Gander are being reduced from $412 to $165; from Saint John's to St. John's, $396 to $158; Frobisher Bay to Hall Beach from $472 to $189; Churchill, Manitoba, to Gillam, from $176 to $88. Possibly the Hon. Member could explain why seat sales are going on and why the NDP maintains the smaller centres will be worse off?
National Transportation Act, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The major airlines, in testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport, indicated that the day of cheap seats would soon disappear. I want to make it clear that in my comments I did not name any communities. I recognize there are seat sales in a number of communities in Canada right now, but when those communities are served by only one carrier I doubt very much whether there will be any seat sales.
One of the interesting things about this proposal is that instead of cross-subsidization, where the lucrative routes would help pay for the less lucrative routes, this Bill proposes that the Government subsidize those routes. We have the very interesting situation of the Government proposing more bail-outs at a time when cross-subsidization is working well.


Mr. Brightwell:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about monopoly of the market-place and compares that to the monopoly of regulation. In the free market a new service would spring up as soon as prices went too high. Under regulation someone cannot enter into a market and take a competitive stance. I am amazed that the Hon. Member drew that comparison. He talked about service as if a regulated industry would guarantee service and there would be no foul-ups at the station when he arrived. I am amazed at that also.
How can the Hon. Member say that regulations would guarantee service when 23 of the isolated communities he talked about have lost their service between 1960 and 1984? Secondly, how can he ask his constituents to pay full rates when 80 per cent of his neighbours to the south travel on discounted fares on U.S. airlines?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the latter question first and work my way back up. Quite frankly, my constituents believe in stability, not chaos. They see that there is chaos in the U.S. airline industry. While there may be some seat sales around, the over-all cost of air fares in the U.S. has gone up by about 55 per cent since deregulation, well above the inflation rate.
The Hon. Member made an interesting comment about monopoly of regulation versus the competitive market. That gets back to the question of stability. In northern Ontario an entrepreneur works extremely hard over a number of years to develop new services into communities which did not have air service before. What the Hon. Member is saying, and what this Bill will allow, is that after he has done all that work, developed a clientele, established his base of operations, someone else is going to come in at the last minute and skim off his profits. What happens then? The fellow who established the service and has been reasonably decent about prices and is not gouging the people will be unable to compete. He has an infrastructure in those communities and is not based in a large metropolitan area. His investment is at risk. He will pull out. Then the new guy comes in and how long does he stay? That is the kind of chaos that is possible. In fact, we have seen it and that is why we are fighting this Bill.

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Albert Girard: Mr. Speaker, I wrote my question down so I could get a simple answer instead of having somebody skating around. Has the NDP examined the principle of the new Act where economic regional development is an objective? Could the Hon. Member also explain how the new provision in the Act for non-predatory incentive rates acts against regions of the country? It is a plain and simple question and I want a plain and simple answer instead of a skater.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, even though I live beside the largest skating rink in the world I have never learned how to skate. Let me deal with the objective of the Act. It contains nice-sounding words and they are there because of pressure from the Atlantic premiers.


Albert Girard: He is skating.


Iain Francis Angus: However, there is nothing in the Bill to implement them. I challenge the Hon. Member to show me the clauses in the Bill which implement that nice motherhood statement. They are not there.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, the NDP says the legislation will provide access and advantage for U.S. railway and trucking companies in Canada which are not available to Canadian railway and trucking companies in the U.S. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on that?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, during our hearings and in consultation since then with the Canadian Trucking Association, among others, indicated that because of U.S. laws they are unable to operate freely in the U.S. in the same manner in which this Bill proposes to allow all trucking companies to operate in Canada, particularly the Americans. If, as we believe will happen, the American companies begin to not only come into this market and establish some hubs in the Toronto area, for example, and then go from there, given their size-we all know that the larger you are, the better able you are to compete-they will will be able to out compete us. They have economies of scale and a national transportation network in the U.S. What Canadian trucking company will be able to go down and establish a trucking centre in Chicago or farther south? They just will not be able to do so. I do not have the specific numbers, but we have seen a lot of small trucking companies in the American industry go bankrupt because of deregulation. The situation now is that fewer and fewer companies are hauling goods on the highways in the U.S. That is one of the dangers and the Hon. Member should realize that.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I find it almost ludicrous that the NDP does not have any faith in the ability of Canadian business to compete with the U.S. in any field, including trucking.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, if the rules were equal and the companies were the same size, then I would bet my money on a Canadian company. However, they are not and, quite
frankly, we will be squeezed out in trucking the way we have been squeezed out in a hell of a lot of other things by the U.S.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to my friends opposite, it is the turn of the Liberal Party if they have a speaker ready to
go.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to deal with Bill C-18, concerning the National Transportation Act, 1986.
This Bill applies to transport by railways, transport by air, transport by water, transport by a commodity pipeline, and transport for hire by an extra-provincial truck or bus undertaking.
It is therefore a Bill which will affect the industry responsible for moving goods, merchandise and of course people from one end of this country to the other, both in the West-East and north-south directions.
Mr. Speaker, that is where this Bill raises its first problem: It will affect differently the various regions of Canada. Its implications on remote areas will certainly be greater and more direct than in the central part of this country and, in many cases, will be negative.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, it was felt that the National Transportation Act needed to be looked into and amended for the purpose, of course, of improving and updating it.
The previous Government had recognized that changes were necessary and had proposed a gradual deregulation of the transport industry. Since the enactment of the previous Act in 1967, our economy has of course undergone several changes, which affected the transport industry.
The task of the previous administration, the Government of the day, was to make the legislation more flexible in order to allow the transport industry to better serve the country and the needs of consumers as well as its own. The changes were to occur gradually to allow for a gradual adjustment of the industry. The idea was not to spin the transport industry into a frenzy by introducing major and sudden changes. And that is exactly what this bill will bring about. The entire industry will be turned upside down and will not be given time to adjust.
Of course, the bill has already drawn criticism from the trucking industry, the rail industry, as well as from the air transport industry. And all this is happening because the Government has now decided that it is time for a change. Of course, we agree that changes are necessary, but should we turn everything upside down? Why such haste? Where did the pressure come from? In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, this is a question we must ask.
January 28, 1987

I take this opportunity to refer to some comments made by industry representatives. I shall begin with the trucking industry.
"Domestic truckers will be run off the road by American-based truckers if proposed transport deregulation is adopted by the federal and provincial Governments" industry officials say.

I hear some noises from my colleagues to the right. May I remind them I am merely quoting what was said by people in the trucking industry. I think it would be wise to listen to these people, and I shall continue:

"It's like letting Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan loose", said Ken MacLaren, Executive Director of the Canadian Trucking Association.

Those were comments by some people in the trucking industry. And now, on the subject of aviation safety, according to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board there have been more accidents involving aircraft since deregulation. I shall continue:

"Deregulation will hurt us", CPR says.

Being in a terrible hurry to propose these changes, to table the Bill and have it adopted in record time, the Government has failed to give all parties a chance to express their views. Some provinces were not even consulted. The parliamentary committee responsible for considering the Bill did not hold hearings in all provinces, although every province, without exception, will be affected by this Bill. Although hearings were held in four cities, the Government did not do justice to the witnesses and interest groups that came to suggest amendments to the Bill, originally Bill C-126, as you know, Mr. Speaker. And this despite the fact that the Government had promised a new era of consultation, when every action undertaken by this Government would be discussed with the people concerned, people in the industry and people from the various provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we must also consider the impact of this Bill on the transport industry, on services, on employment and also of course on safety, and my list is by no way exhaustive.
Government Members would have us believe that deregulation will bring in more carriers, especially in the air transportation industry. We are told there will be more competition and better rates. However, we can see today that is not the case. We have already seen a trend towards consolidation, and I am thinking of the purchase of CP Air by Pacific Western.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Large companies have purchased shares in small local carriers in order to take over that part of the market, which means that .Canadian airlines are eliminating small carriers from this local market. They control that market.
As far as trucking is concerned, Quebec truckers are afraid of an increased penetration by American truckers of the Quebec market.
Mr. John Kennedy, of Kingsway Transport Limited, says: "A shakeout is developing. There is no question deregulation will have a devastating impact on the financial condition of the Canadian motor carrier industry and ultimately result in a wave of mergers, bankruptcies".
[ Translation]
As far as rail transportation is concerned, the major national railways, CP Rail and CN Rail, are against the legislation as proposed.
Let me deal briefly with safety, and 1 will stick to air transportation. Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the statement made by the Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye :
None of the Transport Canada regions has been able to inspect all the carriers operating within its jurisdiction at least once a year.
We know about the problems already. Then imagine what will happen when we get into the race for privatization. The legislation provides no strict directions as to safety, and for this reason we cannot support any deregulation bill until strict safety measures are in place.
And, already, in anticipation of that deregulation bill, some companies have started making staff changes. 1 am referring here to New Brunswick where Air Canada has decided to reduce the number of its mechanics at the Moncton, St. John and Fredericton airports. Why is it actually being done? Is it in anticipation of privatization that this staff is being reduced?
In the case of Moncton, St. John and Fredericton, when there is a mechanical failure affecting an aircraft's airworthiness, they will have to call a mechanic from Halifax. They will have to call someone from Halifax and ask- him to get to Moncton, St. John, or Frederiction. This requires at least 2 hours in the case of Moncton, and much more for the two other airports, to examine that aircraft before it can resume its flight. Of course, they assure us that passenger safety will in no time be threatened. But for people in New Brunswick this means a service reduction. They will have to wait for that service. This leads me to the question of jobs. In the case I mentioned, three jobs will be lost in New Brunswick. The figure is not that significant. But let me deal briefly with the CN. Because we all know the CN has received from someone higher up the order to prepare for privatization. In its haste to rationalize operations in preparation for privatization, the CN is reducing staff throughout the system, but especially in Moncton. One thousand jobs will be lost. You may ask what the connection is with this Bill. I said earlier that the proposed

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
legislation would have an impact on employment, and this is one example of how certain regions will be affected. I would like to mention one particular weakness in this Bill, and I am not the only one to do so, and that is the absence of a clause ensuring that regional development will take precedence over profits. Mr. Speaker, we believe it is absolutely essential that the new National Transportation Act contain a reserve clause reflecting the essential role played by transport in regional development.
I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to bring the following to your attention.

"Following a meeting in Fredericton, the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island denounced the proposed National Transportation Act, saying it would further the economic gap between central Canada and eastern Canada.
The Premiers want Transport Minister, John Crosbie, who tabled the proposed legislation in early November, to add a clause ensuring that regional development will take precedence over a profitable transportation service when the two conflict".

And I would also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a letter I received from the Chairman of the Premiers Council, which says basically what I said just now, and I quote:
Since the new Act does not guarantee that in case of a conflict, regional economic development objectives will take precedence over requirements that transport services should be a profitable concern, we cannot give it our support.
"We" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
We believe it should contain a clause that would subordinate the concern for commercial viability to regional economic development objectives. The federal Government's reluctance so far to include such a clause is particularly worrisome when we consider the negative impact Bill C-18 will have on transport services in the Maritime provinces.
We have written to the Hon. John Crosbie about this question and would like discuss the matter with him very soon. We hope that you support our position. Yours very truly.
Even after pressure from the provincial Premiers, the Minister's reaction was certainly not favourable.
I now want to refer to a meeting of the Transport Committee where the Minister himself said that he did not really share the views of the Premiers of the three Maritime provinces who wanted to include in the legislation a provision that in every case would allow one situation to take precedence over another. The Minister of Transport has refused to meet this request by the Maritime Premiers who are genuinely concerned about the threat to their region's economy.
We can say that in its present form, the Bill does not allow for any regional considerations, not even with respect to remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, regulation has helped us deal with a number of problems connected with regional economic development. It is
unfortunate that the Minister would rather not include a clause to that effect.
If deregulation paves the way for a highly competitive market, we simply must provide some kind of protection against the loss of services.
Mr. Speaker, such shortsightedness brings Bill C-75 to mind-I will conclude shortly-Bill C-75 which had to do with Canada's merchant marine and whose clause 4 had been the target of witnesses who appeared before the committee. Sure enough, Government Members were not prepared to listen to the objections of the witnesses right until Bill C-75 died on the Order Paper at the end of the previous session, even after a speech of nearly seven hours delivered by my colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).
Eventually Government Members rose to voice their opposition to clause 4, so the Minister of Transport agreed to re-introduce the Bill, but without clause 4. Naturally we are pleased that the Minister finally came to his senses in the case of Bill C-75. Mr. Speaker, we hope the Minister will see the light, though it may take him some time, but we will give him all the time he needs because we are going to debate this measure for quite a while yet.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) with great interest. I wish to make several comments and then I will ask him a question. There seemed to be a stressing of profitability, profitability, profitability in his speech. Yet one of the best companies we have in Canada is a private company which has been trying to make money for these many years, that is, Wardair. It is a highly successful company located in Edmonton. It has spread its wings throughout much of the world and is now going across Canada. My first flight on Wardair was 22 years ago. It has been a very safe airline with an enviable record.
I suggest there should be less stress on profitability and more stress on what the airline actually does. There has been a suggestion that the Government has been deaf to representations following the release of the Freedom to Move policy and that attempts to shape and improve the policy were ignored. That is far from the truth. This legislation has been developed in a co-operative effort with the private sector, carriers, shippers, users and communities. More than 500 groups and individuals made representations during this consultative program to which we have listened. The standing committee has listened to the people across the country. In addition, the House, through the Standing Committee on Transport, had a very definite impact on the shape of this legislation. Members of the standing committee include all Hon. Members of the House. The committee had two separate sets of hearings, one hearing on the over-all policy and another focusing on the northern and remote areas of the country. The recommendations were taken to heart and were included in the legislation.
January 28, 1987

Perhaps the most notable provisions resulting from the meetings of the standing committee were those governing the regulations of northern air services.
In the year 1985-86 there were substantial losses reported. The Hon. Member's colleague, the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), told the Standing Committee on Transport on May 10, 1984:
It is a sad fact that our regulated industry is in decline. The regulated system we set up to protect a fledgling industry is now clearly hindering progress. Airline losses topped $100 million in 1982.
Would the Hon. Member not agree with his colleague that much of the blame for airline losses must be directed at the excessive amount of regulation burdening the industry and stifling its economic efficiency and growth? Would the Hon. Member also comment on the success of Wardair, a private company, which has made money?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. He asked me to comment on the profits of Wardair. I have nothing against a company making profits and I congratulate this company on the service it provides Canadians.
The Hon. Member also asked whether I do not find deregulation desirable. I did not say in my speech that it is not. We realized a few years ago that we would gradually have to go to some form of deregulation. I agree that it was absolutely necessary to make some adjustments to the National Transportation Act, but I do have some reservations when the Government wants to turn the whole industry upside down without giving it enough time to adjust.
That is all I wanted to say. Deregulation is desirable, but it should be gradual.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he could explain how the new Bill, in its present form, could affect Canadian National's decision to close down or at least to lay off a large number of its employees in Moncton. Perhaps he could also tell us whether the impact on the situation in Moncton could have both negative and positive aspects.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to answer my colleague's question. CN, as a Crown corporation, has more or less been given a mandate or instructions by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to prepare for privatization, which means that CN must make itself a profitable concern. And since time seems to be of the essence, they have to cut services which means less work for CN repair shops. And that is exactly what is happening in Moncton. In the rush to rationalize all their operations, they are cutting jobs-1,000 of them. If this Government had any concern at all for regional disparity, it would manage to keep the CN shops open. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compare this situation to the one at the Port of Churchill in Manitoba. According to the Ports
National Transportation Act, 1986
Canada authorities, the port at Churchill was not viable, and they decided to shut down the facilities. However, the Minister of Transport intervened, saying that the port must continue its operations because it was one the major industries in that part of the country. Wonderful! So if the Minister is so concerned about regional development, he should do the same for the people of New Brunswick.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on Bill C-18 which I believe will rank as one of the most important measures passed by this Parliament. It provides a new deal to consumers of transportation services right across Canada, including, of course, my region, which is western Canada.
When we took office two years ago, we found a regulatory regime in the transportation sector that had largely lost touch with changes in our national economy. It was one that frequently frustrated rather than facilitated the efforts of producers across Canada to get their goods to market. While careful regulation is required to achieve important objectives, including regional development and safety, we believe, as indicated in our Freedom to Move paper, that more can be accomplished with less but smarter and better regulation.
After extensive consultation with the public, provincial Governments, the transportation industry, shippers and other interested parties, we have concluded that now is the time to act. Canadians need a revised transportation policy and legislative framework today.
The Acts which are before us today-the National Transportation Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act-provide that policy. They will provide for greater reliance on market forces, reduced government interference, and a regulatory process that is both open and accessible. They will promote competition which will result in improved prices and services for both travellers and shippers. They will streamline the remaining regulatory procedures and replace the Canadian Transport Commission with a new national transportation agency. In effect, we are freeing the Canadian economy from the shackles of an over-regulated transportation sector. Too much cement does not the efficient movement of people or goods make.
My comments will focus on the impact of the legislation on Canada's rail system, particularly in western Canada. Everyone in the West should benefit from these initiatives- the primary resource producers and individual employees of lumber mills, potash and coal-mines, and so on, who will have more secure jobs because their products will be moved to market more efficiently, and the railways themselves.
Under the present Railway Act, Canada's railways can set rates collectively. Competition has been stifled, particularly in my region where there is now little incentive to offer lower rail rates or different services to meet the varying needs of

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
shippers. The current system works against the needs of both shippers and railways. The shippers do not get the best service at the best price. Some rail traffic is being diverted from Canada to U.S. railways where deregulation in 1980 resulted in a significantly more competitive rail market. Put simply, it is high time we reformed the regulatory regime for rail.
I would now like to say a few words about the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hinton Train Collision. The report tabled on January 22 made a number of safety-oriented recommendations. As Hon. Members know, our Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) asked CN, CP and VIA to undertake a number of measures. These include the immediate establishment of a policy giving priority to use of units equipped with a reset safety control device as lead locomotives, determining an action plan within 60 days on key recommendations such as hours of work and periods of rest, work scheduling and medical supervision, as well as asking the railways to establish a schedule for implementation of the advanced train control system.
Under this Bill for the first time shippers will be allowed to negotiate confidential contracts with Canadian railways. The key words are "negotiate" and "confidential". Under this legislation a shipper and a carrier will be permitted to negotiate a contract with services and conditions that reflect the shipper's specific circumstances, and with rates tailored to the competitive position of the shipper and the railway. That contract will be negotiated privately, and there will be no obligation to disclose all the terms publicly. In that sense, it is like almost all ordinary commercial contracts. To distinguish it from past practice in the railroad sector, it is called a "confidential contract".
These contracts are the ordinary way of doing business elsewhere. They are long overdue in our transportation sector. For the first time carriers will be able to offer individual shippers special rates or services without making these known to other shippers. That is a major boost to competitive bargaining. To avoid possible abuse, all confidential contracts will be filed with the new national transportation agency. Summaries of the non-confidential aspects of the contracts will be made public, as they should be.
At the same time, we are not forgetting shippers who benefit from existing freight rate provisions. Railways will continue to publish tariffs under the National Transportation Act for shippers who wish to use them.
Our legislation also retains the requirement that all rates charged by railways must be compensatory. That is to say, they must cover the costs directly associated with the services provided. However, there is an important qualifier. Noncompensatory rates may be offered. Where anyone lodges a complaint, however, such rates will be disallowed unless the railway, upon investigation by the new agency, can establish that the rates do not lessen competition and were not put in place for an anti-competitive or predatory purpose.
All parties involved stand to win under these new freight tariff rules. Shippers will negotiate for rates and conditions that reflect particular circumstances. Getting the best service at the best price will help myriad shippers to expand markets, increase production and thereby protect and create new jobs.
Canada's railways will be able to compete more effectively with their American counterparts for transborder traffic. Above all, the Canadian public as a whole will benefit from the job creation arising from a more competitive rail transportation system.
This Bill also takes the historic step of significantly altering the transportation environment for captive shippers, who have long been the forgotten players in our national rail system. Indeed, as a former Crown attorney, they remind me of victims who are all but ignored in our criminal justice system. Captive shippers are those without access to a practical, cost-effective alternative to a single railway carrier. There are captive shippers across Canada, in major urban centres as well as in outlying regions. As an Albertan, I am very well aware that many, if not most, of these shippers are in western Canada. It is no wonder that our reforms here are so strongly supported in my region.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that more than half of the railways' revenues come from captive shippers? Among the shippers the most often and most seriously affected are western Canada's major resource industries, including potash, sulphur, coal, petrochemical and forest product operations.
Our reforms to the National Transportation Act address this problem in three ways: through increased inter-switching; through terminal running rights; and through competitive line rates.
At present, the inter-switching of cars from one railway to another at a compensatory rate is guaranteed only within a four-mile radius of the point of interchange. The limitation was established in 1908 to provide for competition between railways within city limits, using London, Ontario, as the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson), who is in the House, will know, as the model. Despite the phenomenal growth of our cities since that time, inter-switching limits have never been changed to reflect the new realities.
With the reformed National Transportation Act, we are extending inter-switching limits to 30 kilometres. This will benefit virtually every shipper located on a rail siding in an urban area served by two railways. We estimate that there are thousands of such shippers across Canada. To maintain fair competition inter-switching rates will be compensatory.
The second provision in the Bill is with respect to the adoption of terminal running rights. Within 50 kilometres of any interchange point a railway will now have the right to run trains over the tracks of another railway in order to pick up or deliver goods. The second railway will be compensated for the use of its tracks. A minimum three-year commitment to operate this service will be required. To ensure equity the new service must be made available to all shippers on the line, not
January 28, 1987

just the larger, more lucrative ones. The Government cannot take full credit for introducing terminal running rights. These rights were originally proposed to the Government by CP Rail. We recognized the value of the idea and we adopted it. The consultative process does bear fruit.
I would like to give Hon. Members a concrete example of how terminal running rights will benefit the West. There is a large petrochemical complex in the Fort Saskatchewan-Scottford area near Edmonton. Most of that petrochemical complex is now captive to CN Rail. Under the new legislation, CP Rail would be permitted to run its trains on CN's tracks to get to and from the petrochemical complex. Thus, in addition to shipping via CN, the complex will have a viable alternative to ship its products by CP Rail. There will be competition where competition did not previously exist. Competition is good for Canada.
For those shippers who cannot benefit from the new interswitching limits or from terminal running rights, our new National Transportation Act provides for a concept called competitive line rates. That means that captive shippers will have access to another rail carrier at the closest interchange with that carrier. This will bring the benefits of competition to the shipper by enabling him to use the carrier that offers the best combination of service, routes, and rates, whether it is the local carrier or a competing carrier.
However, to avoid domestic traffic moving over United States' railways where the destination of the goods is within Canada, including traffic to a Canadian port for export, and a competitive Canadian alternative route exists, the shipper must use the Canadian alternative in order to be eligible for joint line rates.
Where the shipper and the carrier cannot reach an agreement, the shipper has recourse to the new National Transportation Agency. We do not expect this safeguard to be used often. Nonetheless it will be important as a means of providing shippers with real clout in negotiating rates.
We expect that the new policy will take relatively little business away from the local carrier. In most cases, the local carrier will offer the best deal, especially since switching costs money. But for the first time, the carrier operating locally will have to compete for the shippers' business. Is that bad in an increasingly competitive world economy?
Competitive line rates will be of particular benefit to large resource shippers in the West. Under the new provisions, a major Alberta sulphur producer now captive to CN Rail would have the opportunity of switching to CP Rail at the nearest interchange about 80 kilometres away. Competitive line rates would apply on that 80 kilometre stretch.
Briefly, this is how the matter would work in practice. The sulphur producer would ask CN Rail to quote a price for moving a shipment from his plant to the docks in Vancouver. Knowing approximately what the competitive fine rate would
National Transportation Act, 1986
be under the legislation for the movement from the plant to the interchange, he would ask CP Rail to quote a price for moving the shipment from the interchange to the docks. If CN was prepared to match or better the CP rate, plus the rate from the plant to the interchange, CN would retain the business, which is right. If CN were not prepared to quote a competitive rate, it could lose the portion of the movement from the interchange to the Vancouver docks. If CN and the sulphur producer could not reach an agreement on the rate from the plant to the interchange, the producer could ask the National Transportation Agency to set a rate based on a costing formula contained in the legislation.
Competitive fine rates have been endorsed by such organizations as the Coal Association of Canada, the Council of Forest Industries-


Mr. Benjamin:: Naturally.


David Kilgour: -the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Propane Gas Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Retail Council of Canada, and many others. Thousands and thousands of jobs are involved in those industries. These companies generate billions of dollars in sales, and thousands of jobs for Canadians.
The extended inter-switching limits, terminal running rates, and competitive fine rates will markedly increase the transportation options available to captive shippers. More shippers will have a choice of carriers. They will have an opportunity to negotiate for the services of these carriers. We are confident that shippers and carriers will sit down and reason together in a businesslike manner to establish mutually beneficial arrangements.
I have referred to large resource producers in the examples, but other shippers will benefit from these provisions. The major resource industries are the backbone of the western economy. When those companies are thriving, the region I represent thrives. In addition to employment opportunities within the resource companies, jobs will be created in hundreds of smaller service companies. Western Canada's small business base will be strengthened and expanded. Quite simply, this legislation will help put more people back to work in western Canada.
I have mentioned that shippers will be able to apply to the new agency for resolution of several important matters. I wish to outline several provisions in the new National Transportation Act that will ensure timely and inexpensive settlement of various private and public disputes. At the request of parties involved in private disputes, mediation services will be provided by the National Transportation Agency. If these fail, final offer arbitration will be available. In such cases, an independent arbitrator appointed by the agency will consider both the carrier's and the shipper's final offers, and will choose one of them, unless the parties have first made alternative arrangements. That offer chosen by the arbitrator becomes the "deal" between the shipper and the carrier for up to one year.
2798

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Final offer arbitration is important because it will encourage private settlement of shipper-carrier disputes. Where such private settlement proves impossible, the deal imposed by the arbitrator will at least have been developed by one of the parties involved.
The new Act also features a more effective investigation procedure for matters of public interest. Upon receiving a complaint, the National Transportation Agency will be empowered to inquire into any carrier's rates, acts, or omissions which may prejudice the public interest. In particular, the agency will take into account the new transportation policy set out in the legislation in deciding whether the public interest has been harmed.
May I turn now to the difficult and often controversial issue of branch line abandonment. Our current rail legislation gives the Canadian Transport Commission two methods for dealing with an application for branch line abandonment. The CTC can allow the line to be abandoned, or it can order that it be retained with a government subsidy.
I am pleased to say that the legislation before us today will provide the CTC successor, the National Transportation Agency, with more useful choices when handling applications for branch line abandonment. For example, the new agency will be able to facilitate and approve the sale of a branch line to another operator, in effect establishing a short line operation. It may recommend that Ministers provide financial assistance to shippers, or a provincial Government or others to develop more effective and less costly means of transportation to replace the branch line. The NTA may also recommend that the Minister order one railway company to interconnect its branch line with the lines of another company, thereby providing the opportunity for the branch line to be more competitive. It may decide that the line has the potential to be economically viable and should be retained. It may order that the line be retained with a subsidy for three years, at which time the decision will come up for review. It may simply allow the branch line to be abandoned.
Under the new application procedures, the definition of branch line costs and losses will be changed to ensure that these are limited to costs actually incurred in operating the line in an efficient manner.
The legislation establishes time limits during which the agency must respond to applications for branch line abandonment. A railway will be required to give at least 90 days' notice that it intends to apply for the abandonment of a branch line. Shippers and interest groups will have 60 days from receipt of the application to file objections. The NTA will then have 120 days to make its decision.
Where a branch line is clearly uneconomical and will remain so in the future, the agency will order that the line be abandoned. However, in cases where the line serves a large region of Canada and where its abandonment would significantly hamper shippers, the Governor in Council can order that it be
retained with compensation to the railways for their losses on the line.
These new provisions ensure a more flexible and balanced approach to branch line abandonment, and allow for the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars in providing adequate transportation services.
May I make it clear that the new provisions will not affect the prairie grain lines within the permanent grain network.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You want to bet?


David Kilgour: The current protection from abandonment that these lines have until the year 2000 will be continued under this legislation.
The Government is committed to maintaining a healthy, viable railway industry. That viability is not threatened by this new legislation, contrary to what some people have said, and perhaps will say after I sit down. These reforms do not compromise the safety of the Canadian rail system. Safety remains of paramount concern to the Government. Rather, we are convinced that the legislation will do much to strengthen the industry and the economy of Canada.
The reformed National Transportation Act will now give Canada's railways the opportunity to become more efficient and to compete with other transport modes and with American carriers. It will give primary resource producers and other shippers more and better options for moving their products to market, particularly export markets. It will create employment opportunities for thousands of Canadians in a wide range of occupations from one end of the country to the other.
In short, the legislation contains a signal reform to our rail transportation system across the land, one that is long overdue in a modern, confident industrial democracy like our own.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the Hon. Member, and I have three questions for him. I will try to ask one question now and follow it with two quick ones.
My hon. friend talked about confidential rates for shippers. I presume he meant that it did not matter whether they were close to or far from their markets. Does he believe that a small shipper who might move a few hundred carloads per year will be able to obtain the same confidential rate as a big shipper who moves several thousand carloads of sulphur, potash, or coal per year in competition to the same market?
Does he really believe that the railroads will agree to the same confidential rate for small shippers and big shippers, when we take into account railroad economics, economies of scale, and volumes of shippers? Does he believe for one moment that a small manufacturer of agricultural implements in the Prairies which ships a couple of hundred carloads per year will receive the same kind of deal as Massey-Ferguson or IAC which moves thousands of carloads per year? Would he
January 28, 1987

not agree that in such instances the confidential rate is anticompetitive and discriminatory?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I most emphatically do not agree with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). If I should turn out to be wrong, I hope the Hon. Member will bring to my attention or to the attention of the Government any case where a small shipper was being penalized in the way he just described.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is too late then; he is broke.


David Kilgour: We are trying to give shippers a square deal compared with the two railways which basically carry most of the traffic in Canada. The days are over when CN or CP could say to a small, medium or large shipper of potash, to take an industry in my friend's home province, "You will pay what we want you to pay or you can carry the potash out on your back". That era is at an end.
The whole thrust of those parts of the Bill dealing with the railroads is to ensure that small and medium shippers-in fact all shippers-have a chance to obtain prices other than duopoly pricing by the two carriers. That is the whole object of the exercise, as I hope the Hon. Member knows.
When the matter gets into committee for clause by clause consideration and to hear witnesses, no one will listen more carefully than I will to the concern raised by the Hon. Member. If there is a way to prevent it from happening, again no one will be listening more carefully than I will to how we can ensure that a small shipper is not penalized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a short supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that is not what small shippers told us in Atlantic Canada and in Winnipeg in those brief hearings we were allowed to have.
I have another question for my hon. friend. He talked about competitive line rates. The Canadian Trucking Association, both railroads, and some shippers told us-and $750 million of Canadian Pacific revenue is at stake-that under the competitive line rate system bulk commodities, such as the ones he mentioned from his province and mine, would move south across the border to the United States, would travel to Seattle or Tacoma or to eastern and central United States, and would come back into Canada. They told us that the business would be lost to Canadian truckers and railroads and that when dealing with products for export they may well use a U.S. port rather than a Canadian one.
In other words, U.S. railroads and truckers will have access and capacities in Canada which will not be allowed Canadian railroads and truckers in the United States. Even individual states will be able to prohibit Canadian trucking companies and Canadian railroads, let alone the United States administration. That is not a level playing field. Competitive line rates will take traffic to United States transportation systems at the expense of Canadian ones.
National Transportation Act, 1986


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my friend has raised a couple of issues. I will deal with both of them.
On the question of U.S. rail taking traffic away from Canadian carriers, if my memory is correct, between 1980 and 1985 three-quarters of a billion feet or more of lumber in British Columbia moved by truck to the cheaper rail system in the United States and bypassed the rail system in British Columbia. That is a lot of lumber.
If the people who operate small and medium sized mills are so concerned about gouging by the railroads in British Columbia that they are prepared to ship their lumber by truck, as the Hon. Member knows, hundreds and thousands of kilometres to the Washington border to get on a cheaper rail system, that says something about the monopoly or duopoly practices of our two railroads or, in the case of British Columbia, of its three railroads.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you kidding?


David Kilgour: No, I am not kidding.
On the question of trucking, my understanding is that shippers from St. John's to Nanaimo are urging us with a single voice to deregulate trucking. I understand the desire of the trucking industry to obtain the benefits of greater flexibility and competition. Truckers are entitled to some time to adjust to a more open system of competition; I completely agree.
The federal and provincial Governments have agreed with the proposition and have decided to provide for a transition period during which a reverse onus public interest test would apply in addition to the fitness test.
I am convinced that greater opportunities will present themselves where a combination of service and price can be worked out to the mutual advantage of both truckers and shippers. It is the kind of flexibility which is needed and is built into the revised Motor Vehicle Transport Act which we will be discussing perhaps tomorrow or the day after. The legislation will allow truckers time to adapt to changing economic conditions in the industry.
However, I might point out that the study conducted on behalf of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators has provided a very positive outlook. It concluded that the gradual lessening of regulatory control by the provinces over market entry and trucking rates has already brought about important changes in that industry. The Canadian trucking industry is better prepared for regulatory reform than was the U.S. industry before deregulation.
Are you trying to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that I have run out of time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a question or comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Hon. Member made several references in his speech to how this

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
would assist Canadian Pacific among others, could he respond to the concerns expressed by Canadian Pacific that the legislation, as currently tabled, may have exactly the opposite effect to what was supposed to be the case?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, with respect, obviously the Hon. Member was not listening to my speech or I misdelivered something. I certainly did not mean to suggest that it would benefit CP.
I worked on a steel gang for CP and on a section gang for CN, so I know the railways from the rail up. The object of the exercise is partly to ensure that the two railways stop exploiting, with a capital E, shippers in any part of the country including urban centres.
Since the Hon. Member was obviously not listening to my speech, I guess there is not much point in repeating it now. Presumably she would not listen if I repeated the portions of my speech which dealt with that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is avoiding my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member avoided the question. He did not answer the specific question concerning Canadian Pacific and how the legislation will do the exact opposite to what it is supposed to do. I am sure the Hon. Member would be very happy to answer the question at another time, as opposed to skating and obfuscating.
Nonetheless, at this time I would like to look at this legislation in the light of what it will mean to the average Canadian worker. I am sure there are workers from the rail, airline and trucking industries watching this debate with much interest because they would like to know how it will directly affect their jobs.
In the past couple of weeks, I have had a chance to meet with both airline and rail employees. They have asked me to express in the House of Commons their concern over the difficulties that have already been faced by airline employees because of deregulation and over the difficulties which are currently facing workers in the rail industry. I wish to refer to two specific cases.
There is a major Canadian airport in the City of Toronto. Last week, I had the opportunity of meeting with a number of employees who are extremely frustrated by the attitude of their employer which is attempting in its own way to deal with deregulation on the backs of employees. I refer specifically to Air Canada. I have in my hand a petition signed by several hundred Toronto Air Canada employees who are extremely concerned about the company's attempt to deny workers basic human rights not only under Article 12 of the 1985-87
collective agreement between Air Canada and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers but also basic human rights under the Canada Labour Code which permits employees to enjoy statutory holidays. Air Canada is attempting to blackmail its employees into giving up statutory holidays by designing a shift system which is so unconscionable that more than two-thirds of all employees employed in the machinists' section at the airport in Toronto will never, ever have a weekend off as of the beginning of this year.
There are 294 employees at the ramp and hangar at the Toronto airport. Under the new scheduling process, only 34 per cent of these workers will have Saturdays and Sundays off. Sixty-six per cent of the employees will never have a weekend off. The reason for this is that the company has made it quite clear to the union that even though this particular scheduling system is not the most effective and efficient one, the company wants its employees to give up their rights to statutory holidays in return for getting some weekends off.
The reason I raise this problem in the context of this massive piece of legislation is that with the introduction of deregulation in airlines, we have had a chance to look at what will happen in the transportation industry. Some of us might be cynical and say: "Well, too bad, these employees should never have weekends off'. However, even the Canadian travelling public must admit that the morale of employees is extremely important.
When I met with these workers last week, they revealed to me that the situation in Toronto is getting so desperate that there are in fact breaches of safety. Mechanics at the airport are working on airplanes on which they should not be working specifically because management is telling them that even though they may have up-to-date licences to work on 727s, they will work on DC8s. They must do this even though they have not had the upgrading required for those who have not worked on a particular airplane for three years.
I further heard from these same employees their concern about safety checks on individual planes. These are being done on a rushed basis. Normally, an hour and a half is set aside for an individual safety check. These employees told me that in some cases, mechanics are required to certify three, four or five airplanes in the time it would normally have taken before deregulation to examine one airplane. The Government's claim that safety is not being compromised in rubbish.
In examining the American experience, one finds that the first thing that went after deregulation was safety. In 1979, the American Federal Aviation Administration had 2,000 inspectors monitoring 237 air carriers. In 1984, after the United States embarked on its program of airline deregulation, it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers, an increase of 70 per cent in the number of air carriers travelling the airways and a decrease of 700 inspectors. This massive cut was made at a time when we were being promised that safety would not be compromised.
January 28, 1987

This legislation should be thrown out on one ground alone. There is absolutely nothing in it to guarantee the safety not only of airline passengers but also the protection of regions from reductions in service routes, rail line abandonments and other eventualities. There is the question of safety of passengers and there is also the question of job security.
The reason the Air Canada situation in Toronto is so disturbing can be understood after reading statements made by Mr. Claude Taylor and Mr. Pierre Jeanniot in the December 15 issue of the Air Canada employee newsletter. These gentlemen say that they hope they can look back with gentle pride on the hope and caring that members of the Air Canada family have given to many people. According to Mr. Taylor, he is proud of the work employees have done with crippled and sick children, men and women needing temporary homes, young people seeking help for drug or alcohol abuse, and agencies that provide food and clothing for the less fortunate. He is speaking of the Air Canada family.
The Air Canada family includes machinists who are now faced with never, ever getting another weekend off without giving in to the company's demands to give up statutory holidays. Why does the Canada Labour Code designate statutory holidays if companies will subsequently tell their employees that they can never have days off unless they give up their rights under the Canada Labour Code? It is a fraud which I have already brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). I hope to get a positive response from him. However, I think it relates to this particular debate as well because it is a harbinger of what we may expect after the rail and trucking deregulation which will occur if we accept Bill C-18 in its current form.
I would like to take a few moments to examine the situation of rail employees. In the last week, I had a visit from a group of rail employees from the great City of Belleville. One of these employees had a long history of rail involvement. His father was a railroader, his grandfather was a railroader and he was a railroader. I sympathized with him because my grandfather was also a railroader.
This group showed me figures relating to the repair shop in Belleville showing that from January 1 to October 31 of 1986, the number one car equipment repair shop in the Great Lakes region was the shop in Belleville. That shop was number one in October and September. At the same time as this operation has shown CN that it is viable, economic and is doing the best job of about a dozen shops operating in the Great Lakes region, it is being closed down. These employees have been given their notices and have been told that they can either move to Toronto or another area or quit their jobs. In many cases, these employees have several years of service and are well established in the community of Belleville. They do not want to be put in the position of having to move to Toronto, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Sarnia, Capreol, Cochrane or Hornepayne simply because they have to save their jobs. They want to stay in Belleville and were led to believe that if they performed as an efficient operation their site would be saved.
National Transportation Act, 1986
However, on January 9, 1987, CN laid off 47 workers in Belleville. Those same workers had several meetings with the local Member and were under the impression as late as the latter part of last year that there would not be lay-offs and they would not lose their jobs because they were productive and operational.
Belleville is a microcosm of what we see happening in Moncton. It does not matter if you are able to justify your existence. It does not matter that I have here a document which shows that the Belleville operation was the most effective and efficient shop for the repair of CN cars in the whole of the Great Lakes region. For Canadian National and the Conservative Government the emphasis on quality and productivity has given way to political considerations.
One reason this Bill in its current form is not supportable is that there is absolutely no guarantee for the many regions. Perhaps Belleville is not as big as Toronto. Perhaps it does not have the political clout some other communities might have. We are only talking about 47 employees here, but they have made their home and their life and put down roots in Belleville. Now they have been abandoned.
In this Bill there is absolutely no guarantee for the workers who have been dealt a dirty blow by CN as a result of this closure, nor is there a guarantee which will protect regions like Belleville and eastern Ontario from reductions in service, routes, and rail line abandonment. At the same time there are no guarantees for passengers.
It seems to me that when you are dealing with a country the size of Canada you have to address the sensitive issue of rail line abandonment. Certainly the Conservative Government, when it was in opposition, made much political hay out of the abandonment of certain responsibilities at VIA Rail. We have to be extremely sensitive that any legislation seeking to amend in a major way national transportation routes has something to protect the regions. It is not surprising there is no such condition in this legislation because I think that over the last two and a half years the Conservatives have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not interested in regional enhancement. They are not interested in ensuring that not only the far-reaching and isolated areas of our country are served by rail, road and air, but so are even the smaller community in provinces like Ontario, communities like Belleville. They are not interested in making sure that a well-operated, functional and effective shop remains open. Their policy is centralization and to give it all to the big at the expense of the lesser areas and regions.
Over the last couple of days we have seen the fishery dispute which we will hear about in an emergency debate tonight. Not only are the Conservatives prepared to sacrifice the regions for the larger centres, they are also prepared to sacrifice Canada when it comes to the interests of other countries, whether it be the U.S. or France. Again in this legislation we see they are not prepared to protect Canadian interests on the international

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
scene. I refer specifically to the absence of any provisions to prevent major foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies and routes. The U.S. has a 25 per cent limit on foreign ownership of transportation companies. What do we have in this legislation? The Bill has no provision to limit foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies. The only guideline is the fact that all mergers and takeovers over $20 million and 10 per cent of the voting shares of any Canadian transportation firm will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. That does not mean they will set it aside or refuse it. All they will do is review. The only other proviso says that all those below those ceilings will be reviewed in the normal procedure by Investment Canada. It seems to me that in a country as large as Canada, as sparsely populated and with communities dependent either on rail, air or road for the links which keep the country together, it is folly to consider passing a Bill which would permit foreign takeovers of all our transportation companies with no guarantee that the control of our system will remain in Canadian hands.
That does not surprise us in the Opposition because this has been the hallmark of the Conservative Government. A little bit of pressure from France, and the Conservatives sell off our cod stock. A little bit of pressure from the U.S., and they sell off our softwood lumber industry. Are we going to be foolish enough to pass this Bill in its present form, a massive piece of legislation, without providing any guarantees that our railways, which have linked this country from coast to coast and provided the basis for our history, our airlines and our trucking routes as well, have absolutely no Canadian majority ownership? Are we going to see CN or CP sold to the U.S. or foreign multinationals in the same way we saw de Havilland sold to Boeing?
By making some positive amendments to this legislation we have a chance to ensure that Canadian ownership of our transportation industry remains intact. I suggest that this is a critical amendment. It would in some measure allay the fears of those who really do not trust the Conservative Government to protect the interests of Canada when it gets the slightest pressure from outside. Our interests seem to take second place to France or the U.S.
It is totally unacceptable that in this Bill we are willing to put our rail, air and trucking routes up for grabs to the highest bidder. Those bidders may not act in the best interests of our regions. They may not act in the best interests of our consumers. They may not act in the best interests of Canada.
Many Canadians settled from coast to coast as a result of the development of our national railway. It seems to me that in one fell swoop in this Bill, unless we include certain amendments to provide protection against massive foreign takeovers, the national dream that Canada is linked from coast to coast could very easily be sold south of the border. That would simply be another note in the saga of Investment Canada. We cannot allow that, and I think most of us in the Opposition agree that the concerns expressed last week by the rail workers
in Belleville or the airline workers at Air Canada are legitimate and valid concerns which must be addressed before we move forward with any wholesale change. It could inhibit not only the protection of jobs but could also inhibit the survival of our very nation, given the transportation infrastructure we have depended upon in the past.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand the position of the Liberal Party on this Bill. Would the Member who just spoke be kind enough to tell us what the position of her Party is? Is it or is it not in favour of it in principle?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The current Bill stinks. Is that clear enough?


David Kilgour: Does she know that the Combines Investigation Act and Investment Canada remain in force? The existing legislation does not prevent foreign acquisitions. Could the Member tell the House where she is coming from? Is she opposed to everything in the Bill? What, if anything, does she approve of in the Bill? I do not expect her to speak for her Party. Has she read the Bill?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, with regard to where I come from, I would be facetious if I said that I come from my mother's womb, so I will not. I will say, instead, that I come from Hamilton East.
With regard to the Bill, it is clear that we have outlined major concerns and reservations. In its current form the Bill is completely unacceptable because it contains no guarantees against foreign takeover of our transportation systems. The Member claims to be knowledgeable about this Bill and I am surprised that he is not aware that there are only two conditions in this legislation which govern potential takeovers.
The first condition is that all mergers and takeovers over $20 million and over 10 per cent of the voting shares will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. The second is the normal provisions set out by Investment Canada. I am not surprised that the Member originally referred to that agency as the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He is so out of touch that he does not realize that the first thing his Government did two years ago was to denude completely and take the teeth out of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and replace it with Investment Canada, which we prefer to refer to as "divestment Canada" because it offers no protection to Canadian companies but rather opens us up to takeovers by foreign corporations with very little concern for the Canadian sovereignty which we in the Liberal Party would like to protect.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's remarks. I hope I am right that the Liberal Party has changed its mind as it is obvious that Government Members have. A former Liberal Minister of Transport, Otto Lang, started all of this. When the present Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister of Transport and proposed deregulation, the present Government
January 28, 1987

House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) and I raised hell about it in the Transport Committee. Has the Liberal Party now changed its mind? Will it agree to fight this legislation?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously aware of the fact that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) introduced deregulation in the airline industry as the Minister reponsible at the time. It has been made clear by my statements, those of the current transport critic, and those of the former associate critic, the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), that we have various concerns about how deregulation is affecting safety in the airline industry. Those are legitimate concerns which I believe the Member shared with the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe when they examined this issue in the Transport Committee. I believe that we owe it to the travelling public, as well as to the employees whose necks are on the line, to do everything possible to guarantee safety in the airways. If that is not possible through the type of deregulation which we have proposed, we will have to back off.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) a question with regard to the rights of the handicapped in this new transportation policy. There is nothing in Bill C-18 which deals specifically with the accessibility, comfort, safety or rate structure for the handicapped on all modes of transportation. I regret that the Government has not seen fit to address that serious problem by setting mandatory minimum safety and access standards for the handicapped and incorporating them in Bill C-18.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The absolute absence of any recommendation vis-a-vis accessibility by the handicapped is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The introduction of legislation to mandate accessibility for all future transportation development would address the problem at the source and show the political will to follow up on the commitment we made to the handicapped in the employment equity Bill. For the Government to say that it is seeking employment equity while refusing to incorporate into other legislation the concept of accessibility for the handicapped is to impinge upon the ability of the handicapped to compete equally in the market-place. This is one area in which it should be addressed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker suggested that our safety would be like that of the United States. She may not be aware that we are hiring more safety inspectors as we gradually introduce economic regulations. She may not recall that this Parliament passed amendments to the Aeronautics Act in June, 1985, to increase air safety standards across the board. She may not be aware of that and of other safety initiatives taken in all modes of transportation.
An enormous amount of effort and concern goes into the issue of safety in our three modes of transportation. We have set up a civil aviation tribunal to hear and determine appeals from administrative decisions quickly and fairly. One hundred
National Transportation Act, 1986
additional safety personnel are being put in place across Canada to work in the area of the transportation of dangerous goods. We have very high safety standards in this country.
For example, radar is essential to safe air transportation. Radar systems have undergone radical changes during recent years. We must keep up in this area of technology and are doing so. We have committed more than $800 million to an airport radar modernization plan which covers Canada from coast to coast. That will, of course, increase safety. Our major carriers are in the top range of more than 120 international carriers with enviable safety records. Our record has steadily improved over 20 years.
I will have an opportunity to speak on the issue of the disabled in relation to this legislation in future debate in the House. I believe that is a very important issue and look forward to speaking on it at another time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Member was listening when I said that I met with mechanics from Air Canada last week. They told me that they are currently compromising the inspection service at Air Canada in Toronto because they are being pressured to ensure the inspection of two, three or four vehicles during the amount of time which should normally be devoted to one vehicle. Second, these same individuals informed me that there are mechanics at Air Canada in Toronto now who are working on planes on which they should not be working. Their expertise is normally on a 727, but they are being asked to work on DC-8s and other airplanes without having the normal refresher course that takes place when one has not worked on a particular aircraft for three or four years. These are two serious breaches of safety which have been brought to the attention of the management and which have been raised on numerous occasions by the workers. They are not getting satisfactory answers but these are safety concerns that must be addressed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). While I enjoyed listening to her answer to the question asked by my colleague, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Banjamin), perhaps I could translate it into more understandable English. She said that the Liberal Party has one position when in government and another position when in opposition.
I wish she had been here before 1984 when the Liberal Government in fact began the process leading to deregulation. Now that the Liberals are in opposition, they oppose deregulation. It is a somewhat inconsistent position.
I agree with her reference to mechanics. I have talked to mechanics in Vancouver who told me that CP was putting advertisements in newspapers in Los Angeles for mechanics to work in Vancouver. Is the new Conservative deregulation policy to hire American workers to work in Canada when there is so much unemployment here?

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
The Parliamentary Secretary said that we are protected by Investment Canada from foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies. Investment Canada is a toothless tiger which encourages takeovers. One only need look at the case of West Kooteny Power, in which an American utility company is taking over West Kootenay Power, a Canadian power company, to the great opposition of the residents in the Kootenays and the Okanagan Valley.
Investment Canada decided on December 24 to simply roll over and play dead and let the American utility company take over that Canadian company for the so-called benefit of Canada. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is unsupportable.
Like many other MPs, last November I received a letter from the Vice-President of Canadian Pacific Railway in which he stated: "If enacted without change, Bill C-18 would preclude the railways from being genuine and effective competitors in the transportation market-place ..." and went on to say that: "Bill C-18 would place the integrity of Canada's railway system at risk". Perhaps the Government has made some amendments to the Bill since then in order to meet these concerns because it is a serious criticism, certainly of the Hon. Member's speech in which he said this Bill would help the railways. I hope he will respond to that later in the debate.
I want to make the New Democratic Party position clear. The Bill is anti-competitive and will lead to more monopolies. It is anti-safety and will make our transportation system, especially our airlines, less safe. Third, the Bill is anti-service because it will mean less service than already exists, especially when Canadians have come to appreciate a high standard of service in transportation.
Finally, this Bill is ideological. The Conservative Government is attempting to follow the American example without realizing that there have been faults with the deregulation process in the United States, particularly with regard to safety and service. The Conservative Government has also failed to realize that Canada is different from the United States and cannot simply follow American trends.
The Government is enacting this legislation to increase the wealth of their rich friends in the transportation business, not to help ordinary Canadians who will ultimately suffer. Ordinary Canadians will oppose this type of deregulation when they realize its consequences.
We are not against deregulation that is meant to correct overburdening regulations that are administered by many bureaucrats in Ottawa. However, we do not want the pendulum to swing so far that we have a system in which there are a few companies that operate to make a few of them wealthy while diminishing our safety and service.
This Bill would abolish the Canadian Transport Commission and replace it with a much weaker National Transportation Agency that would have no authority over fares, routes, or entry or exit into the industry. It would probably have far fewer employees than the present CTC.
It would replace public necessity and convenience as the test for entry or exit into the industry, and replace it with a fit, willing and able test. It would make it easier for companies to abandon airline and rail routes, and leave remote communities stranded.
It would end regulatory oversight over fares, routes and schedules except in some remote areas. This Bill would allow rail shippers to strike confidential contracts with individual shippers. It would open entry of U.S. rail lines into the Canadian market.
Several articles have been written about the American system. For example, I refer to an issue of Time magazine on January 12, 1987. The article entitled: "Be careful out there" states:
The Northwest DC-10 was speeding toward takeoff at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport when the warning came from the flight engineer: "There's a whale on the runway!" Another Northwest wide-bodied DC-10 had just left a taxiway and poked its nose into the path of the oncoming plane. "I see it", replied the amazingly cool captain of the departing aircraft. He abruptly jerked his jumbo jet into the air. His wing cleared the fuselage of the crossing plane by a mere 50 feet. There were 501 people on the two jets. They had barely avoided what would have been the world's second worst air disaster, akin to the 1977 collision of two Boeing 747s that killed 582 people on a fog-shrouded runway at Tenerife in the Canary Islands.
What went wrong under clear skies at Minneapolis last March 31? Two air traffic controllers, sitting side by side in the terminal tower, each failed to realize what the other had done. One had cleared the taxiing plane to cross the runway. The other had told the second plane to roll toward takeoff.
The article goes on to discuss airline safety and states that what many aviation experts fear is that:
-what is still one of the safest air transportation systems in the world is slipping dangerously as air traffic grows relentlessly through the unfettered competition of deregulation. The experts voice three major concerns: There are not enough controllers, and too many of them have a low experience level.
That is what has happened in the United States. Second:
We have a lessening of the experience level of flight crews.
That will happen in Canada. Third:
Some of the most economically troubled airlines are deferring maintenance whenever possible, and a few have been heavily fined by the FAA for violating safety standards. The impacts of these varied trends, says Patricia Goldman, vice-chairman of the NTSB, is that there is a "narrowed margin of safety".
The article goes on to state:
-the era of do-or-die rate-cutting competition has pressured carriers to slash costs and take risks.
That is an example of what is happening in the United States as a result of the deregulation that our Government is proposing to follow. Carriers are slashing costs and taking risks.
Let us examine how this affects air safety. The Government states that there will be more economic activity and increased participation in a deregulated environment, where the winners will stay and the losers will go. However, what do transportation companies in the United States do when they begin losing? The examples of that are in the United States. They begin to cut corners.
January 28, 1987

Do you remember Arrow Airlines, Mr. Speaker? That is the airline whose plane crashed near Gander last year with the loss of the lives of so many of those young servicemen. It turns out that the air crew was not rested, that the plane was overloaded and that the plane was not de-iced. It cost $1,500 to de-ice a plane, and Arrow Airlines was having financial troubles. 1 would not like to take a ride on an aircraft owned by an airline which was close to bankruptcy or in financial trouble in this kind of deregulated environment. Look for the report of the Federal Aviation Association, the FAA, in the United States which will report on the crash of Arrow Airlines. Some of those factors will come to light. That is not the Canadian way. We do not believe in operating in airlines in this way. However, it will become that way if the Government proceeds with this kind of deregulation.
I mentioned the matter of competition and the fact that we could have a few airlines working and the rest of the small airlines being forced out of business. That is what is happening in Canada. We in fact have two airlines, Pacific Western Airlines, which just took over Canadian Pacific, and its host of companies, and Air Canada, which takes 90 per cent of the passenger load. So we have a concentration of power.
I will quote from Business Week on November 22, 1986, with respect to its cover story "Is Deregulation Working?" It talks about People Express which started out with lots of good fares and so on, but is now in fact laying off people, selling the airline and so on:
It wasn't supposed to turn out quite this way. The great wave of deregulation during the late 1970s and early 1980s was predicated on the belief that replacement of the dead hand of regulation with the invisible hand of the free market would spur competition-
However, the article goes on to say that it has not spurred on competition:
The market share of the top half-dozen or so companies, which dominate these markets, is growing. "No one realized how rapidly the industries would concentrate," says Washington lawyer Mark Leddy, a former Justice Dept, antitrust official.
"People are reeling from it."
Let us take my home Province of British Columbia. There is really only one airline flying into Prince George and points north because CP Air has been taken over by Pacific Western and Time Air is part of that group. What will happen is we will have less and less competition and that will mean the freeze-out of small cities which will go from jet service to prop service, to a lesser degree of prop service, to perhaps no service at all. That is a real problem for Canada because we do have such vibrant small communities and that is how we exist.
We will have the problem with our railways as well with lack of competition, concentration, and other groups coming in. We will have the problem of the American railways coming in and seizing goods from eastern Canada and transporting
them to Seattle. What will happen to the Port of Vancouver if that happens?
This rosy picture of deregulation is not all it is cracked up to be. Since similar legislation was brought into the United States, 150,000 jobs were lost in the railway sector. People said: "Well, that is good. Maybe jobs need to be lost", but where are these jobs going to be picked up? They tend to be high paying, skilled and semi-skilled jobs which will be replaced with low-paying service sector jobs. That is not the way to have a dynamic economy. There is also great pressure on the workers in the United States to accept poor working conditions. Wages, benefits and safety conditions have all suffered as a result of the single-minded determination of companies to keep costs down at any price. Vancouverites in my home town will likely be forced to pay higher fares, suffer reduced services and face questionable safety when they travel to remote regions of British Columbia. This legislation makes it easy for transportation companies to abandon the less profitable remote areas.
I am energy critic for my Party and I want to make a Canadian comparison because it is an interesting comparison on deregulation. On November 1 of last year the Government deregulated natural gas. Previous to that the price of gas was regulated in Alberta. The commodity price and the transportation prices were regulated by, among others, the National Energy Board. We went to a system in natural gas where we let the market do it. What happened? The big guys benefited. We found the big energy users in eastern Canada could get contracts at $2 a thousand cubic feet for gas, whereas the consumers had to pay $3 a thousand cubic feet. It was not the little guy who benefited, it was the big companies. The Americans benefited. They got our gas at $1.75 a thousand cubic feet. That is an example of monopoly for the little guy, competition for the big guy.
I can summarize by saying that I find this Bill to be anticompetitive, anti-safety and anti-service, following the Americans at any cost without learning what the Americans have suffered as a result of their so-called deregulation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.17 p.m., 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock, when the House will proceed with debate on an interim agreement with the Government of France concerning additional fishing rights for the French fleet off the coast of Newfoundland.
At 18.18 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
January 28, 1987

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Leave has been granted to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, an interim agreement with the Government of France concerning additional fishing rights for the French fleet off the northern coast of Newfoundland.


John Edward Broadbent: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, those most affected by the agreement that was announced yesterday by the Government of Canada are clearly the fishermen, the people in the industry and the Government of Newfoundland. At the same time, those completely ignored in shaping the content of the agreement were the fishermen, the people in the industry and the Government of Newfoundland.
Very clearly, this agreement was designed by the Government of Canada, not to please the people of Atlantic Canada but to please the people of France. The clear intention of the Government was to prepare a document that would serve as the centre-piece for a photo opportunity for the visit to Canada by the President of France in a few weeks from now. That is what it was all about. I say that it is time the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) recognized that he was elected in Manicouagan not Marseille, that he is responsible to the people of Canada and not to the people of France. That is what he should understand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Given the nature of this agreement which gives French fishermen access to some 15,000 tonnes of cod that they did not have before, remarkably enough, in precisely the same area as the curtailment to Canadian fishermen of some 10,000 tonnes, perhaps it is legitimate for Atlantic Canadians to ask what type of Government could reach this agreement and make it seriously as a proposal? What could have led to this?

According to the Government, Mr. Speaker, we have this proposal because of a dispute about the boundaries of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. The Government wanted to use this proposal to settle the dispute. The Government of Canada says, and in my view it is right, that Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon's boundary extends to the 12-mile limit. However, the Government of France wants a zone that is almost as big as Nova Scotia. According to us and according to the Government, international law is on Canada's side. That is our
opinion. The French take a different view. We on the Canadian side and at any rate Members in our party are saying we should seek a ruling by an international body, by a third party.

It seems to us that when there is a dispute over conflicting claims about fishing rights off the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which presumably had been made in good faith by the two governments, that the rational, sensible approach would be to have it resolved by some third party intervention.
I see the Minister smiling over there, and I will come to what I think he is smiling about.
We think that under the circumstances the correct approach would be to try to persuade our French friends that we are right. Obviously, they tried to do the same thing with us. Then we would say, "Well, if you don't agree with our view, which clearly you do not, and we do not accept yours, then if you are good friends and traditional allies, the appropriate thing to do is to have some third party pass judgment on this which is acceptable to both sides." I suspect that the Government will say that is exactly what it tried to do. Our Government will say, "Yes, we wanted to do that, but the French Government refused". Under those circumstances, what does a rational, fair-minded Government with some sense of obligation to its people, and some sense of self-respect do? One of the reasons there are frigates and a naval presence on the coast is to enforce our sovereignty. Not that long ago we chased-


Mr. Crosbie:: You are advocating war now. This is something new.


John Edward Broadbent: -we chased a Spanish vessel half way across the Atlantic Ocean in order to legitimize our claim to sovereignty. That is what we did.


John Carnell Crosbie: They had no right to be there.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister who is participating in a Government that has sold out Newfoundlanders is now joking about this. I say to him that a sovereign nation with a sense of respect-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


An Hon. Member:: It is not a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: The rules of this House do not permit an Hon. Member to make false characterizations as to whether a Member is smiling or not smiling, or what he is doing. There has not been a smile on my face. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party should stop that kind of low and detestable tactic and stick to his speech. I have not a smile, not a grimace, not a grin, because I am listening to him with disbelief.


An Hon. Member:: I think he listened to his Government with disbelief.
January 28, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has a number of interesting points to mention to the House this evening. Perhaps before drawing conclusions too early in the debate the Hon. Member would set out the fact pattern upon which some conclusions might or might not be drawn later.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Minister says that he was not smiling, then maybe it was just the perpetual smirk that is on his face, and 1 will take back what I said. In looking at the Minister, that is exactly what I thought he was doing. If he says he was not, then I will accept his word for it.
What I will not withdraw is my accusation that he has just participated in the Government decision that has sold out the interests of his own province, and he can reply to that.
Before the Minister rose to his feet I was saying that a Government with a sense of self-respect would have made a serious attempt to negotiate a settlement. We did that. When the French did not accept our arguments, it would have proposed that we refer it to a third party. We did that. If the French do not agree, rather than giving them additional fishing rights somewhere else in our territory, which this Government has absurdly done, we ought to have done with the French what we did with the Spanish trawler not long ago.
Without firing a shot or being in any sense warlike, but in the sense of protecting our own sovereignty, we should have used our Coast Guard in order to enforce our territorial integrity. That is what we should have done.


John Carnell Crosbie: What a bluff.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, what a bluff? This Government does not know what a bluff is. Every time it has a battle with the United States, France, or any other country, it gives in completely to what the other side wants. What I am saying is that ought to have been the next step. I say that with seriousness. I am talking about a well understood and traditional ally of Canada, and also a country with an international reputation for not yielding to anyone in any flexible negotiating way, and there should be no illusions about that.
The French Government might then have seen that we were serious, if we had taken some of their vessels actually under our control to enforce our sovereignty. The French perhaps would have gone very fast at that moment to get an international settlement. That ought to have been the route.
What did this Government do instead? Instead of standing up with some sense of self-respect for our own integrity, the Government said to the French Government, "We will give you some fishing rights in part of our waters, which no one disputes are our waters, and where we have curtailed the fishing rights to our own Fishermen for conservation reasons. We will allow you to go into these waters". That is brilliant bargaining. That is what the Government has done.


John R. Rodriguez: That's tough bargaining.


Mr. Blaikie:: Chamberlain diplomacy.


John Edward Broadbent: Not only is it bad in principle as an approach to enforcing our own territorial integrity, it is also in flat contradiction of the wishes of the Government of Newfoundland. After the news of the accord came out yesterday and we raised questions in the House, I phoned the Premier of Newfoundland. I say to my hon. colleagues in the House that I do not claim to have a great deal of expertise in the details of the fishery. I have done some checking, and I hope what I am saying now is accurate. I am totally convinced that what I am saying about the international bargaining process is accurate. I phoned the Premier of Newfoundland and asked him his opinion about what conceivably could lie behind this. I wish to say to my hon. friends on the other side of the House that he was at a loss.
What he did tell me in that conversation was that he, as the Premier of Newfoundland, before Christmas wrote a detailed letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the leader of the national Government, which made it very clear from the point of view of the Government of Newfoundland, which is the province most directly affected, that there were to be no additional concessions in terms of fishing rights in any other waters as an attempt to resolve the St. Pierre and Miquelon conflict.
If the Government wanted a co-operative attitude with any Government in the country when the economic foundation of the province was in question, it would listen to the provincial Government of the area. Surely it would do that if cooperation in the federal system means anything. The Premier made clear to the Government of Canada, on a Premier-Prime Minister basis, right before Christmas, that there was to be no concession.
Just before that time the Government of Newfoundland, the industry, and the fishermen were party to ongoing talks and negotiations. Suddenly they were cut out and meetings took place in which they did not participate. Then last week officials from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans went to France to sign this incredibly unacceptable deal with the Government of France.
It is pretty clear why they were cut out of the negotiations. If the federal Government had continued to have as part of its negotiating team, as it ought to have had in the circumstances, representatives of the Government and people of Newfoundland, it could not have made the kind of deal it did. The federal Government knew that, because the Premier of Newfoundland had made clear to the Prime Minister before Christmas that any new territorial concessions for fishing rights were not acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland, and correctly not acceptable. Giving the Government of France additional territory in one part of the fishery in order to resolve a conflict in another must be about the stupidest kind of bargaining one could ever imagine.

January 28, 1987
In case one is inclined to think, as some Members on the government side might be, that Mr. Peckford is an aberration who, for whatever reason, has a battle to pick with the Government of Canada, we saw in very vivid form today the reaction of another Premier from Nova Scotia.


Mr. Orlikow:: Another Conservative Premier.


John Edward Broadbent: Another conservative Premier who, according to a Canadian Press wire story, found it to be an incredibly unacceptable deal. I telephoned Premier Buchanan as well to try to get from him some rationale about what he thought might have led to this decision. The Premier of Nova Scotia also had no answer about what could cause the federal Government to make such an incredible deal. His rough calculations, according to figures which appeared in the press, were that this would cost the people of Atlantic Canada some S200 million.
We have the Premier of Nova Scotia and his Government opposed. We have the Premier of Newfoundland and his Government opposed. So far as I am aware, any spokesperson for the industry or the unions of the workers directly affected have been totally opposed to the deal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who supported it?


John Edward Broadbent: That is a good question. The only people who supported it were members of the federal caucus of the Conservative Party, which we can be assured will be a greatly diminished number in about two years from now.
If one asks oneself the question, as one must, how the Government could take this approach and why we ended up in such a deal, one looks for some kind of rationale. I regret to say that the only rationale I could find is that in this tentative agreement with the Government of France we have another illustration of the Government's whole approach to international negotiations. Its approach is to make concession after concession until it has given the other side enough so that it feels overstuffed and then signs an agreement.
I wish I was kidding in this context. I wish my remarks were simply facetious. However, I do not think that at all. 1 believe that is what the Government has done. It is kind of a Willy Loman approach to international relations-a smile, a handshake, give away what you have and you will get an agreement. As strange as that ought to be to anyone, it is the approach of the Government. We have seen it in the negotiations with the United States.
I ask the Conservative Members, who I agree are paying serious attention to this debate, to think about that. As soon as the Prime Minister came into power, in terms of our bilateral arrangements with our greatest trading partner, the United States, what did he do? The Government gave up FIRA. Then it made concessions on shakes and shingles. Then it caved in on the pharmaceutical industry. Then it caved in completely on the softwood decision. In sector after sector the Government, in terms of getting a free trade agreement with the United
States, has been giving the United States everything it could conceivably want, and then some. It followed the same kind of approach with the Government of France by giving it additional fishing rights in one part of our territory as a gesture to obtain an agreement to negotiate settlement elsewhere, not to have a settlement.
Any foolish person can get an agreement with someone else if one gives the other person everything he wants. That is not the way the Prime Minister of Canada ought to be governing the people of Canada. He was elected to govern Canada, not to give Canada away piece by piece.
Obviously members of my Party and the people of Atlantic Canada will be pleased that we have had this debate. Before it is too late, I hope the Government will come to its senses. I hope it will listen to the people of Atlantic Canada. I hope it will listen to the arguments which will be made on the opposition side. I hope it will listen to the Governments of its own Party throughout Atlantic Canada. In short, I hope it will change its mind and tear up this agreement. I hope, just for once, the Government will say no to another country-no to France and yes to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think we should compliment the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party for bringing forward this important motion. In the spirit of parliamentary reform, I think it is important that all Members of Parliament have an opportunity to discuss from time to time issues of critical importance to Canada. Indeed this is such an issue.
I was going to say that it is always easy for opposition Members to be critical. It is far more helpful if they come forward with some good ideas, proposals, and solutions to difficult problems with which the Government and previous Governments have wrestled for many years.


John Edward Broadbent: We just did.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I hear the Hon. Leader of the NDP. I was about to compliment him for bringing forward some solutions. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party suggested that the time to negotiate has ended. I find that to be somewhat incredulous because Canada has always been a peaceful nation.
The problem we inherited is one which extends back some 450 years in the history of our country and it is not one which suggests a simple solution. In fact we have but three choices to make in the face of this history and a strong claim by France, another country which has been an important building block and an important piece of the history of our country, to perpetual fishing rights within the zone we now claim and have claimed since 1977 as the sovereign fishing domain of Canada primarily.
Of course we are talking about an area in dispute whose boundaries have been interpreted in two different ways-one
January 28, 1987

by Canada to encompass only a 12-mile territorial sea around the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and a separate claim by the other sovereign nation of France to boundaries extending some 180 miles south of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and into the mouth of the St. Lawrence estuary.
In that intervening zone, by all principles of international law, the usual undertaking between governments when there is a dispute-and many of these disputes have arisen since the time the Law of the Sea was adopted in the early 1980s-is to agree to avoid physical confrontation which can lead to war by trying to negotiate an acceptable compromise to reflect adequately the interests and aspirations of both nations.
We, as a nation, and all Canadian people, particularly those of Atlantic Canada and the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, feel a very special attachment to the fishery resource which has been part of their history since the first settlers arrived in Newfoundland in the 16th Century and when Jacques Cartier first sailed up the St. Lawrence River and established the French settlements which became Lower Canada.
I was alarmed to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggest that the time for negotiation has run out after 450 years of peace and harmony between our respective countries. Bearing fully in mind the aspirations and the entitlements of the fishermen and people of Atlantic Canada, why it is that the Leader of the NDP says,"Time has run out. We believe the Government of Canada should confront the French, chase them out of Canadian waters, irrespective of history and even, if necessary, confront them with force"? That is a ludicrous proposition coming from a leader of a Party which espouses peace and non-confrontation, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: Why did we do it with Spain?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I would like to explain why this is a ludicrous suggestion. I hope Hon. Members over there will give me as much opportunity to respond, and listen in silence, as I have given them.
We have for the first time in the history of our country reached a point where France has initialled an agreement which does little more than agree to negotiate two parallel agreements between now and the end of 1987, one dealing with the unresolved boundary issue, and a second to establish joint fishing arrangements during that three to four-year period when the compulsory third party arbitration process is allowed to take effect.
I think I heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party say that we should find a third party arbitrator. That has been and must be the objective of the Government of Canada in seeking a permanent and lasting resolution to this problem.
I want to say at the very beginning that I and all of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and particularly my colleagues from Newfoundland,
understand that to the people of that very beautiful part of Canada there is a feeling about the cod stocks, the groundfish resources of the Grand Banks. It is very close to the hearts of Newfoundlanders and very close to the soul of their province. I want to make it clear before I go into the detail of the agreement that in no way will this Government compromise or diminish the importance of that resource on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland to the continued future and growing prosperity of all of the people in that province whose history is so deeply interwoven with that resource.
We have a problem, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, you.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If Hon. Members want to be catty, that is their prerogative. I am trying to be reasonable and informative.
This problem was reinforced in 1972 when the Liberal Government entered into a treaty with France, because there had been some disputation in the 1960s over this issue. That treaty, in Article 2, recognizes the right of French nationals to fish in these waters, that is, waters which we now claim to be Canadian within the 200-mile economic zone. While the French agree that those fishing practices will be subject to possible measures for the conservation of resources, they at the same time insisted and continue to insist in all of the bilateral discussions that have been under way that they have a perpetual right to fish, not only in the waters in the disputed area of St. Pierre and Miquelon but in all of the waters which Canada claims to be there for the benefit and in recognition of the sovereignty of the country and our people who depend on that resource.
Since that treaty was signed in 1972, and I must add, that was a time when Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party were very accustomed to supporting their friends in the Liberal Party, they helped to reinforce this agreement to saddle Canada with a perpetual commitment-


Ms. Mitchell:: Don't be catty now.


Mr. Shields:: That is the truth coming out.


Thomas Edward Siddon: These Hon. Members did not help to resolve the problem either in 1972 or in 1984 when these same Members of the NDP aided and abetted the Liberal Government of the day under Prime Minister Trudeau. At that time the Liberal Government, through an exchange of diplomatic notes with France in June, 1984, agreed that Canada would turn a blind eye to any fishing practices by French national vessels in the disputed area south of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In other words, the international agreement concerned, by an exchange of diplomatic notes-and Members of Liberal Party opposite were in Government at the time-


Mr. Baker:: What were the diplomatic notes?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is why the Liberals did not move a motion today.

January 28, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) has applied today for an emergency debate. The Chair has ruled in favour of that application. I would ask Hon. Members to contain themselves enough so that the debate can in fact continue. The Hon. Minister.


Thomas Edward Siddon: As I was saying, Members of the Government at that time in June, 1984 agreed that French national vessels could be allowed to fish unimpeded in the disputed zone-


George Baker: What do you mean unimpeded?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I could read the language of the agreement.


George Baker: Yes, read the language.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The language of the agreement, confirmed by an exchange of diplomatic notes, is as follows:
Each party in the disputed zone will abstain from regulating fishing vessels flying the flag of the other party in the disputed zone.


George Baker: From boarding.


Thomas Edward Siddon: As a consequence of the inability of previous governments to deal with this problem, we are today faced with a decision taken by the Le Bretagne arbitration. This was another consequence of the dispute settlement provisions of the treaty of 1972. It now allows large factory freezer trawlers, up to the numbers designated in the 1972 treaty, to fish in that disputed zone and be immune from the Canadian regulatory regime. In other words, from France's perspective, that is France's territorial waters and we have no right to enforce or administer fishing quotas in that region.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why act like the Liberals?


Thomas Edward Siddon: In that disputed zone, which in fisheries jargon is referred to as 3PS, Canada under the protocols of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has established quotas for the present year of 41,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod, and we have generously, for some years, granted to the French national vessels, particularly the vessels of St. Pierre and Miquelon, a quota of 6,400 tonnes for this year. That is not something new. That has been established practice for several years. In return, France believes that that entire quota of
41,000	tonnes is essentially a French quota and has been persistently overfishing that quota. We know from records which have been confirmed that in 1986, France overfished that quota by an amount in excess of 20,000 tonnes of codfish. That overfishing in this disputed zone represents lost income and lost opportunity to the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada amounting to over $40 million of landed value to the fishermen.
The point is that as long as the disputed zone exists and Canada is not able to enforce and manage the fishery in that zone, there will be a blatant abuse of the resource to the detriment of Atlantic Canada and, particularly, the fishermen
of southern Newfoundland. Therefore, the Government has three choices. We have been well aware of the particular problems of these three options. We can ignore the situation as it has been ignored for many years. We can face the French in confrontation as the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has astonishingly suggested or we can try to negotiate a solution which once and for all will eliminate the massive overfishing by France in an area which Canada believes to be its own.
The problem has become particularly complicated this year because, under the provisions of the 1972 treaty, the French national vessels, the so-called metropolitan fleet, were allowed to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 15 years. Last year they took a quota of 17,000 tonnes. That treaty provision has expired. We have essentially booted those French vessels out of the Gulf and they want somewhere to go. They do not want to go home to France so they have concentrated their fishing pressure on this disputed zone at great risk to the stocks in that area. That is why it is extremely critical that Canada, at this juncture, decide either to negotiate a lasting solution to this problem or to confront these vessels originating from France, even with military force as the Hon. Leader of the NDP has, I believe, so irresponsibly suggested. I think that would be a premature step. Therefore, I want to explain why it is we feel we have taken a major step forward. Then I will talk about the so-called tradeoffs or the price to which the mover of this motion has referred.
We have secured a signed agreement from France, not to take a certain number of fish from Canadian waters or to establish a specific boundary to resolve this problem once and for all, but to negotiate two agreements by December 31, 1987. The first agreement would be to develop the legal terms of reference, or compromis as it is called in diplomatic jargon, under which this issue would be referred to the compulsory third-party dispute settlement provisions under international law. We would celebrate the fact that France has finally come to accept that this important matter must be referred to international dispute settlement procedures.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Coupled with the agreement to negotiate terms of reference, France has also agreed to negotiate by December 31, 1987 a set of interim fishing arrangements for the period between 1988 and 1991 during which this dispute settlement process will unfold.
In that context, we have not promised to give any Fish quotas away, and it will certainly be an objective of this Government in the negotiation of those interim fishing arrangements for a four-year period to ensure that the French overfishing in the disputed zone is curtailed and curtailed drastically.
Second, it is our objective to ensure that those fishing arrangements and whatever quotas are allocated to France are decided in the context of discussions with the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, with the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and with the industry generally.
January 28, 1987

I might say that we feel it important to recognize that not one fish has been placed on the bargaining table. We have offered to talk about the possibility of a very modest allocation in the area which is so important and precious to Newfoundland, referred to as the northern cod area or 2J+3KL. I can assure the House that the French have great designs on very large allocations of cod in that alternate location and that the Government will resist any such claim on their part.
We are talking about solving the problem of overfishing to the extent of tens of thousands of tonnes per year. We must put before the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada the question, what is the price they are willing to pay to have the matter resolved? Our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that any price which is too high for Newfoundland and Labrador is too high for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think, therefore, it is important that our friends and neighbours in France give witness to this debate and the discussions that have been taking place in Canada over the last two or three days. It is important that they realize that the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, will not stand for some other significant tradeoff in order to resolve this boundary dispute for all the reasons the Hon. Leader of the NDP and my other colleagues have presented in this discussion.
I will take a moment or so to comment on the remaining matter, which is this supposed allocation of 15,600 tonnes of new fish to get this deal. That misinterpretation and the exaggeration and mischievousness with which it has been used is typical of the disruptive tactics of the Opposition which so often prevent Canada from moving in an orderly way toward a desirable goal. In the year 1987, 15,600 tonnes of Atlantic fish resources will indeed be fished by France under arrangements that have been fully negotiated with all the Atlantic provinces and with the industry, and which are in full accord with our 1987 groundfish plan and our international commitments to France.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Enough. Enough is enough.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Of that portion, 8,000 tonnes-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're way over your time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has asked for an emergency debate on a matter which the Speaker thinks is very important. As a consequence, I granted the application. We have listened to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and, strictly speaking, his time has expired. The Minister has asked to be allowed to speak for a few more minutes. It would seem to me to be reasonable if there is consent. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too long, but I think it is important that I conclude this information in its entirety. I have a list here of some 15,600 tonnes of allocations which the present Opposition have been bandying about as a giveaway. In fact, the allocations are contained within the 1987 groundfish plan, are fully supported by industry and are fully supported by the provinces. These allocations include the 6,400 tonnes granted to France in the disputed area, part of the Canadian generosity, as France has always been granted that consideration. As well, there are 1,545 tonnes under the long-term agreement which we have with the European Economic Community and even 2,400 tonnes of squid which they have never managed to catch.
There is no giveaway here. There is one exception, and that is that in the very far northern area of 2GH, with full knowledge of all the industry advisers and the Province of Newfoundland, an additional 3,000 tonnes of surplus cod which was never caught by Canadian fishermen or foreign vessels has been made available for 1987 only. That fish will probably not be caught at all because France did not even go into those northern waters last year. I believe it is far better that they go way up north off the shores of Greenland than to fish our stocks off the Grand Banks or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is the only price that has been paid for this year. It is a non-existent price to bring this matter, through the negotiation of these two parallel agreements, to the point where we can resolve the boundary dispute once and for all.
It is important that governments have the courage, from time to time, to negotiate difficult issues of this nature. Leadership demands the courage to negotiate. Opposition amounts to an abdication of that kind of leadership. This deal will be very good for all Atlantic Canadians or we will not proceed as the negotiations unfold. I can assure all Members of the House that the provinces, the industry and the fishermen will be fully involved in all discussions between now and the end of December, 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this will only take a couple of moments. I do not need 20 minutes to explain why this particular announcement by the federal Government cannot be accepted by Canadian fishermen. It cannot be accepted by anyone who knows anything at all about the issue. It cannot be accepted because the Government has taken fishing quotas from Canadians. We have now discovered that behind the scenes, in secret, the Government has given those quotas to foreign fleets.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Nonsense. Be reasonable.


George Baker: The Hon. Minister is telling me to be reasonable. He should speak to fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland who cannot even get enough fish to feed their families or 10 unemployment insurance stamps for the year-

January 28, 1987
tell them to be reasonable. The Government has licensed 10 factory freezer trawlers from the French metropolitan fleet for the south coast. He has licensed another factory freezer trawler from St. Pierre and Miquelon. He has licensed five wet fish trawlers from St. Pierre and Miquelon to fish on the south coast of Newfoundland. He says they have assigned them a quota of 6,400 metric tonnes. Last year, according to the Minister's figures, those particular boats took 17,000 tonnes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Minister has told us tonight that they took 26,000 tonnes on the south coast of Newfoundland. Therefore, they took 43,000 tonnes.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Quit exaggerating.


George Baker: The entire quota for the south coast of Newfoundland is 41,000 tonnes. The Minister has given the French fleet enough capacity in Canadian licences to overfish the total allowable catch for the entire south coast of Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


George Baker: As though that were not bad enough, in this agreement with the French the Government has given a quota of what we call northern codstock, 2J+3KL. That is cod fish along the east coast of Newfoundland, the northeast coast of Newfoundland, and off the Labrador coast.
This year the Canadian vessels have had their quotas reduced. The fishermen on the northeast and east coasts of Newfoundland and on the Labrador coast have been told that the amount of fishing to take place there this year must be reduced because the Canadian Government biologists say that the stocks are down.
When the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland he stood in the Newfoundland legislature and said that the fish stock in 2J+3KL should never be touched beyond the needs of the people who live in the immediate area. He explained that fish migrate. In the winter time they are offshore and they come inshore in the summer time when fishermen can catch them. The federal Government had reduced the quota for that entire area. The fishermen and the companies did not like it, but they swallowed it because that is what the biologists said.
Now the federal Government has turned around and the Minister asks why Newfoundlanders, the fishermen, the workers on the offshore boats, and the fish plant owners are so angry. After having been told that their quota must be reduced, the federal Government has given a quota in that very same area to a foreign nation. One can understand why Newfoundlanders are angry.
As though that were not enough, three weeks ago the federal Government informed boat owners in Newfoundland that they were not allowed to go into the area which covers the entire south coast of Newfoundland and extends out 200 miles. Newfoundland boats are not allowed down there this year. Longliner operators were told that they cannot go back to 3PS this year. They were informed of that three weeks ago.
Imagine Newfoundlanders not being allowed to go back to the south coast of Newfoundland.
We have now learned, of course, that the Government has issued all of the factory freezer trawler licences which the French metropolitan fleet wants for the south coast of Newfoundland where the Newfoundlanders are not allowed to go. I am sure you would say to yourself, Mr. Speaker, that that is terrible.
In addition to that, in the great wisdom of the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) the Government has told all Canadian fishermen that for the first time in their lives in 1987 they are not allowed to fish on the northern part of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
We have the northeast coast of Newfoundland having a quota cut-back for Newfoundland; we have the south coast of Newfoundland where they are no longer allowed to go; now the Government of Canada says they are not allowed to put their boats into the northern part of the Grand Banks. It is incredible. There are no offshore boats allowed either, including from Nova Scotia from where they came before. In 1987, for the first time, National Sea Products, Fishery Products International and every other company cannot go to the nose of the Grand Banks. The Minister says that there is an over-reaction in Newfoundland to these announcements. It is not the French who are down on the nose of the Grand Banks. It is the Americans, and now the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Koreans.
Recently I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Deputy Minister why these nations are allowed there when Newfoundland boats are not. The Minister said: "We made the proposal to NAFO, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, that all nations should now leave the nose of the Grand Banks for 1987 for conservation reasons". I asked: "Why is the American fleet down there now?" The Minister said: "They are not members of NAFO". I asked why the Spanish and the Portuguese are fishing there, since they are members of NAFO. The Minister said: "They are members of NAFO but they are also members of the EEC, which is a member of NAFO, but the rules of NAFO state that if you object to a motion from another country you do not have to follow that motion". I asked: "Is there any nation other than Canada that is not allowed to go to the nose of the Grand Banks?" He said: "I do not know of any". The Minister then asks why Newfoundlanders are over-reacting to his announcement.
I suggest that not only Newfoundland will over-react as a result of this announcement today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He talked about the level of the cod allocation for St. Pierre and Miquelon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is along your coastline in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It is off Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is interesting that the Secretary of State talks about legalities when we know from the La Bretagne decision

that if one is from France, one need only register the boat in St. Pierre and Miquelon and it is a St. Pierre and Miquelon boat. The Secretary of State stated in his announcement that the level of cod allocation is an exception as it is greater than what Canada's legal obligations require under the 1972 agreement which, by the way, ran out last May. He went on to say:
This exception has been made in order to facilitate resolution of the boundary dispute.
The Government is giving away this fish when Quebecers have been cut back in the Gulf this year, and New Brunswick-ers, Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders have been cut back. Yet the Minister says that in order to facilitate the resolution of a boundary dispute he has given some to St. Pierre and Miquelon.
I enjoyed listening to the Member for St. John's West in Newfoundland this morning because he was speaking his mind. I am sure he will do so in the House today and deal with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The point is that the Government is saying that a few years ago the Liberals gave it away and created the problem. The Minister was referring to 1983 and 1984 when there was no overfishing by the French. The fish plants in France opened in 1985. While the document containing the official figures is marked "confidential" by the Department of External Affairs, one can see from these exact figures that the French fleet started overfishing in 1985 and 1986, fishing four times over their quota on the south coast of Newfoundland. Their quota was 6,400 tonnes and the Minister admitted tonight that the French took 20,000 tonnes more than 6,400 tonnes. In other words, they took as much as the Canadian fleet last year. The total allowable catch for the entire south coast of Newfoundland and to the east of Nova Scotia was surpassed by 6,000 tonnes.
The truth can be seen in the first page of the press release today, which I will put on the record to show what a flippant and flip-flop kind of government it is. The press release states:
The two countries have agreed to a meeting of Canadian and French scientists as soon as possible-
That sounds rather impressive. It goes on:
-to undertake a joint assessment of the state of the cod stock off the south coast of Newfoundland-
And then states:
-now being overfished by French vessels: and joint projections of what will happen to the stock if the current overfishing continues.
They will appoint scientists to determine the state of the stock when the Minister says that it is drastically overfished. The only thing that should happen to this agreement is that it be put in the ash can of history where it belongs. The Government should do away with this agreement because it will not be tolerated in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Quebec.
Today, fish companies are barely surviving. According to the recent unemployment insurance report, it is suggested that
perhaps Fishermen in Atlantic Canada should not receive unemployment insurance because it actually amounts to more than what the average fisherman earns from fishing. It suggests that perhaps another way should be found to support fishermen. That suggests to me and everyone in the Official Opposition that fishermen are not catching enough fish.
It is unacceptable for the Government to pass those fish stocks over to other nations, not only the French, but the Americans as well, without objection. Yet the Government wonders why petitions are beginning to come from Newfoundland and there are suggetions that people will come to Ottawa to tell the Government exactly what they think.
In conclusion, I want to refer to a phone call that I received this morning. It was from a gentleman who asked me if it was true that he will not receive his unemployment insurance cheque on Friday. I asked him if he was a logger who worked at Abitibi-Price. When he replied that he was, I told him that he was correct that he would not get his unemployment insurance cheque on Friday. He indicated that he had heard that the federal Government would deduct all of the vacation pay he received the first week in January but that he received it last year and it did not affect his unemployment insurance. He closed the door, then told me that last week he gave $300 from that cheque to his son who is in university. He will have to ask him how much he has left because his family will need it since they cannot get welfare as a result of the 90-day rule. It is an example of the type of phone calls we receive from our primary producers in Newfoundland.
Some 219 loggers got hit on Friday. Unemployment insurance benefits were removed for a month because of some mistake by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Fishermen are being discriminated against by government policy. When you contact the Government and ask it to do something about it, it just turns the other way and says what a magnificent deal it has made with some foreign country.
Newfoundlanders are not going to accept this. The fishermen are not going to accept this. We say this House of Commons should not accept this.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a word of appreciation to my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), for initiating this debate and to the Speaker for granting it.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is leaving now. He is going early.


James Douglas Manly: It is a very important issue. We wanted to bring it before the House, and we look forward to hearing what some of the government Members are going to say, particularly those from Newfoundland and other Atlantic provinces.
There is a great deal of outrage in Atlantic Canada over the agreement signed with France. The outrage is fully justified because this deal represents a betrayal in four different ways. First, it is a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty. Second, it is a

January 28, 1987

betrayal of federal-provincial relations. Third, it is a betrayal of the Atlantic fishing industry. Finally, and most important, it is a betrayal of the fishermen themselves, their families and their communities.
I want to speak just a bit about each of those. First, sovereignty. Ten years ago, in January, 1977, Canada established a 200-mile exclusive economic zone and began to patrol and enforce it. Establishing that zone took international negotiations, and a measure of determination and gumption on Canada's part. About 12 or 13 miles off the south shore of Newfoundland we have the two small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.


Mr. Forrestall:: You are sure of that?


James Douglas Manly: That is according to everything I have read. I have never been there.


J. Michael Forrestall: Who wrote your speech for you?


James Douglas Manly: You can check and see that the notes are written by hand.


John Carnell Crosbie: Go back to sleep.


James Douglas Manly: By my own hand. I do my own research on these things, thank you very much. I do not need to have a government flack prepare my speeches for me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may continue.


James Douglas Manly: Those islands have passed back and forth between Great Britain and France. Finally, with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, they passed into French ownership. They are one of France's last remaining colonies. They are being treated as a colony and the people of those two islands are not very happy about it.
However, with the establishment of Canada's 200-mile EEZ, France decided it was going to use these islands to establish certain claims. They claimed an area as large as the Province of Nova Scotia. They have attempted to back up their claim with some force. In August of 1983 the French sent a gunboat into that area to establish their claim. They were involved in seismic exploration and of course in blatant overfishing of that entire area. No one in Canada recognizes the claim France has made and no one in the international scene, apart from France, would recognize it has any real validity. Yet what has Canada done? We sent diplomatic notes of protest. The gunboat incident was kind of smoothed over.


John Carnell Crosbie: Should we send a gunboat? What would you do?


James Douglas Manly: France had indicated it was prepared to push the issue.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would you send a submarine or aircraft carrier or what?


James Douglas Manly: Overfishing was a constant practice.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is your answer?


James Douglas Manly: The Conservative critic at the time was very concerned about the question of overfishing. He pointed out that the French had taken two and a half times their quota. He suggested that perhaps the Government should deduct what they had overfished in the past two years from their quota, in succeeding years. That was in 1983. Since then the Tories have come to power and instead of two and a half times the quota they have been allowed to go up to eight times the quota and the Government does nothing about it.
Last June the Minister decided he had to do something, so he issued a warning. He said there were not going to be any more allocations unless foreign nations followed good conservation practices. He said that means good behaviour, not only inside the Canadian zone but also in the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization management area outside the zone. He said we are sending a very clear message to foreign nations. In return for a licence to fish in our waters and permission to use our ports they must co-operate with our conservation efforts and observe the fishing limits that we and NAFO have established. He said he was sending a very clear message. The very clear message given by this agreement is that Canada's interests can be ignored with impunity. That is what France has done and I expect other nations who want to establish their rights in this area will do the same.
Under this agreement the French will continue to overfish. There are absolutely no guarantees that the agreement is going to put an end to overfishing. We licensed nine factory freezer trawlers when it is obvious that one could have taken the total allocation. Why license nine when we knew there was going to be overfishing?


John Edward Broadbent: They asked for nine.


James Douglas Manly: We are lucky they did not ask for 20.
What did we get in this deal with the French? We got a vague commitment to submit this to some future arbitration. I think it is very clear from everything said this evening, including what the Minister said, that this is a fundamental betrayal of Canadian sovereignty.
Then we have the betrayal of federal-provincial relations. That is an area into which the Government came with so much hope and so much promise. For a time it even appeared as though the Government was going to deliver better federal-provincial relations. There appeared to be a better climate, a new and better era of consultation. That seems to have gone out the window in the last few months in a number of cases and this is perhaps one of the more blatant ones. When the going got tough, the federal Government jettisoned any consultation with the provincial Government.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not so.


January 28, 1987


James Douglas Manly: The Newfoundland Government was involved in the consultations in an attempt to reach a solution to the problem. That Government was aware of the French overfishing and the danger it represented to the stocks. It knew something had to be done and was involved in the consultation. But it did not agree with the approach the federal Government was prepared to take.
As my Leader pointed out, Premier Peckford sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in December indicating very clearly that his Government did not want the federal Government to allocate additional areas and additional stocks off the coast of Newfoundland in an attempt to reach an agreement on this. They said that very clearly. Because they took that strong position, the federal Government decided it could only reach an agreement with France by jettisoning the Newfoundland consultation process.
The other Atlantic provinces were also cut out. No wonder we have Tory premiers breaking party ranks. We know there is a fair degree of loyalty to party in Canada. It is not easy for premiers of a party to disagree publicly with their federal counterparts. However, in this case they had no option. In spite of what the Prime Minister said once, these people had no option if they were going to be loyal to their own people and provinces.
We have the Premier of Nova Scotia saying that this deal the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr.Siddon) thinks is so good is going to cost the Atlantic Provinces some $200 million. Obviously the whole federal-provincial relationship has been betrayed and those five provinces in particular have been betrayed. Third, this is a betrayal of the Atlantic fishery. Premier Peckford has spoken about the importance of the Atlantic fishery to Newfoundland. I would like to read from a paper he presented last year:
On Newfoundland's eastern continental shelf, one of the world's richest marine resources thrives in cold Atlantic waters. The Northern Cod stock is confined to a long, narrow geographic area, extending 1,000 miles along the north and east coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. For four centuries it has been the basis of settlement and continued development of the greater part of our province. Today it remains our economy's most important resource and the foundation of our fishing industry.
With Newfoundland's entry into Confederation in 1949, and since the 1977 extension of our 200-mile fishing zone. Northern Cod is now a Canadian resource. We would like all Canadians to understand the importance of Northern Cod to the fishing industry and the national economy.
Unfortunately, this Government does not understand the importance of Northern Cod and the fishing industry to Newfoundland or to the national economy. The growth of factory freezer trawlers meant that in the 1950s more and more foreign vessels were coming in and taking a resource which was primarily Newfoundland's up to that time. Therefore, there was a drop in the catch of Newfoundland fishermen from 160,000 tonnes in 1959 to only 34,000 tonnes by 1974. With the establishment of the 200-mile limit there was a gradual rebuilding of those stocks. The 200-mile limit did not include the northern tail of the Grand Banks and there was
foreign Fishing in those areas which was still depleting the stocks.
Tom Rideout, the provincial Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of the House on November 4, 1985. He spoke of some of the dangers to the fishery resource of Newfoundland at that time. He pinpointed the danger which would come if we licensed factory freezer trawlers from Canada. Four days later on November 8, the then Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Erik Nielsen, announced he was licensing three factory freezer trawlers from Canada. That was done in spite of the fact that it was setting a precedent which the French would be sure to follow. Tom Rideout pointed out:
The treaty between Canada and France specifically says the present vessels operating in Canadian waters-even though some of them have factory freezer capability-that capability will not be utilized; they must continue to fish and operate on an equal footing with Canadian vessels.
Once, however, we licensed the factory freezer trawlers of our own to operate in that area, France was free to move in and do as it wanted. Therefore, we set a very bad precedent.
In September the Minister announced a special research project on Northern Cod. The report on the study of cod stocks was tabled in December. On that basis it makes it very hard to understand why the Minister feels it is necessary that the two countries agree to a meeting of Canadian and French scientists as soon as possible to undertake a joint assessment of the state of cod stock off the South Coast of Newfoundland. Where have our Department of Fisheries scientists been all this time? Do we not have that kind of adequate assessment? Why is that part of an announcement? It sounds as though it might be the one positive thing in this announcement, but in fact it should not have been necessary at all if our Department was doing its job.
The Fisheries Council of Canada is very much aware of the danger to our cod stocks from French overfishing and yet, like the provinces, it has insisted that this problem should not be solved by granting extra concessions in Canadian waters to the French fleet. Again, the Government chose to ignore what the fisheries representatives were saying. It ignored what the union was saying and what the provinces which were involved were saying. There is a betrayal, therefore, of the Atlantic fishing industry.
There is a betrayal of the fishermen themselves, of their families and communities. On December 29, less than a month ago, the Department of Fisheries announced cut-backs in the stocks which Canadian fishermen could take in Atlantic Canada. These are cut-backs our fishermen would not be able to take. Yet last week it was announced the French fleet was going to be able to take an additional 15,000 tonnes.
Newfoundland depends upon the fishery. The fishery is perhaps the most vital resource of that province and the wealth of the fishery belongs to the people of Newfoundland. The Government has a responsibility to look after that wealth. When Newfoundland came into Confederation, it brought that wealth to Canada. The federal Government has a trust and

January 28, 1987
responsibility to the people of Newfoundland for that resource. What have we done with it? We bargained it away. We frittered it away. We turned our back whenever there has been any kind of assault upon it, Newfoundland brought that resource into Canada and into Confederation and we have let it slip away.
One of the most amazing things I heard today was from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who said this decision was a unanimous decision by Cabinet. If it was unanimous, we have to ask where the people were who would speak up for Newfoundland? Who was speaking up for the Atlantic fishery? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is perhaps a bit unhappy about that statement, but it was made in this House and we will listen very closely to see what the Minister of Transport has to say about it. I suspect he missed the boat.
We want to emphasize the importance of law in solving problems. We all want to see this matter resolved in some international tribunal. But how do we get France to come to the table? The Minister believes the best way to kill a cat is to choke it with cream. He tried to bribe France.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You would rather shoot them.


James Douglas Manly: I do not think we need to shoot people but surely we can demand that other nations show us a little respect. We have done absolutely nothing since this Government has been in power to make other nations respect us; not the United States, not France, nor any other nation.
In conclusion, I would simply like to read some words of Douglas Johnston from his book entitled Canada and the New International Law of the Sea:
Canada is governed from the centre. The ocean is, literally, peripheral to the perceptions and concerns of Government. Most Canadian decision makers, indeed most Canadians, may view the ocean as a regional matter in the affairs of the state. Yet ocean policy is no less national in significance than agriculture or manufacturing.
Sadly, there is no guaranatee that Canadians are ready to give the ocean a high priority on the national agenda. Our sentiments turn inward to the national centre.
The ocean should have high priority, and if it is going to have that high priority, it has to have some leadership from the Government. We have not received that from the Minister, nor from the Government. The people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada have had enough of this Government. They want to see some leadership. They want to see their resource protected and some future for themselves and for their families.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important topic to be discussed. Rather than deal with the half-truths and the specious comments that have been made to date, I want first to set the background. We are prisoners of our past.
What is the past that now governs what actions we can or cannot take in the matter of France, St. Pierre and Miquelon
and their claims of a 200-mile economic zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon territorial boundaries and the right-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is it really a unanimous cabinet choice?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to be interrupted, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind. I am speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On January 1, 1977, a 200-mile economic zone was declared by Canada, and accepted by most of the international community.
On March 27, 1972, a treaty was entered into between Canada and France to govern fishing relations between Canada and France in the waters of Canada. France has historic rights that date back to 1763, I think it is, and the Treaty of Paris. There was a Liberal administration in office at that time. As a matter of fact, when this treaty was entered into the Secretary of State for External Affairs was the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. Believe me, it is this treaty that is at the nub of the problem that Canada has today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It was only at the end of 1986 that, finally, the French metropolitan fleet no longer had the right to send trawlers into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, our own internal waters, to catch fish under the terms of that treaty. France, today, or St. Pierre and Miquelon, still have the right to send in 10 trawlers to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
As a result of the ending of the rights of the metropolitan fleet of France, some 17,000 tonnes of fish will come back to Canada this year, fish which can be caught by our own Fishermen. This treaty says nothing about quotas. It sets no quotas. But if Canada and France do not agree on the amount of fish to be caught under the treaty, then the French have the right to go to compulsory arbitration if they disagree with the amount allotted by Canada. That is their right under this treaty.
In addition, under the terms of this treaty the metropolitan fleet of France has unquantified rights-unquantified rights- in the Canadian 200-mile zone, in perpetuity, to take fish. If Canada does not allot France a quota then it has the right to go to compulsory arbitration under the terms of this 1972 treaty to have a quota assigned to it. This is a treaty which has no termination date. It is a treaty which was entered into by the Liberal administration of the Government of Canada in 1972, a treaty that will bind us forever, unless the two parties can agree together to terminate it. Under Article 10 of the treaty there is a dispute settlement procedure.
In addition to the agreement of 1972 which governs our situation, there is a long-term agreement with the European Economic Community entered into when? It was entered into in 1982, again under a Liberal administration of the Government of Canada. This agreement is in effect from 1982 until 1987. Under the terms of it the Liberal Government gave a quota to the European Economic Community of 9,500 tonnes
January 28, 1987

of 2J+3KL cod, cod which, today, is sacred to the Elon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Watch your blood pressure, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Of the 9,500 tonnes, the EEC has allocated 7,200 tonnes to Germany, 1,545 tonnes to France and approximately 800 tonnes to England. Luckily for us, that treaty expires at the end of 1987. So let us put those facts in context. That is another Liberal treaty.
Finally, the last treaty I want to mention is an agreement or exchange of notes signed on June 20 and June 28, 1984, when Senator De Bane was Minister of Fisheries and Senator MacEachen-they have both gone to their rewards-was the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That was an exchange of notes in which Canada and France agreed that in this disputed area, known as 3PS, neither country would harass the ships of the other because this was a disputed zone. That is why today when France says it wants nine vessels licensed to fish in this disputed zone, 3PS, we license them.
Why do we license them? Because we want to establish, when this matter goes to arbitration, that it has been accepting licences from us over these intervening years and therefore appears to be submitting to the fact that we have some control or authority over these waters. That is why they get licensed.
In any event, under this exchange of notes we cannot prevent France from fishing in this area. France cannot prevent us from fishing in this area. We have the right to say what the quotas should be in this area. The quota set is 42,000 tonnes for this whole area. We have assigned 6,400 tonnes to France, which is really for St. Pierre and Miquelon, and 35,600 tonnes is available in that quota for Canadians. This is a quota which our scientists say can safely be caught in zone 3PS, the disputed zone.
But the French ignored and are ignoring now the quota. They will not accept the 6,400 tonnes. We cannot force them to accept it. If two sovereign states have a disagreement, they can either reach an agreement between themselves and resolve the disagreement or they can agree between themselves to go to arbitration and have a third party adjudicate the difference of opinion or the dispute and settle it that way. There is only one other way, a third way. That third way is that they go to war with one another. They can attempt to use armed force. One attempts to force the settlement he wants on the other.
There are three possible ways. I was dumbfounded tonight to hear the Leader of the NDP try to grandstand in this House by suggesting that recourse should be had to the third method, the use of force. He suggested that we had chased the Spanish trawler just a few months ago. He presumably meant by that that we should chase out the French trawlers. He suggested that we should use force.
Well, the difference is monumental between the two situations. Clearly, the Spanish trawler was in the Canadian 200-mile economic zone with no right, no claim of right to be there. It was violating international law. But in zone 3PS
international law does not recognize as yet either French rights or our rights. So we have no right to chase the French vessels out. We will only have that right if we can get to arbitration, if the French will go to arbitration with us and an impartial third party sets the boundaries, decides what economic zone St. Pierre and Miquelon are entitled to as two small islands within the perimeter of continental Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. If that occurs and an impartial third party sets the economic zone and the territorial limits of St. Pierre and Miquelon, then of course we could take action and we would have international law to back us up.
Is anyone in the House seriously suggesting-does the Newfoundland Government seriously suggest-that we should use armed force to settle this matter with France? No, they do not. Our adhesion to the United Nations would prevent us from doing so. No civilized state uses force against another civilized state in the present world today to settle these disputes. So we must have an agreement.
What stage are we at now? Up to the present time the Government of Newfoundland has been fully consulted in this matter. So has the industry and the union involved. There is a group of industry advisers, four from the union and the industry and one from the Government of Newfoundland, a group of five, that has been advising the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which has been consulted all through the piece, with the exception of last week. I for one am not au fait with, nor do I agree with, and I think the Government should apologize for, the lack of including these representatives in the discussions that went on in Paris last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It was unacceptable, as far as I am concerned. But that is a procedural matter.


James Douglas Manly: It is more than a procedural matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am making my view on that clear in the name of proper federal-provincial relations, and in following what has been done to date, these representatives should have been fully involved last week. That was an error. That is the position.
We are trying to get France, a nation of some 40 million or 50 million people, to go to arbitration on the question of St. Pierre and Miquelon. They feel no immediate compulsion to go to arbitration; it is not a pressing matter to them. It is a pressing matter to who? The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the fishermen of the maritime provinces it is a pressing matter. That is why we are anxious to get France to arbitration. But France knows that there is more compulsion on us to do this. They do not care about the fish resource off St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are prepared to sacrifice their own few thousand people in St. Pierre and Miquelon. They do

January 28, 1987
not give a good continental about the people and the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
We are doing this for the fishermen and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and trying to get this issue settled so we can stop this tragic overfishing in 3PS. A whole series of negotiations broke down in Ottawa in the week ending Friday, January 16. However, they started again last week. By the way, there was consultation. The Government of Newfoundland was informed that this meeting was going ahead, and what types of things might be agreed at the meeting, and they did not agree with it. They have the right to be consulted. They have the right to encourage. They have the right to discourage. They have the right to warn. But we are the Government of Canada that has the responsibility for the external relations of Canada, and we do not intend to abdicate our responsibility as a national Government. So, Mr. Speaker, they did warn. They did not agree with this particular process.
What agreement was reached? All that was reached was an agreement to negotiate. There is no agreement that France will even get a tadpole from 2J+3KL. What was agreed in Paris on Friday and Saturday was that France would engage in negotiations which would start before March 15 for the purpose of concluding an agreement to submit to compulsory third party settlement of the dispute of the maritime claims of the two countries off the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon in Canada. In return, Canada would engage in negotiations to determine the annual fishing quotas for French vessels in Canadian waters for the period 1988-1991 inclusive while this arbitration is going on, and that those quotas will include cod quotas in NAFO Divisions 2J+3KL. In other words, we are prepared to discuss and engage in negotiations about that. There has been no agreement to do anything in 2J+3KL. There is nothing but an agreement to enter into negotiations.
The proof of that is in Premier Peckford's press release of January 27 where he points out that this is the case, that there is not a binding agreement to go to arbitration. While he is right there, he should not forget the other side of the coin. There is no binding agreement for us to give one codfish, or piece of one codfish in 2J+3KL to France. That is the exact position.
Supposing that we do reach an agreement with France some time between March and the end of the year, it will be an agreement that I will be able to defend in every hamlet and cove of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be an agreement that I will not be afraid to go and defend in every hamlet and cove in Newfoundland and Labrador. For 20 years I have upheld the rights of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I do not intend to cease now. I do not need lessons from anyone in that direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Premier of Newfoundland stated that he was displeased with the statement that I made yesterday on this matter. He says my statement that there is no agreement as to what these annual Fishing quotas should be, that there is
no agreement to give France any quota in 2J+3KL, is contrary to the agreement. I say that it is not contrary to the agreement. That is exactly in accord with the agreement. When the Premier says that he is displeased with me, I say that I conduct myself according to my conscience. Whether Premiers are displeased with me, or Prime Ministers are displeased with me, or opposition Members are displeased with me, I care not a twit, as long as I know that I am behaving in a proper fashion. I am prepared to go back to my own people and ask them whether they are pleased or displeased any time, against anyone, under any circumstance.
I have not too much time left, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is making an outcry, and I am sympathetic with their outcry. The more they outcry the more likely it is that the firmer the people will be who are negotiating for us in this matter. I do not want an agreement that is not a good agreement for Canada. It is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to show how they value the Northern Cod. It is our fishing industry, it is our life in Newfoundland the same as the wheat fields are the life of Saskatchewan, or oil and gas might be the life of Alberta. That is why the Government of Newfoundland and the industry and union representatives should never have been left out of this last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is good for the people of Newfoundland to show their concerns. But I tell the people of Newfoundland now, Mr. Speaker, their interests have and will be observed. There is no agreement damaging to them. I ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and the Leader of the Liberal Party to suggest to us how else they would go about resolving this question. It is all well and good to hear their rhetoric and what they would do, and the terrible things that we are doing when they left us, particularly the Official Opposition, the captive of these three international agreements.
Now the Member for Gander-Twillingate, and the others, have the audacity and the gall to stand up and decry what we are doing in our efforts to solve this situation to help the fishermen and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When this matter is concluded, and it is far from concluded, the agreement we reach, if there is an agreement reached, will be one that we can defend in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in every part of Canada, and I and my cohorts here in Newfoundland pledge that, and we will see that any agreement reached is in the interests of our fishermen in our province.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to participate in this debate. I have to say at the outset that I am also saddened this evening. The importance to Newfoundlanders of the matter that is being discussed this evening is as important as the last great decision that was taken which affected our province.
January 28, 1987

That decision was taken in 1948 and 1949 when we decided to join Confederation.
During the course of the Confederation debate one evening in a rowdy chamber much like this one, a very famous, highly honoured Newfoundlander named Gordon Bradley, who was chairman of the commission that discussed Newfoundland's entry into Confederation, or possible joining with the United States, rose and said to Hon. Members who were assembled and were making a great deal of noise: "I remind Members that the eyes and the ears of the people of Newfoundland are upon us this evening." He went on to say: "They are watching us. They are weighing our every word. I warn Members that sometimes we try their patience much too far".
I want to say to the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that this evening the eyes and ears of the people of Newfoundland were on him. They were watching him. They have been weighing his words. They wanted to know tonight, once and for all, whether or not the Hon. Member for St. John's West was Newfoundland's cabinet representative in Ottawa or Ottawa's apologist in Newfoundland. After this evening we know that the Member is Ottawa's apologist in Newfoundland. The Member cannot make up for in volume, like a wounded bear brawling and bawling, what he lacks in substance in participating in the debate tonight.
I should like to refer the House to a story which appeared in the Times Transcript on December 6 past. It reads:
Three Atlantic fishermen's organizations told the federal Government in Ottawa Friday not to give in to threats made by France to cancel intergovernmental agreements if the fishing dispute surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon is not settled to France's satisfaction.
Gilles Theriault, executive-director of the Maritime Fisherman's Union, reminded Fisheries Minister Thomas Siddon that French cabinet minister Bernard Pons warned publicly that if the fishing dispute is not settled to their satisfaction, it could force the French Government to revise certain economic, cultural and co-operation agreements that exist between the two governments.
They warned that if the agreement was not settled to France's satisfaction, the French could potentially cancel the visit of French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac.
That is what was at stake in this dispute, whether or not the Prime Minister's chance to host the Francophone summit in Quebec City this September, the first time ever in our history, would be put at risk because the Government of Canada stood up for the interests of Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians. That is what was at risk, and the Government of Canada ran with its tail between its legs.
I said that I was sad this evening. In all the years I have watched the Hon. Member for St. John's West in politics, 1 have not always agreed with him. However, I have always admired that he was prepared to stand and be counted. I want to know on what road the Hon. Member for St. John's West travelled since early this morning when he was on VOCM's open line show in Newfoundland and when he made his speech in the House tonight. The Hon. Member has undergone some kind of dramatic conversion.
This morning, speaking in Newfoundland and talking about the agreement which he defended tonight, the Hon. Member told the people of Newfoundland in respect of the lack of consultation given to the Government of Newfoundland, the union, and the other Atlantic provinces: "I can't see any legitimate defence of the fact that they were not present at this particular meeting, so I can well understand why they should be annoyed and upset with that". That was the Hon. Member speaking this morning in Newfoundland. What else did he say-


J. Michael Forrestall: What did he say tonight?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Member should be quiet, should listen and learn. What else did he say this morning? He said: "Let's just say that those responsible for this are certainly insensitive to the importance of the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador". That is quite a different song than the one the Hon. Member for St. John's West sang in the House tonight.
What else did the Member say about this deal? Speaking on behalf of himself and his two Conservative colleagues from Newfoundland, what did he say about this deal this morning in Newfoundland in front of a different audience than the audience he addressed tonight in the House of Commons? What did he say? He said: "As you know, if we are to have as one of our objectives better and improved federal-provincial relations, which has been one of the hallmarks so far, this is hardly the way to go about it. So to say that the Newfoundland caucus, for example, is upset would be putting it very mildly".
I want to know what kind of placebo, what kind of salutory pill, or what kind of depressant was slipped to the Hon. Member for St. John's West between nine o'clock this morning in Newfoundland when he was outraged in defence of Newfoundlanders and tonight when he appeared in the House like a wounded bear braying in volume, attempting to make up for in volume what he lacks in integrity and backbone to defend the people of Newfoundland. That is what I want to know, and that is what Newfoundlanders want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the Hon. Member is making a forceful speech on a matter of great importance to the Hon. Member and also, I think Hon. Members would know, of great importance to the Minister who has just spoken. I would caution the Hon. Member not to go too far in impugning the integrity, motivation, or honour of another Hon. Member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would much rather be standing tonight in the House and joining with my fellow Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and with Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada to ensure that, as we were elected to do, we were representing the interests of our people and seeing a wrong put right. I would rather be standing as one in the pursuit of that goal. I would much rather not be standing here to try to dissemble this patently weak and disappointing defence of a sell-out which was mounted by a

January 28, 1987
colleague of mine from Newfoundland. I would much rather not be doing that this evening. The interests of my region would be served if Members from Atlantic Canada were here and were being heard. That is why we were sent to Ottawa.
In understanding why we were sold down the river, I want to refer to some correspondence which was exchanged between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) this past summer when Canada's negotiating position was being ironed out. A letter was written to the Prime Minister by the Minister of Fisheries on June 24, 1986, in which the Minister of Fisheries put forward Canada's negotiating position, outlined all the things at stake, and concluded by saying:
I want to assure you that my goal throughout will be to manage our fisheries discussions with the French in a manner that does not jeopardize the cordial relationship between Canada and France-
What did the Prime Minister say about that? What did the Prime Minister say about the livelihood of Newfoundland and the blood which beats through the heart that is Newfoundland? He responded on August 19, 1986 by writing:
I agree that in dealing with this sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one hand the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and on the other our bilateral relations with France.


J. Michael Forrestall: What is wrong with that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: What is wrong with that is that the Prime Minister has said that the fishery in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and northern Quebec is nothing but a bargaining chip to be used in setting cordial relations to facilitate cocktail parties between Prime Ministers of respective nations. That is not good enough in Newfoundland; that is what is wrong with that.


J. Michael Forrestall: There is imputation of motive-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What we have seen tonight is a Member, a cabinet representative, stand here-


J. Michael Forrestall: Very serious charges-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has been given the floor by the Speaker. During the debate most Hon. Members have listened, not always with great comfort, to what has been said by Members on both sides of the debate but have extended the courtesies which are usual in this Chamber. I would ask that all Hon. Members have regard for that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for restoring order to the House. A Member would not have to speak so loudly if he did not have to speak over the sounds emanating, as unintelligent as they are, from the other side of the Chamber.
What has happened tonight? We have had an attempt by the Government of Canada, through the Hon. Member for St. John's West, to placate or to issue a placebo to the people of Newfoundland. He stood in his place and on the one hand
issued a gentle slap to the wrist of the Minister of Fisheries, saying that he does not entirely agree that the Minister of Fisheries should have gone to France and dealt with our livelihood without consulting the Premier of Newfoundland. Then, to be sure that he was being properly balanced, as the letter said, "on the other" the Hon. Member for St. John's West went on to tell the Premier of Newfoundland that the Government of Canada has the right to make international agreements. It is not the jurisdiction of the Premier of Newfoundland, and he is not going to be bossed around by the Premier of Newfoundland. I am not in the habit of defending the Premier of Newfoundland because I don't find that attractive. But it is not only the Premier of Newfoundland who finds what has happened distasteful; it is the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, who is the Premier of the province of the Hon. Member across the way, the Conservative Premier who today said that this agreement will cost the Atlantic economy $200 million. That is what the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party in Nova Scotia has said, and walking away from the statement will not make it go away, Mr. Speaker.
It is also the Government of Prince Edward Island that finds this deal distasteful. The Government of New Brunswick, and the fishermen's unions in all of the Atlantic Provinces find this deal, distasteful. For once, the Premier of Newfoundland, rather than being a voice in the wind, a lonely child putting forward a diatribe that is subscribed to by nobody, finds himself singing in chorus, in tune, with every other Premier and leader in Atlantic Canada. Surely then the Premier of Newfoundland deserves, as Premier, some consideration for the views he has put forth.
This has been a sad day for Parliament and a sad day for Newfoundland when one of our most prominent, one of our better known Members, one of our citizens, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), when confronted with the choice that all of us face from time to time of standing up and being counted for Newfoundland, of being Newfoundland's voice in these hallowed halls, of being the apologist for Ottawa and Newfoundland, has chosen the latter course. That is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. It will not help the cause of those of us who want to see this deal abrogated.
Today in Question Period I rose in my place and said that the deal should be declared null and void, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) should be fired because, failing that, the Government would put the Member for St. John's West in the impossible position of having no other recourse or option but to resign his seat in protest. I did not propose it. I suggested that he not be a victim, victim of the decisions of his Government. But tonight he has taken the knife in his hand and has exercised it on himself. It is not his commitment that is questioned by me, by Premier Peckford, by the Opposition Leader in Newfoundland, Leo Barry, or by Premier Buchanan. If he finds the breastplate of honour that he talked about tonight in this House tarnished, it is a wound
January 28, 1987

that is self-inflicted by his performance this evening in this Chamber.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) quoted from two letters. Would he be willing to table those letters in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member will make the letters available to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), but there is no provision whereby a private Member can file a document in the House.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this emergency debate.
There are quite a few rumours going around about the agreement signed in Paris on Saturday, January 24, which is aimed at bringing Canada and France closer to the settlement of a boundary dispute and a dispute concerning fishing activities.
I would like to go back to the causes of the disputes, but first I want to say a few words about this agreement, under which both parties are committed to negotiating two new treaties and to setting dates for the start and finish of negotiations. This is an important point that may have been overlooked in all the commotion that followed the release of the news.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that the French have not been offered any quotas of Canadian fish that were not first approved by the industry and provincial representatives at meetings held in Ottawa the week before we left for Paris.
The quotas on which agreement was reached were those established with the industry and the provinces, namely, 3,500 tons of cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and 3,000 tons of excess cod in NAFO division 2GH off the northernmost part of the Labrador coast. The 3,500 tons of cod in the Gulf represent average landings by Saint-Pierre et Miquelon fishing boats over the last six years in the Gulf. This approach represents the status quo, a solution Canada has been constantly suggesting to France, with the approval of the provinces and the industry. The 3,000 tonnes of 2GH cod off the coast of Labrador, far to the north, are surplus to Canada's needs and according to Government, industry and provincial advisers, constitute a reasonable offer for 1987 to break the deadlock.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Paris agreement was to break a deadlock that was threatening to become a serious obstacle to settlement of the boundary dispute between Canada and France with respect to territory off the south coast of Newfoundland. A settlement is absolutely necessary to establish Canada's control over cod stocks in the region and to stop over-fishing by French vessels. We have broken the deadlock, and the door is now open to negotiations on the two
treaties I mentioned earlier, and a negotiated settlement of the boundary dispute and the question of French quotas in Canadian waters for the next four years.
The inclusion of a clause stipulating that quotas to be negotiated with France for the period from 1988 to 1991 would include cod quotas from divisions 2J+3KL of NAFO, in other words, the areas off the east cost and the north coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, has created considerable confusion.
I think we should first understand what the agreement means. Mr. Speaker, this agreement means first of all that the Canadian Government agrees with what France has been repeating for a year, which is that it will not accept the proposed quotas for 1988 to 1991. Consequently, the boundary dispute will not be referred to an international tribunal until the proposed quotas have been changed to include codstock from NAFO divisions 2J+3KL.
As I said before, the French have been insisting on this for a long time. Up to now, we have been able to evade the issue while trying to persuade France to accept 1988-91 quotas that would not include cod stock from divisions 2J+3KL. We now realize, and we admitted as much to the French, that they want to retain their position, and as a result, if we wish to settle this boundary dispute, we will have to grant them cod quotas from divisions 2J+3KL.
We should also realize what is not provided in the agreement. Under the Paris Agreement, the Canadian Government is not bound to offer or to agree to offer the French a given quantity of cod from divisions 2J+3KL, if we do not first agree on quotas for 1988-91. French demands may be too excessive for us to be able to agree on quotas for the period from 1988 to 1991. Consequently, referral of the dispute to an international judicial tribunal would merely postpone a settlement, which is not something we desire.
It is also possible that the question is not referred to an international tribunal for some time. Everything, I repeat, everything is negotiable. Nothing has been concluded with respect to the period from 1988 to 1991. Any quotas that may be offered to France within the framework of an agreement for the period in question will be subject to in-depth consultation with the industry and the provincial governments at all stages of negotiations.
That is the Paris Agreement in a nutshell. The Agreement contains a number of auxiliary provisions, including the following: Pursuant to the agreement, until 1987 vessels from St. Pierre and Miquelon will be allowed to continue fishing in areas immediately surrounding the Gulf of St. Lawrence where they have been operating for several years, contrary to the 1972 agreement under which Canada's fishing activities are restricted to a zone which lies within the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This is a kind of status quo position taken by the Canadian Government.

January 28, 1987
Finally, the agreement provides that scientists of both countries will meet soon to assess cod stocks south of Newfoundland and the impact continued overfishing by the French might have on these stocks. Hopefully this joint study will produce concrete evidence likely to prompt the French Government to review its overfishing policy and reduce its fishing activities to prevent total stock depletion.
Mr. Speaker, I know that people are very disappointed and that many criticisms are being voiced because nothing has been done under the terms of the agreement to prevent France from overfishing on such a wide scale in waters south of Newfoundland. It is indeed a serious problem. There is no doubt that French fishermen catch about 26,000 tonnes of cod a year-at least 20,000 tonnes over the 6,400-tonne quota which Canada allotted to them in this zone and which amounts to a fair share of the stock traditionally earmarked for France.
Unfortunately, the Government of Canada can do nothing for the time being to reduce this overfishing. We cannot exercise coercion, even if the area is ours, because France claims that a sizeable portion of this zone belongs to its territory. Furthermore, our mutual agreement to refrain from enforcing the rules is the usual approach taken by countries in such situations to avoid any military confrontation that might endanger the fishing fleet at sea.
Since coercion cannot be used, we have done our best to convince the French that their activities off the south coast of Newfoundland are unreasonable ant that their overfishing represents a threat to the livelihood of both Newfoundland and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon fishermen who depend on the same stock. These arguments met with no success. The French refused out of hand to reduce their fishing in this area. We know that their own compatriots, the fishermen from Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, have asked for a reduction in fishing by the French fleet and that the French Government has ignored their appeals.
We have not offered and will not offer them the fish they want in sensitive areas like 2J+3KL, to persuade them to reduce overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland.
We cannot and will not be blackmailed. We shall continue to put pressure on France and demand that it reduce excessive fishing activity off the south coast of Newfoundland and bring its catches down to the fair quota of 6,400 tonnes set by Canada for France in that zone. We shall continue to support the efforts of the people of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon to persuade the French Government to take the requested action and we shall reiterate these requests during negotiations from 1988 to 1991 on French quotas in Canadian waters.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not cave on this issue, not in 1987 and not from 1988 to 1991, but we firmly believe that the only way to achieve a final settlement and ensure that a reasonable conservation system is set up for the zones off the south coast of Newfoundland is to settle the boundary dispute in that region. We believe that an international tribunal will confirm Canada's position on the location of the boundary and
establish that all major fishing areas come under Canadian jurisdiction and management. Such a ruling will make it possible to eliminate the problem of French overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, we must ask all those for whom fishing by the French in Canadian waters is a crucial issue to be patient and to give us their trust. The Government realizes how important the fisheries are to the people of Atlantic Canada, and we are fully aware that we owe nothing to France or to any country. Although we have certain obligations under agreements concluded with France, and we intend to observe those, the agreements concern fish quotas that are much lower than what France is demanding now. We are forced to make concessions that go beyond the obligations provided for in the agreements in order to be able to bring the boundary question before an international tribunal. Once that question has been resolved, the quotas granted France in Canadian waters will be strictly in accordance with our obligations under the 1972 agreement.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech I alluded to the history of this whole question. In fact, our present problem is only one phase, in fact the lastest phase in a long process that started about 400 years ago when Canada was colonized and the French fishing fleet started to work the Northwest Atlantic. During that time, the fisheries gave rise to a number of disputes. The problems arose and were resolved. Treaties were negotiated and later replaced by other agreements.
The latest phase goes back to the end of the sixties when the Government of Canada decided to close the Gulf of St. Lawrence to all foreign fishing fleets, including the French. It was this decision that led to the 1972 fisheries agreement between Canada and France. An important step was taken in 1986 when, in accordance with the agreement, the French metropolitan fishing fleet left the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, never to return.
Mr. Speaker, we must now deal with the repercussions of this decision, since the French, during the fifteen years they were allowed, failed to establish a development plan for their fleet after it left the Gulf. We must now deal with the fallout from this decision, settle the boundary dispute and determine once and for all what real rights France has under the 1972 Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, all this will take a few more years, but I am convinced that, thanks to the Paris Agreement, we are well on our way to resolving all these problems.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in this debate I am not promoting myself as an expert on the Newfoundland fishery. What I do want the people of Newfoundland to understand is that a person from central Canada, from a land-locked riding with no fishery at all, understands and is sensitive to the fact that they have one major resource. I do not bring to this debate the expertise of my hon. friends from
January 28, 1987

Gander-Twillingate or Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. They have much more knowledge, experience and understanding of the history and sensitivity of the people of Newfoundland to the fishery. However, what I do understand is common sense. I understand the sensitivity of the issue because my riding depends on one resource, nickel. I know how I would feel if the federal Government gave away that resource. How would I feel if nickel were given away to the U.S. or France or some other European power? I know how I would feel, so when I speak in this debate tonight it is from that perspective and understanding.
Tonight in Newfoundland there is great upset and anger.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Justified anger.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, justified anger. I at least recognize that these people understand the fishery. The fishermen are outraged. The Government of Newfoundland, which in a lot of ways is not my favourite kind of Government, God knows, it is a Tory Government, at least knows what is in the best interests of the fishery and Newfoundland. It was elected to look after those interests. It has the mandate. I recognize that the people who run the fishing industry in Newfoundland understand the industry and they are extremely upset at the Government.
What does this say to Canadians in the rest of the country? The signing of this interim agreement speaks volumes to Canadians. It says that the Government negotiated on this issue with the French in the same way it negotiated with the Americans on softwood lumber. In that particular instance the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said she was eyeball to eyeball with the Americans and they blinked three times. In this instance the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) was eyeball to eyeball with the French and I think he blinked four times. Four times! What did we get out of it? It is not for me to start enumerating what Canada and the French got out of it. The people who know most about the issue, the fishermen, the industry and the Government of Newfoundland, said "We got hosed on the deal".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I suppose we are pretty lucky we did not have the Minister for International Trade doing the negotiations from the beaches of Hawaii.


An Hon. Member:: He was there.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, he was right there in the same room with them. That is, after he put everyone else out of the room.
What does this interim agreement say to Newfoundlanders? It says that the Tory Government is saying to the people of Newfoundland, "We do not care two figs about you". After all, that is the same Government which paid Claude Forget $800 a day plus expenses to say that fishermen ought not to get UIC. That is the same sensitive Government. It is significant that Uncle John got on an open-line radio show after Claude Forget brought down his report and said: "Brothers
and sisters of Newfoundland, just stay calm, we will never put this into effect".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: John who?


John R. Rodriguez: The godfather of Newfoundland. He said, "We are not going to put this into effect". Look what happened today. They are even starting to put him on the payroll at radio station VOCM. They think he is on staff because he is in there all the time. There he was again today. What was he saying today? He was saying what an insensitive group of people his cabinet colleagues are. That is what he said, they are insensitive.


Mr. Dingwall:: He meant to say incompetent.


John R. Rodriguez: It goes without saying that if you are insensitive and you are a Tory, you are also incompetent.
What took place today with this interim agreement? We gave fishing rights to France that they never had before. What did we get in return? We got the right to negotiate an agreement. That is what we got! This reminds me of a person in his house at night. He hears a burglar downstairs and goes down. The burglar is taking the cutlery. He says "Take the cutlery and here is the VCR, take that too. Take the TV. Take everything. Take it all".


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Then we will negotiate what you can keep.


John R. Rodriguez: Then let him go right out the door. That is the Tory version of negotiations.
They can laugh all they want but they missed a golden opportunity to climb back up in the polls. They could have had their own Falklands. They could have called out the fleet. They missed their chance again.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood up in this House today and said there was unanimity in Cabinet.


Marcel Prud'homme: He is not even here.


John R. Rodriguez: After that speech he worked himself up so much he had to go out to the radio station. He has an appointment. Unanimity in Cabinet on this deal. That means all of those cabinet Ministers agreed with this interim agreement. They do not care about the people of Newfoundland. The one natural resource which those people brought into Confederation was the fishery. In one stroke of the pen the Government allowed the French fleet to fish more fish off the coast of Newfoundland than all the Canadian fishermen can fish.


Mr. O'Neil:: Not true.


John R. Rodriguez: Get up and make a speech.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Not true.


John R. Rodriguez: You will get your chance to make a speech.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Deal with the facts.

January 28, 1987


John R. Rodriguez: That is what happened. I asked myself this question. I have been told that the Government of Newfoundland, the Premier of Newfoundland, the fishermen and the industry were all involved in the negotiations. The agreement with France, which was signed in 1972, came to an end in May, 1986. I wonder why the Premier of Newfoundland, the fishermen and the industry were suddenly cut out of the negotiations in December when it came down to the short strokes.
1 understand that the Government wanted to have something for the Premier of France to sign. It wanted to roll out the red carpet, have some champagne, and then have a photo opportunity for His Majesty, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). The Government wanted great pomp and ceremony, in Napoleonic style, for the signing of this agreement. Newfoundland had made it quite clear that the French fleet was not to have any access to the northern cod stocks. That position was made very clear to the Government. Therefore, the whole idea was to cut the trouble makers out and have a nice little cabal with the Department of External Affairs and the French negotiators. The Government had a nice little tete-a-tete, a little wine, a little music and, peut-etre, a little bit of amour. In the process the people of Newfoundland were shafted in spades.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: 1 would be embarrassed to be a Conservative.


J. Michael Forrestall: I would be ashamed to be one of you.


John R. Rodriguez: These are the same Tories who were so critical of federal-provincial relations during the Trudeau era. They were to begin a new era. We have seen the new era in the agreement that has been signed.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: It is not an agreement. Produce the agreement.


John R. Rodriguez: The Conservatives do not give two hoots about involving the leadership in Newfoundland in the fisheries. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, the leadership of Newfoundland does not count. The Tories have three seats in Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland will give them a lesson in the next federal election.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: You have never been on a boat. You wouldn't know a fish if you slipped on one.


J. Michael Forrestall: Stop playing politics.


John R. Rodriguez: They are all upset, Mr. Speaker. They ought to explain this to Newfoundlanders. As a result of this deal we got better relations with France. I heard the French negotiator on TV tonight. He was not upset at all. He loved the deal. He was asked whether he thought this would stop the overfishing by the French fleet. He said, "No, we have always considered
those waters French waters". Big deal, Mr. Speaker. Tough negotiations.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: There is no deal.


J. Michael Forrestall: If you don't know what you are talking about, you should sit down and shut up.


John R. Rodriguez: What has happened here, Mr. Speaker? Why did the Government eliminate the interested parties from the negotiations? As I have said before, it was the Prime Minister's desire to have a showpiece and a photo opportunity. I believe that a second reason is that the Conservative Party has lost touch with the grass roots of this nation. A headline in the Montreal Gazette says that Ottawa sold out the fishermen. However, the Government did not sell out the Newfoundland fishermen at all, it was a giveaway, just as the Government gave away the softwood lumber.
The Premier of Newfoundland is not a New Democrat or a Liberal. He is one of these Tories. In fact, he is so upset that he said: "Apparently when France rattles its sword, Canada bends its knees. It's a terrible situation and they did it behind our backs". We are once again on our knees to make a deal. The Government has all the flexibility of an octopus. It has a wishbone where its backbone should be. Instead of standing up for Canadian rights, the Government has surrendered. It did it on softwood lumber and has done it again with this interim agreement.
Richard Cashin, the head of the fishermen's union in Newfoundland, said that the Tories at the federal level have sold out the interests of the Newfoundland fishermen. If the Government had any self-respect left it would tear up that interim agreement, accord, or whatever they want to call it. That is the only way the Tory Government can attempt to get back into the good graces of the people of Newfoundland.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks from both sides of the House this evening the only thing on which I have heard total agreement is that there is extensive overfishing by France off the south coast of Newfoundland, St. Pierre and Miquelon. That is the only thing that has been agreed upon by all Parties this evening.
I wonder how serious opposition Members are about wanting to protect the rights and interests of Candian fishermen to allow them to take more fish to feed the fish plants and give more work to the fish plant workers than they are presently getting. It seems to me that there is great fear on the part of Liberal Members that the Government might be successful in negotiating an agreement with the Government of France. Otherwise, they would be telling us to get on with the negotiations in an attempt to stop the overfishing that is happening off the south coast of Newfoundland. I could say the same thing about the NDP Party. They should also be encouraging the Government-
January 28, 1987


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the name of this Party is the New Democratic Party, not the NDP Party. I would suggest that Members of the House at least show that much respect.


Mr. Fennell:: He is not in his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member who just rose on a point of order knows that Hon. Members are not recognized unless they are in their seat.


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have offended my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. I remind them that this is the Progressive Conservative Party but I do not object when they refer to me as a Tory.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The same difference.


Morrissey Johnson: I did not heckle anyone when they were speaking this evening, because this is a very sensitive issue in Newfoundland. I believe it is far more sensitive than some Members realize.
The reason that this issue is emotional and that there is such an outcry from people in Newfoundland today is that they are afraid. They are afraid that the Government will do what past Governments have done and give away some of the fish stocks that are so vitally important to the people of Newfoundland.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Which is what you have done.


Morrissey Johnson: That is not what we have done. We have agreed to negotiate. If the Government cannot reach a settlement that is favourable to the people of Newfoundland and Canada, then there will be no agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Morrissey Johnson: I certainly will not agree to anything that I believe is not in the best interests of the province that I represent, and represent proudly, I might say. I want to assure Hon. Members here tonight that I am not a slave to my Party. I only have obligations to the people who placed their confidence in me when they elected me to come here and represent them. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the Chamber that I will not be satisfied if the agreement that is negotiated is not good for Newfoundland.
We must ask ourselves why Canada has the objective of referring the boundary dispute off the south coast of Newfoundland to an international judicial tribunal for settlement. The answer is easy. Intensive negotiations have been going on since the extension of jurisdiction by Canada and France in 1977. We all realize that St. Pierre and Miquelon are part of France just as Newfoundland is part of Canada. I will not suggest that the French do not have any rights. The fact is that the Government of France is not even concerned about the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon because it is sending its metropolitan fleet to raid the fishing grounds on which its own citizens who live on St. Pierre and Miquelon are vitally
dependent. If this Government's initiative can settle the agreement with France to the benefit of Newfoundland, it will also benefit the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Today I heard talk about gunboats, armed patrol boats and so on. During his speech, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) asked if we are supposed to declare war. We would not declare war because we are too sensible. What are the alternatives? What would members of the New Democratic Party do if they were negotiating on behalf of a union? Would they attempt to arrive at a settlement without talking? When there is a dispute between a company and a labour organization they must sit down and exchange views over the table to hopefully strike an agreement. I believe that is what the Government is attempting to achieve here.
Certainly I have concerns and worries that if this goes to arbitration we may not be as successful as we hope. However, what other recourse is there if we cannot reach an agreement through negotiation?
We are aware of the delays involved before a judgment is rendered when ordinary Canadians go to court. It would not be sensible to expect a settlement before four years if we considered taking this dispute before a world court. That is why the Government has entered into these negotiations.
Earlier, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) said that we have negotiated away 2J+3KL. That has not been negotiated away, according to what I have seen. We have only agreed to discuss the matter.
The industry and the Government of Newfoundland are aware what happened when the French delegation was in Newfoundland some time ago. I would be the first to express my dissatisfaction with the fact that toward the end of last week communications somehow broke down and the Newfoundland Government and the industry were not completely informed about the progress made by the delegation that went to France to begin negotiations at least. However, that fact cannot change. If I happen to say something in anger about a friend, no matter how many times I apologize the words are said and we do not have the ability to take them back.
The fact is that communication broke down during two or three days, which has resulted in an outcry from Newfoundland. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I would be disappointed in Newfoundlanders and in the Premier of the province if they were not outraged. I am outraged as well, and expressed as much to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). But that is the benefit in belonging to the Progressive Conservative Party. We are not enslaved. We can speak out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Morrissey Johnson: I can go to Newfoundland and say that I disagree with what my Party is doing in government. That is freedom and democracy. No one from my Party has ever told me since I came here not to speak up on an issue.

January 28, 1987
I could take more time to talk about the different zones involved in this issue. It has become so complicated that we can no longer simply refer to the East Coast, West Coast or Gulf of St. Lawrence, but must describe them by names and numbers. Perhaps that would have been unnecessary if our fishing grounds were not raped years and years ago. Fish stocks would still be abundant and available to everyone. The fact is we do not have enough fish to meet our own domestic demands. That is why I am concerned. It is not satisfactory to me to bargain away any of 2J+3KL fish to the French, but we have to ask ourselves if that is the only alternative to stop the overfishing on the St. Pierre Bank, or what is now called 3PS. And if industry and the provinces agree, then we might have to make a sacrifice-and if we have to make a sacrifice, no matter how small it is, it will be too much as far as I am concerned-so we can ensure the fish stocks on the St. Pierre Bank.
At one time the draggers from Burin could go out and the fishermen would not even have a chance to get their rubber clothes off before they were back with a load. That was at a time long gone, but the same thing cannot be said for today. But if we have to make some concessions, and if it is agreed to by the Government of Newfoundland and the Governments of the other Atlantic Provinces, and by the fishermen-in other words, if it is satisfactory to the people of Canada-then I believe it is wrong for the Opposition to do what it is doing. I realize that the Opposition has a role to play and that role is to attack the Government, but somewhere along the line our responsibilty to the people who elected us must come first. That is the reason I say that members of the Opposition should not condemn the Government for everything it tries to do. Opposition Members can say: "What you did was not good enough. We wish you had done better", but they should not condemn just for the sake of condemning. I do not think that is the role of a good opposition Member. But maybe I am wrong. I do not know. I have never been in opposition and I am not looking forward to it, either. Because of what I believe in I can go back and face the people in my riding with the same dignity with which I came here.
The French have taken the position that they will not agree to refer the boundary dispute to an international tribunal in the absence of an agreement on French quotas in Canadian waters for the period from 1988 to 1991, the period required for an international tribunal to determine the boundaries. I am sure that if we were the people seeking jurisdiction over an island belonging to Canada off the coast of France, we would take the same position. That does not mean that the agreement which was signed last week in France is binding on the Government to give fish to France in 2J+3KL. I think members of the Opposition owe it to the people of Newfoundland to enlighten them and tell them the Fish are not being given away, it is only up for negotiation in the hope of getting a better deal from the French on their overfishing on the St. Pierre Bank, better known as 3PS.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson). I must say there is no doubt in my mind that the Hon. Member, in his remarks this evening, was quite sincere. That Hon. Member has always demonstrated to this House and to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that he is quite sincere. However, the Hon. Member is on the government side. I was amused to hear him say he was never in the Opposition. Well, I can tell the Hon. Member, as nice a person as he is, that if the Government continues to make decisions like this, the decision it made on the softwood lumber and other decisions it has made since it became the Government, the Hon. Member will never be in the Opposition. He will never be back in Government. He will not be elected.
One must look at how this situation affects the livelihood of the people in Atlantic Canada, especially those people in the Province of Newfoundland. The fishery, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, is the lifeblood of the people of Newfoundland. That is what they brought to Canada at Confederation. Their past has been the fishery. For the Government and this Minister to make a deal such as this and to have issued licences for nine factory freezer trawlers in 3PS for the metropolitan fleet from France to Fish in Canadian waters, is totally intolerable.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is your treaty. Come on. Be honest.


George Roland Henderson: It is not our treaty at all.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, absolutely.


George Roland Henderson: The factory freezer trawlers were no part of our treaty and the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) knows that, if he wants to be fair. It has nothing to do with the treaty of the past Government.
I must tell the Minister that if he knew anything about the fishing industry at all, he would know the difference between a factory freezer trawler and a wet fish trawler. Exactly the same comparison would be between a Volkswagen and a bus.


George Baker: The Speaker knows.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, the Speaker knows full well.


George Baker: He can give lessons to the present Minister.


George Roland Henderson: There is no question about that. These are very large vessels. They are floating factories. For this Minister to register and licence nine of those vessels to come into Canadian waters just so the Minister, and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), could have some sort of cozy agreement later on with France on other issues, is disgraceful.
Let us look at this agreement, which everyone says is no agreement, and I agree it is not an agreement as such. It is possibly an agreement to negotiate. I do not even see where there is any stipulation by France, even after being given all these rights, that it has even to sit down and negotiate.
January 28, 1987

It was announced that Canada and France have agreed that the dispute be submitted for binding settlement by an international judicial tribunal subject to the negotiation of a treaty before the end of 1987. What is this negotiation of a treaty before the end of 1987? It is negotiation on the composition of the tribunal and its terms of reference. If they can get that settled, the negotiations will possibly start by March 15, 1987. Canada and France have also undertaken to negotiate before 1987 interim fisheries arrangements for French vessels in Canadian waters for the years 1988-91. It is not only this they are giving away, but they are starting to negotiate an agreement on something from 1988 to 1991, if they can get an agreement to negotiate. It is very confusing, extremely confusing. There is a paragraph at the very bottom of page 1 of this fancy news release from the Government of Canada and the two Ministers. They are the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). It states:
The two Ministers noted that solid scientific information is the first step toward resolving the overfishing problem.
I ask Hon. Members if they have ever heard anything as silly as that? They have already said that the French have been overfishing by something in the order of 20,000 tonnes. They have been overfishing the quota that was set by the scientists.
On page 2 of this document it states:
The rights of vessels from Metropolitan France to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence expired in May 1986 under the provisions of the 1972 Canada/France Fisheries Treaty.
This is the treaty that was signed by the Liberal Government. But it expired in 1986. So what are they talking about? Up until 1985 there had been no overfishing. We know the reason why there was no overfishing. It is because we used to board the vessels. We used to protect our fishery.
On this very subject I would like to quote a question to the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Mark MacGuigan, as reported in Hansard for March 23, 1982, at page 15719. This was a question asked by the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who is still a Member here, at least for the time being. He asked:
Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to ask the Minister what transpired between Canada and France while two French trawlers were hiding out in St. Pierre following orders from Canadian fisheries authorities to report to St. John's, Newfoundland, for alleged violations of our Canadian Fisheries Protection Act. Will the Minister table copies of the diplomatic exchange which took place between our two countries?
The Minister replied:
Madam Speaker, on Sunday, March 14, Canadian fisheries officers boarded two French fishing vessels in Canadian waters off the coast of Newfoundland and found that their log books had underreported their catches. The vessels initially refused to comply with orders to report to a Canadian port for inspection. Instead, they went to St. Pierre.
Following representations to the French authorities, the vessels proceeded to Flalifax where charges are in the process of being laid.
In other words, this was a Government which knew how to negotiate.


John Carnell Crosbie: You turkeys, you were the ones who got us into this problem.


George Roland Henderson: Do you know why it knew how to negotiate, Mr. Speaker? Because it negotiated from a position of strength. It was not a weak-kneed Government like this Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: You turkeys got us into this.


George Roland Henderson: Yet this Government says that we should give the nose of Grand Banks to the Americans. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), so eloquently spelled that out earlier this evening.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the first time that he has ever spoken up. Where was he in 1984? Where was he in 1972?


George Roland Henderson: The Government says give everything else to the French, or to the Americans. With respect to the softwood lumber it has said: "Give it to them. Give it to them". With respect to excise tax and codfish, I remember asking the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) when he was the acting Minister of Fisheries if he would intervene and have the Prime Minister intervene in the great Shamrock Summit so that the United States would start to listen and not impose a duty. Oh yes, they would do everything at that Shamrock Summit. He said: "You can depend on the Prime Minister". What happened? On salt cod an 18 per cent duty was levied. That is the type of nonsense that is going on with the Government. Those are the kinds of negotiations it is entering into. It is no wonder that any country can come in and take our fish because the Government will not stand up to them. It immediately puts up the white flag.
A little bit further on in the press release from which I have been reading it states:
The French will also receive in 1987 fishing allocations in Canadian waters outside the Gulf in accordance with obligations under the 1972 Canada/France Treaty and under a separate fisheries treaty between Canada and the European Economic Community.
That is the treaty which expired in May, 1986. The press release goes on:
These allocations are included in the 1987 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan and total approximately 15,600 tonnes of various species, the same as in 1986.
Let us take a look at what those species are. Let us take a look at what this quota entails. This is the quota that was given to the EEC and taken by the Germans up until last year. That is the same quota that was supposed to come back to our Canadian fisheries. In fact, it was supposed to come back to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. That is what was given to France. Of course, 6,400 tonnes of cod was also included in the zone 3PS which Canada has established as a French quota for this stock. Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear the likes of it?

January 28, 1987
The press release goes on:
The level of the cod allocation for St. Pierre and Miquelon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is an exception to the government's policy against non-surplus cod allocations to foreign fleets, as it is greater than what Canada's legal obligations require under the 1972 Canada-France treaty.
The treaty expired in May, 1986, but the Government still goes along with that and is even giving more. But it does not have to give anything.
The fishermen of the great islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are asking Canada to live up to its obligations and kick the metropolitan fleet out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


Mr. St. Germain:: You guys allowed them in there.


George Roland Henderson: There is a Member who does not know anything about fish. He obviously does not know anything about Atlantic Canada or he would not be talking the way he is talking. The first large trawlers that were in the gulf were brought in under the former Government of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1979, with the support of the former Member for St. John's East, who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland.


George Baker: And we know what happened to that Government.


George Roland Henderson: We know what happened. He got his reward. Obviously, the French metropolitan fleet is getting its reward for its overfishing which it does in a careless and reckless way. Its reward is 20,000 tonnes more fish. That is unbelievable. This is all in the name of good bilateral relations.
It is easy to understand why the people of Newfoundland are frustrated. I can understand it very well. They have to sit on their wharves and watch their fish leave their waters on vessels flying foreign flags. I can understand why they would be frustrated, especially when, in many parts of northeastern Newfoundland, they cannot catch enough fish to give them 10 weeks for their unemployment stamps. This Government knows that. The Government knows that as a result of a great deal of prodding by the good Liberal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland who prodded the Government time and time again to put some sort of program in place for Newfoundlanders so that they could make up between six and ten weeks to get unemployment stamps to carry on through the winter. That is what this Government calls constructive internationalism. It is unbelievable.
The old bad days have returned. We are going back to the future of the wild west. Winston Churchill termed this sort of a situation a sheep in sheep's clothing. That describes the Minister exactly. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is so easy for the French to come over and pull the wool down over his eyes.
I sympathize with the Hon. Member for St. John's West because I know that he does not agree with this agreement, or with the fact that the Government did not consult with the
Province of Newfoundland in the last number of days. Obviously, they did not consult with him when this decision was made. If they had consulted with him, and he had expressed his feelings about this agreement as eloquently as he did tonight, the Government would have had one of two choices: for the Minister to be removed, or the Hon. Member for St. John's West. The Government would have had no other alternative to stay and support a policy like that.
I know that the Hon. Member for St. John's West knows the fishery, because he is a former Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland. I know he knows a bit about the fishery. I know that he knows Newfoundlanders. I cannot believe that he would come here and sing one song in Cabinet and sing another song back home. I know that the Minister would not do that. Therefore, this Government did not consult.
I remember very well when the Government took office that it discussed the consultative process and this great new relationship with the provinces which was going to be so good that no more would there be any divisions and differences in policy between the provincial and federal Governments and industry. Consultation with the Government is leading the people on and then telling them at the very end what they will do, and going about and doing it without any respect whatsoever for the consultative process.
I could go on for a while longer, but 1 have a number of colleagues who wish to speak on this resolution. I move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a):
That the House continue to sit after 12 o'clock midnight for the purpose of considering the adjournment motion now under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those Members who object will please rise in their places.
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being 25 Members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to be carried.
Motion (Mr. Henderson) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: I wish to register for Hansard that the reason there are not 25 Members to object is because there are not enough people present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Shall we resume the debate? On debate, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price).


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I rise tonight to speak with some regret, frustration, and considerable mixed feelings. I have some regret because of the turmoil that this particular issue has created in my province. This agreement, this issue, and the irresponsible comments of some people has raised apprehension in the minds of people in the Province of Newfoundland.
January 28, 1987

The issue before us tonight is a very difficult and complex issue. For a number of years, governments have tried to resolve this issue with no degree of success. Acting in good faith, the Government has made a bold attempt to resolve this issue in the best interests of Canadians, and in particular in the best interests of Newfoundlanders. That attempt has generated a great degree of apprehension and controversy within my province. I very much regret that.
When the people of Burin-St. George's elected me, they gave me a trust on their behalf to protect the livelihood of their fishery. The events of the past few days have been very difficult for me, and for those people who have put trust in me. They are asking the question why. This agreement struck between the Government of Canada and the Government of France is found to be unacceptable in certain respects by the people of the province, and in some respects it is unacceptable to me.
Before I get into any great detail on this item of controversy, I wish to remind the Flouse why the Government of Canada entered into these negotiations. We do indeed have a serious and deteriorating situation with respect to the French claims and subsequent overfishing in the area known as 3PS. Incidentally, this area lies directly south of my riding. It is an area which contains fish stocks that are very important to the fishing industry, particularly the inshore fishing industry of the riding of Burin-St. George's, and more particularly the area of Fortune Bay and the Burin Peninsula.
There have been ongoing negotiations since 1977 between the two jurisdictions of Canada and France. Those negotiations have been over the claims made by both countries as to which country owns the waters off the south coast of Newfoundland surrounding the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The negotiations have centred around where the boundary should lie. That has been going on since 1977 and we have come nine years into that process. We recognize at this point in our history that we have not been able to successfully negotiate a boundary settlement that is acceptable to the Province of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada, or the Government of France. The negotiated boundary is not possible. In these negotiations, the French have insisted on a very large area of jurisdiction for the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. That position is totally unacceptable to Canada. We are at the stage where we recognize that these negotiations will not be acceptable. The only way to resolve this dispute is by reference to an international judicial tribunal. The need for the determination of this boundary has become far more serious in recent years because of the overfishing effort conducted by the French in the area known as 3PS.
Taking advantage of the fact that we do not have a negotiated settlement, the French have engaged in a massive overfishing effort in this zone. We have heard all kinds of numbers being put forward. The Canadian Government acknowledges the French right to fish in that zone with a quota of some
6,400 metric tons of cod. Last year the French caught 26,000 tonnes of cod. This year they have made it known to various people in Canada that they intend to ignore the quota set for them and indeed will catch some 25,000 metric tons. In fact, I would suggest that the 25,000 metric tons which are being tossed around is a minimum and that it might be more like
40,000	metric tons before the year has ended. That is a totally unacceptable situation in which we find ourselves.
What is the solution? I would hope some members of the New Democratic Party were speaking in jest when they suggested that we send gunboats out there. What a position to advocate! It is one that is totally unacceptable to most rational Canadians.
The reality we must face is that we are into a situation where we have a very rich resource in an area known as 3PS or St. Pierre Bank, and it is rapidly being depleted by overfishing by a foreign country. Because it is an area of dispute, we have no control over this effort by the French Government.
How do we gain control over this very difficult and unacceptable situation? As I said, the only obvious solution to anyone who has studied the situation and has some knowledge of it is that we must obtain a ruling through the World Court. That presents another problem. The only way to accomplish that is if both parties to the dispute agree to make that reference. Canada has agreed in the interests of conservation, of Newfoundlanders, and of the long-term stability of the fishing industry of that province. However, the French have been very difficult on this issue. Essentially, if we want to call a spade a spade, they have been attempting to hold the Government to ransom.
This brings us to the events of the last few days. In its wisdom the Canadian Government decided to enter into negotiations on how we could resolve this boundary dispute by agreeing on a course of action. That course of action resulted in an agreement this past weekend which gives me some cause for concern. I am not disputing the objective of the agreement. I have no quarrel with what it attempts to do. It is attempting to do something which every Member of the House should be willing to support. However, I must ask a question about the agreement-are we putting ourselves in a position of paying too high a price to get this dispute before the courts? That is my basic concern.
I feel that the agreement provides the opportunity to pay too high a price. I am somewhat disappointed and probably disillusioned with the process by which this agreement came about over the weekend. Until some time last week 1 think the whole process was on track, but from my perspective the events of last weekend got out of hand and the subsequent criticism has taken away from what good this agreement might have been able to do.
While this issue affects other provinces, its primary focus is that of Newfoundland. I think it is a case of bad judgment on the part of the federal Government to not have had representatives of the Government of Newfoundland present during the
2830

January 28, 1987
negotiating process which occurred over last weekend. As I say, it is a case of bad judgment. As a result, we may have rushed into an agreement fraught with danger which could have serious implications for the province and for my constituents. I say "could"; I am not saying that it does. I feel that certain aspects of the agreement, had the Province of Newfoundland been represented, would not have been in it. People who live in the situation, as I have for many years and as have many Members from Newfoundland, would have been able to foresee possible complications which could arise with regard to the agreement.
I want to review very quickly the concessions in the agreement in respect of fish stocks. It says that the French are entitled to an additional 3,000 metric tons of cod in an area known as 2GH, which is in the far North. I do not think we would find anyone who would argue very strenuously against that concession. It is a surplus stock. Presently it is not being harvested by the fishing industry and as such it is not a difficult concession with which to live.
The agreement also stipulates that in the zones 4RS, 3PN, and 4VN the French fleet is entitled to some 3,500 metric tons of cod, and again there is no argument. It is an historical right, particularly for our neighbours who live just off our shores. Although the French Government does not recognize it, the agreement also says that they are entitled in the disputed area to a quota of some 6,400 metric tons. I think that is a fair allocation under the formulas.
There are two other aspects to the agreement. One is access to an area known as the Burgeo Bank. I have concerns about that one. They may turn out to be unfounded. I hope they do. However, for those who do not know, the gulf stocks migrate to the Burgeo Bank and we have just removed, because of the expiry of an agreement at the end of the past year, the French metropolitan fleet from the gulf. We did not renew the agreement. By allowing them access to the Burgeo Bank fishing area which is in the 3PS zone but not in the disputed area of 3PS, my concern is that we have again allowed the French metropolitan fleet access to some gulf stock, which as you, Mr. Speaker, should know and as all Members of this House should know is in serious decline. The biomass of the gulf fishery is declining at a very rapid pace. That fishery, unless the stocks stabilize and start to increase is in great trouble now, but that situation will be aggravated, which is a very serious concern on my part. Many inshore fishermen on the southwest coast of Newfoundland depend entirely on that stock for their livelihood.
The other area this agreement addresses is the area known as 2J+3KL, the northern cod stocks, which is the backbone of the Newfoundland fishery. This area has been in dispute in our provinces for some time. Now there is a possibility provided in the agreement that recognizes the right of access to that stock by the French. That is disconcerting, Mr. Speaker. The agreement does not specify the level of any quota that might
be awarded, and that gives me a ray of hope. I have made it known for the past two days that I am not prepared to accept a quota in 2J+3KL that will negatively impact on any fishermen or the Newfoundland fishing industry in general. That stock is the future of the deep sea fishing effort in my province. We will be watching, I say we as Newfoundlanders, the negotiations as they progress if, indeed, they do progress at all. We will not accept any allocation that is not acceptable to each and every Newfoundlander affected.
I do not see and I doubt if you will find a Canadian who can see any surplus fish in that zone in the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker. There will be none. In fact, we have reduced our domestic quota for 1987, not very significantly but there is a reduction. That indicates a stock with problems. I do not see how the Government or any Government can as a result of that accept the awarding of a quota to a foreign Government. I will not accept that on behalf of my constituents.
As I said earlier, the Government of Canada has acted in good faith. We have one basic objective, a real and admirable concern, and that is to resolve the dispute in 3PS. There is no easy solution to this problem, it has been ongoing for too long. We have to find a solution. Events of the next few months hopefully will give us that solution.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate at this hour of the night. Like my colleagues before me, particularly the Member who just spoke, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George (Mr. Price), I find the situation of great significance. The significance is not only for the people of Newfoundland, but 1 believe it extends beyond their boundaries. Indeed it is a Canadian problem affecting Canadians from coast to coast.
What do we have here, Mr. Speaker? What is at stake in this issue? Before one answers those questions one has to examine what has gone on in the past. We have seen the issue of a tariff regarding salt cod, an issue with the softwood lumber and, yes, more recently, an issue with the Christmas tree producers. Now we have this issue of fish. The people of Newfoundland, as evidenced by their Members of Parliament in this Chamber, by provioncial Members of the House of Assembly, and by commentators in that province, agree without qualification that that resource is akin, if you will, to the wheat of the prairie grain farmer, to the oil and gas in Alberta and, yes, to the language in the Province of Quebec. This issue is vitally important to the economic viability and the future of the Province of Newfoundland. No matter how you cut the cards, no matter who cuts the cards, the standard or the test that ought to be used should be an objective and reasonable test. In this instance, as we have seen in the three previous examples, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, and the people of Atlantic Canada have now again received the brunt of the central Government's policies as they relate to fisheries.
We have heard some statements by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The French have had treaty rights to Canadian territorial waters going back to 1904
January 28, 1987

through a convention between the United Kingdom and France. Subsequent to that there was an agreement in 1972. The purpose, or the raison d'etre, if you will, of that agreement was to phase out all the French fishing in the gulf. The Member for St. John's West-I do not think he did it intentionally, but perhaps he did it as a defence-did not talk about the provisions in that agreement with regard to reciprocal rights for Atlantic Canadians. He forgot to mention that but went on to talk about the concept of perpetuity. He did not quote the clause in which he substantiates his argument. He said that there is no definitive total allowable catch. On that point he is correct, Sir. But gross negligence is apparent when you listen to the Hon. Member for St. John's West. He refuses conveniently, I might add, to make mention of the fact that on October 9, 1980, there was an agreement between France and Canada with regard to the maximum allowable catch. He would allow the House to believe that there was a major omission in the 1972 agreement, and he is right. However, he should also be candid enough to tell Hon. Members and the people of Newfoundland that that omission was rectified in 1980.
That is one thing, but let us look at the duplicity of both the Hon. Member for St. John's West and, in particular, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). That is a very strong term to use on the floor of the House of Commons but 1 want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for St. John's West says one thing in Newfoundland and another thing in this Chamber. Talking about an obvious, flagrant misuse of documentation, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans produced information in a press release on January 27 which was in contradiction to the private and confidential documentation possessed by the Department of External Affairs. That is duplicity at its worst.
Perhaps the crime in all of this is what the Government promised in 1984. It promised consultation. How many times have we heard government Members say in the Chamber: "We will consult with the provinces, with the working men and women of Canada, with industry and with the various sectors of the economy in order to arrive at public policy in the best interests of all Canadians"?
Tonight Members from the government side have said unequivocally that they are upset because there was no consultation. The Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and others have also echoed that. However, the remedy they wish to invoke now for the people of Newfoundland and Canadians in general is an apology. They want to say: "We are sorry we did not consult with you. We are really sorry. What has gone on is terrible". That is not enough. Conservative Members of Parliament from Newfoundland have a responsibility. They have a majority in this Chamber. They ought to do the proper thing and demand forthwith that this agreement be called null and void and that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans resign.
Let us talk about the process of consultation. There was no consultation. The Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, the former employer of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) and his idol and mentor, said about the Minister of Fisheries and the Government's policies that they are incompetent. What better evidence do you need than to have a provincial Premier of Tory persuasion commenting like that with regard to this particular policy? Why did the Premier say what he did? He said it because there was no consultation, just as there was no consultation in the Province of Newfoundland as evidenced by the statements made by Premier Peckford on behalf of his people.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not only incompetent, he is insensitive to the vital importance of a resource in the Province of Newfoundland. For those two reasons, he should do the honourable thing and resign from this federal Cabinet forthwith. If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not prepared to do that, let us put this on the line. Let us see where members of the Conservative Party from Newfoundland really stand. Will they say that they will apologize or will they have the intestinal fortitude and guts to stand up for their people and say that they will cross the floor and resign from their Party if this agreement is not called null and void and if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not resign forthwith? We will wait for 72 hours to see what these Members opposite will do. I am afraid that they will follow the likes of the Hon. Member for St. John's West by going down to Newfoundland to cry and wail, only to come back to Ottawa to say that they pulled the wool over the eyes of the people again. That is a shame.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West spoke on the radio and for the benefit of Hon. Members, I wish to let the House know what he said. I have a transcript from the VOCM action line of Wednesday, January 28, 1987. The Minister of Transport said that those responsible for this are certainly insensitive to the importance of the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. This great paragon of Newfoundland concerns went one step further. He did not stop there. This great eloquent man, a paragon of Newfoundland interests, said that they were to have as one of their objectives better, improved federal relations, one of their hallmarks so far, but that this was hardly the way to go about it.
The Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, says one thing down there and something different here in Ottawa. Who is the puppet and who is pulling the strings? Is it the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? Is it the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who is pulling the strings? Shame on the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
Hon. Members opposite are in disagreement with one another. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso has said that there is no agreement. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's has said that there is an agreement. I wish they would make up their minds. Either there is an agreement or there is not. To have an agreement, there must

January 28, 1987
be an intention to sign an agreement. There must be consideration and there must be the signatures of the parties. Do we have that here? One member of the Tory Party says yes and another says no. How convenient for the Tories-excuse me, Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament of the Conservative Party of Canada-to try to be on both sides of the issue. It is typical of an incompetent, insensitive Government that does not deserve the trust of Canadians to run the administration of this country.
I would like to talk about something else in regard to this particular issue and it has to do with the Prime Minister, or Photo-Brian as he is known in my constituency. Why was this agreement made in secret? Did it have anything to do with the desire of the Prime Minister to have wonderful, glorious, picturesque photo opportunities at the upcoming first Francophone summit in Quebec City? Is that the rationale behind this agreement? If it is the rationale, I challenge the Hon. Member for St. John's West to have the intestinal fortitude to tell the Prime Minister that he is wrong and is not representing the best interests of Newfoundland. The Hon. Member for St. John's West has the habit of saying one thing in St. John's and another in Ottawa. That is typical.


John Carnell Crosbie: You do not tell the truth in either place.


David Charles Dingwall: It is typical gross negligence and gross incompetence by Members opposite.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issued a press release. You want to talk about someone not coming clean! Not with Members of Parliament on this side.


Mr. Holtmann:: We know you are clean.


John Carnell Crosbie: Your head is shiny.


David Charles Dingwall: Not with Members of Parliament on this side but with his own caucus. Do you hear them wailing and crying over there? They are 28 per cent or 29 per cent in the polls and they are gone. Gone. This will help your exit from political life.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are gone with the wind, Dingwall.


David Charles Dingwall: The French catch, as indicated in the press release for 1984, was 6,607 tonnes. However, what does the confidential document say to which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and obviously because he is a privy counsellor, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) were exposed? It says 11,221 tonnes. If that is not duplicity, if that is not double-talk, if that is not misleading members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I do not know what is. What was the figure used by the Minister in his press release for 1985? It was 6,010 tonnes as of May, 1985. In the secret document that Premier Peckford and Premier Buchanan have yet to see what does it say? This is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-


George Roland Henderson: Telling his own people.


David Charles Dingwall: -18,508 tonnes. It is very obvious that we are getting only one side of the story from the Minister. He is refusing to share with his caucus colleagues information germane to this discussion. That is gross incompetence and gross negligence. As I said earlier, it deserves as a bare minimum his resignation from Cabinet as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans forthwith.


Felix Holtmann: Sit down.


David Charles Dingwall: I will conclude by saying that the Premier of Newfoundland and the Premier of Nova Scotia agree that the Government's handling of this issue-


J. Michael Forrestall: That is right, the Conservatives agreed with Gerald Regan who agreed you were an incompetent MLA.


David Charles Dingwall: They both have concluded that this agreement is akin to gross incompetence.
It is one thing for Members opposite to say that, but quite another when provincial Premiers say it. I say to the people of Newfoundland that they have been let down by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Hon. Member for St. John's West has abdicated his responsibilities as their representative in the federal Cabinet, and I call upon Conservative Members of Parliament from the Province of Newfoundland to demand forthwith the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If not, let them sit as independents. Put your money where your mouth is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Felix Holtmann: From the Prairies.


John Carnell Crosbie: Glad to know you are still breathing, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be breathing long after my good friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).
In taking part in this debate, the First thing I want to do-


John Carnell Crosbie: Is sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -is extend my congratulations and respect to the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson). I thought he spoke from his heart as well as his head.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He made it plain that he was saying to his own Party and Government: This far and no further.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is why we are a great Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mike, would you get on the list and get up and make a speech?


J. Michael Forrestall: We are a great Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have made four speeches sitting on your ass. Now shut up.
January 28, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: You are talking through yours.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Get on the list and make a speech, Mike, I will be waiting to hear it.


J. Michael Forrestall: It will be a little bit better and more knowledgeable than the one you have to make.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The respect and regard I have for my colleagues in this place from all Parties I have not only for the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception but even for the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who also intimated that he is not completely happy and satisfied with this agreement. I respect and congratulate them for that.


J. Michael Forrestall: So do we.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When you are involved in negotiations, whether it is over a union-management table or a nation to nation table, whether it is international or domestic, you do not offer something in advance. You do not telegraph to your opposite number what you are prepared to give, what lengths you are prepared to go to get them to agree to negotiate or arbitrate. You just do not do that. That is dumb bargaining. I am not suggesting that the labour side or the management side or the government side have not done some dumb bargaining because they have. All that is required here is for the Government to say, "We bargained dumb"-and you do not have to use my words, you can put it in much more diplomatic and statesman-like language than I would use. You do not lay those things out ahead of time. All your opposite number has to do is to sit back and smile sweetly.
The President of France, a Socialist, must be smiling to himself on his way to Canada. The Premier of France, a Conservative, must be laughing all the way over to congratulate his fisheries Department.


J. Michael Forrestall: On what basis?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope I am wrong.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, I expect there will be a ceremony where the agreement which was initialled earlier will be formalized when the President of France gets here. I hope that does not happen. We tipped our hand in these negotiations by having already cut back the quotas of our own fishermen. We did that in consultation with the four Atlantic provinces as part of the management of our fisheries. Having cut back the quotas of our own fishermen, we should have asked France to voluntarily cut back on the amount of fish they are taking. Surely it would have been a proper bargaining position to ask France to cut back in the same proportion as we have cut back our own fellows until we reach an agreement.
The Minister of Transport has said that the Government is trying to get out of something that previous Liberal administrations got us into many years ago. We do not disagree with that. This is an NDP motion rather than a Liberal one. However, there is no excuse for a Conservative Government to practice the supine acquiescence started by the Liberals. There is no damned excuse for sitting back and blaming it on the Liberals. The people of Atlantic Canada believed that the Tories would be different and correct the past errors of omission and commission. The Government gave France the right to fish in a zone where they were never allowed to fish before, unless it was in the 1500s.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are playing politics with the lives of our fishermen. That's exactly what you are doing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you mean I am playing politics?


J. Michael Forrestall: You have no regard for them whatsoever.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For a hundred and some years Atlantic Canada has had nothing but Liberals and Tories, Liberals and Tories, and they have the highest unemployment and the poorest fishermen ever seen in the country. They keep thinking that maybe they will do better next time, but they continue to fail.


Felix Holtmann: You're going to make it wonderful over there, aren't you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We didn't do it to them. It was Liberals and Tories, Liberals and Tories.


Felix Holtmann: And you are going to make it wonderful.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Liberals and Tories dictated to those people ad nauseum.


Felix Holtmann: And you're going to make it wonderful?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we listen to the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not good enough for Tories to sit here blaming Liberals and Liberals to sit here blaming Tories.


Felix Holtmann: Where do you fit in?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have damn well had enough of that.


Felix Holtmann: Where do you fit in? You aren't even there.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We fit in very nicely, thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask Hon. Members to have the courtesy of listening to the Member for Regina West.


Felix Holtmann: Where do you wonderful people fit in?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are fitting in nicely, thank you.

January 28, 1987


Felix Holtmann: Explain that to the people of Canada. Where do you fit in?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not good enough to sit around blaming the other guys.


Felix Holtmann: We are waiting with bait on our breath.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My Leader, who moved this motion which was accepted by the Chair, proposed an alternative solution.


Felix Holtmann: Oh, wonderful.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman whose mouth is open now had his ears closed earlier this day.


Felix Holtmann: Give us your solution, your wonderful solution.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The agreement was designed to placate France rather than meet the needs of Atlantic Canada. The agreement gives away fish stocks to France where it has never fished before and is not entitled to in any remote manner. France did not even ask for rights in this area. Why would the Government give France those rights before an arbitrated settlement was reached? It is more dumb bargaining.


Felix Holtmann: What a wonderful group of people.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I can tell my hon. friend that a number of us have been on both sides of the bargaining table.
They say that fish is good brain food.


Gerry St. Germain: You haven't eaten any.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have listened to my hon. friend opposite and I now know how the good Lord knows where to send the fish. I wonder when he last ate any. When is the last time the Minister of Transport ate any of that good brain food? More important, when is the last time the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) ate any?


Felix Holtmann: He ate some good fish in Manitoba. I can vouch for that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans represents part of the Fraser Valley and South Delta where they have Pacific salmon. If he wanted to be a generous Canadian statesman and negotiator, why did he not offer Pacific salmon instead of Atlantic cod to the French? Can you imagine what would have happened to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he had told the French that they could have Pacific salmon if they did not mess around in the territory in dispute. The Minister from British Columbia would have been run out of town on a rail and it would have been too good for him. However, he can be generous with the northern cod off Newfoundland. If he were negotiating with the Americans and Japanese for Pacific salmon, would he be equally as generous? I hope my Conservative friends opposite will ask him that.


Felix Holtmann: So far not too many people have trusted you guys.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know much, if anything, about fish, other than the ones we have in Last Mountain Lake.


Felix Holtmann: Then sit down. Sit down if you don't know anything about fish.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On the other hand, my colleague opposite would not know a bushel of wheat if it hit him in the face and I am sure that he would get up and make a speech on it.


Felix Holtmann: I am sorry, but I know as much about wheat as you do. Here you are talking about fish. Good for you, you're talking about fish.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, is there a rule that if a Member is going to talk he should be in his own seat?


Felix Holtmann: There is no rule.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am wondering whether you are sure as to who has the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: All Hon. Members in the chamber this evening know that the Hon. Member has a great deal of experience in this place. He no doubt asks a rhetorical question but I understand perfectly why it is being asked. The answer, which I had to deal with earlier this evening, is that a Member not in his seat is not entitled to have the floor.
Sometimes it is very difficult to persuade Hon. Members that when they are in someone else's seat they ought also to recognize the fact that they ought not to take the floor in repartee, if I can put it that way, across the aisle. The Hon. Member is absolutely right. If someone is trying to seek the floor from a seat other than that which is their allotted seat in the chamber, of course the Chair cannot recognize the Member. I would advise the Hon. Member who, of course, is a very experienced Member, that perhaps he could continue his debate more effectively if he did not recognize that other Hon. Member either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to my friends opposite that I listened carefully to speeches of my colleagues opposite, without interruption. I like to be heckled because it means that in fact they are listening. However, in this instance, they are not listening.
We are aware that it is very difficult to govern this country, with 10 provinces and two territories. Perhaps the worst scenario for any party in power is that many of the provinces are governed by the same party. We appreciate that it can be a difficult situation. However, no matter what the disagreements or misunderstandings with the provinces, the fundamental principle to be held by the national Government and this chamber is that the enhancement and preservation of our


January 28, 1987

sovereignty and independence is inviolate and indivisible. Members on all sides of the House unanimously agree with that principle, even if we may disagree about how to uphold it.
In this case, our disagreement concerns the conduct of international negotiations. While we may disagree on how they are conducted, we do not disagree with their purpose. Our motion simply states that the Government has made a mistake. It should not bargain away the well-being of its own people and the integrity of its own territory in negotiations with other nations.
Perhaps if we were at war or were under extreme pressure such negotiations may be acceptable, but we are dealing with a power that has been friendly for years and allowing it to encroach upon our national integrity and nationhood by providing it with extra quantities of our resources that belong to Canadians. That is why my leader moved this motion, your acceptance of which we appreciate, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker has ruled that this matter is serious enough that the House should take it into consideration and the Government should recognize its importance. The intent of the motion is to suggest that the Government has bargained mistakenly and should reconsider what it has done. Surely the Government should have learned something from its experience with our neighbour to the south during the past 18 months. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those free trade negotiations in the future, but the issue here is the principle of our integrity and sovereignty which all Canadians support.
We are not attempting to criticize any Hon. Member in the Government, but we sincerely felt compelled in the name of sovereignty to move this motion so that the Government would reconsider the issue. After listening to the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and the Hon. Minister of Transport, I believe they share that concern. It will be to the Government's credit if it reassesses its action and decides that it was mistaken.
Before the Government proceeds further with this agreement, which has only been initialled, it should listen not only to some of its own members, but to the fishermen and their unions, and the fish plant owners and operators and some premiers. I do not suggest for a moment, however, that the premiers are 100 per cent correct. Surely there is sufficient ground to reconsider reopening negotiations with France.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that those of us who come from constituencies with fishermen who earn their livelihood from the ocean understand what we are facing here tonight.
Let me also say a few words about Newfoundland members of our Party and their concern, dedication and devotion toward their province. I speak of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who so eloquently put forward the case of Newfoundlanders as it really is. He did not preach fear or use scare tactics, but represented the people of Newfoundland and Canada as he has done so well for so many years.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price) rose in this House tonight to speak to the plight of those Newfoundlanders who live along the southern part of Newfoundland and who are so impacted by any adjustments made to the Newfoundland fishery. He is concerned, and has a right to be, and he spoke well in this House. He represented Newfoundland proudly.
The Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) also rose in the House to represent his riding. I was present at a meeting today when he spoke of the ocean and of fishing and of the people of Newfoundland. He is a captain by profession, a man who has lived on the ocean from which he has sought his livelihood.


Mr. Speaker:: A skipper.


Gerry St. Germain: A skipper, as you point out, Mr. Speaker. He is a man who understands every problem related to fisheries which affect Newfoundland and other parts of this country. As the Hon. Member pointed out, there is not a family in Newfoundland which has not lost a son, a father or a friend to the ocean. Yet they continue to eke out their existence from the ocean.
Those who spoke before me are very well qualified. They put forward the case of Newfoundland better than anyone could. As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, they did not rise in this House to preach fear, scare tactics or to malicously attack. They are not fearmongers. They are very, very concerned Members of Parliament from Newfoundland.
The New Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, moved the motion for debate. Its Leader rose in this House and advocated armed insurrection against a friendly nation. He said we may have to resort to a military resolution. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) called it a friendly power. I do not believe that Canadians, regardless of whether they are from British Columbia, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, or wherever, would advocate the use of arms. That is the type of rhetoric we have heard here tonight. It is insincerity. It is not that which Canadians want. We are looking at a situation in which our Government has faced the fact that the quotas and very livelihood of some Newfoundland people has been reduced because of overfishing in the oceans which surround them. That is unacceptable. There has to be a resolve. There has to be a method of controlling the fisheries so that we as Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders-we as Canadians-can have first right to the fisheries and do not have to cut back our quotas or allocations. That is the reason it is so important we try to establish some form of agreement with the country of France in dealing with this very important issue.

January 28, 1987
Let us visualize what will happen if we do nothing and the overfishing continues. As someone from British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and one who was so involved with the salmon enhancement program on the West Coast, you will know that if a fishery is overfished, the livelihood of Canadians is placed in jeopardy. It is no different on the West Coast than it is on the East Coast. This is the dilemma the people of the East Coast of Canada are facing. This is the reason our Government is attempting to seek a resolve to this situation.
There is no doubt that there is concern in the minds of people on the East Coast tonight. That has been brought on to a large extent by the fear tactics which have been preached here tonight. However, it has been clearly enunciated by Hon. Members that they know of the concerns of Newfoundlanders and those concerns will be attended to immediately and efficiently as those Hon. Members who represent Newfoundland have always done on all issues which come before the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member for Regina West suggested that consultations should take place. I believe there is no government which has consulted more sincerely than the present Government of Canada. That has been a hallmark of this Government and it will continue to be a hallmark. I can think of a multitude of agreements arrived at that the previous administration could never even come close to reaching. For instance, there were the ERDA agreements with the provinces and the Atlantic Accord, which was a favourable agreement for the Province of Newfoundland. But here again we have the rhetoric, the screaming and yelling that no consultation has taken place. Our Government did consult in this case and it will continue to consult with Premier Peckford and the industry. There will be no final decision without the input of the industry and Government of Newfoundland.
I appreciate having had the opportunity to enter into this debate. As I pointed out, it is only those of us who live in and represent fishing communities who can truly relate to the lifestyle of the fishermen. I would just like to reinforce what was said here tonight by the Hon. Members from Newfoundland in their representations, and to tell the people of Newfoundland they have been well represented. None of their fishery is in jeopardy. There will be no agreement unless the agreement is favourable for the people of Newfoundland and for all the people on the East Coast of Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) would not want to leave an erroneous impression with the House that our Leader has been advocating violence, or that anyone in the New Democratic Party had done so.


John Carnell Crosbie: You did.


James Douglas Manly: That is not what we have been saying in this debate at all.


Gerry St. Germain: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) is absolutely correct. The Hon. Member is engaging in debate. However, sometimes the Chair does not know until the debate has commenced exactly what is the purpose of the comment.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this evening and to add a few comments on the debate and the speeches we have heard.
I would like to give a short summary of the three options that Canadians were given this evening.

First, there was the do-nothing option. This was the option proposed by the Liberal Party. That is what it has been doing for years. France continues to overfish cod stocks off the south coast of Newfoundland, costing the fishermen of Newfoundland something in the order of $40 million per year. Doing this would condemn the south coast fishery to extinction. The French have shown no sign of good management intentions, none whatsoever. Thus, the Liberal option to continue with the 1972 agreement to grant fishing rights was just not acceptable. The 1972 agreement granted the fishing fleet of France fishing rights in perpetuity, which is what we have to live with today. The June, 1984 pre-election Liberal agreement to abstain from regulating each other's fishing efforts was a means by which both countries could turn their backs on what the other was doing. This was not the way to go either. Obviously, the Liberal option is simply not an acceptable choice.
Let us now consider the NDP option. I will not call it the "NDP Party" because the members of that Party become so sensitive and hot when we say that. So I will say it is the NDP option. That option is to send in the gunboats Rambo-style. Their option is a call to war. It was Rambo Broadbent, the Leader of the NDP, who recommended that. It is irresponsible. It is good in that he will hit the national news with it. Rambo Broadbent says: "Let's go to war with France". He will hit the national news for sure with a statement like that. But it is irresponsible to come up with such an option. It is something which we simply cannot accept.
The Leader of the NDP brought up the Spanish trawler confrontation, a completely invalid point. The Spanish were fishing in undisputed Canadian waters. At that time we showed the Spanish how we could get rid of them if they were overfishing in waters which were undisputed. The difference between that case and this case is that France claims the waters off the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Sovereignty over waters that are not internationally recognized to be our own cannot be enforced. Confrontation makes no sense when the possibility of a negotiated settlement exists.
We are not living in the Falklands. Nor are we in Argentina. We cannot send in the gunboats, no matter how attractive it

January 28, 1987

may appear to Rambo Broadbent. I apologize to the sole member of the NDP who is in the House if I have offended his Leader.
The third option is negotiation, something which appears almost foreign to the NDP way of thinking tonight. It is the only reasonable option. It is the only courageous option, an option which the Liberals were afraid to take or even consider. Getting the French to agree to go to international third party arbitration is a major achievement. I might even say that it is a major breakthrough. It is an historic event. This gives us a chance to undo the harm caused by the 1972 agreement and the unholy pre-election 1984 agreement. Negotiations will involve give and take. We should be prepared to pay a small price in order to get the French into arbitration. If we fail, then we will never have full sovereignty over our waters. If we fail to stop the French from overfishing it will continue. The future of the south coast of Newfoundland depends on our coming up with a negotiated settlement.
In the process the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the industry have been consulted at every stage. Our Government's first and foremost commitment and obligation is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If as a result of our discussions over the past few months with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the fishing industry it is determined that the cost is too great, then there will be no agreement, and we in Nova Scotia will join with our Newfoundland colleagues in saying that there will be no agreement. It is as simple as that. Both the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the industry will continue to be involved in ongoing and continuous negotiations.
I would now like to say a few words about misinformation. I listened tonight to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who attacked the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Where were those two Members when the 1972 and 1984 agreements were entered into? Where were they then with their fine rhetoric? In fact, where are they now? I do not even see them in the House after they moved a motion to continue the debate all evening. They are not even here to listen. They had the help of their socialist Rambos, the NDP gunboat diplomacy led by Rambo Broad-bent, the Colonel Gaddafi of the NDP. Where are they now? Where were they when the Government was giving fish stocks in perpetuity and signing agreements which turned their backs on overfishing?
I listened tonight to the Hon. Member for Bonavista- Conception-Trinity (Mr. Johnson) and the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price). I was proud to listen to their speeches. They are good and fine representatives from Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald J. Comeau: They want to see this issue resolved. They pulled no punches tonight. They knew where they were coming
from. They were speaking on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland.
With respect to Georges Bank, we sent that problem to third party arbitration. Let me say to Hon. Members that this was a fine agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached by gunboat diplomacy, it sometimes pays to go to negotiation.
I would now like to talk about misinformation. The Leader of the NDP made a fine speech. It was probably written by one of his assistants in order to make the national news. His speech was full of misinformation, as usual. He mentioned the issue of having 15,000 extra tonnes of quota, which is simply not true.
I wish he were here to listen to what I am saying now. However, he left just after making his speech. His research assistant who wrote his speech did not do his homework. The
15,000	tonnes was a figure mentioned in the 1987 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. All I ask the Leader of the NDP to do is to have his assistant read the plan. It is very simple. It is not a big project, if he can find the time.
I will say this. Rambo Broadbent never lets the facts affect what he has to say. He said what he wanted to say in spite of the facts.
When the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) ran out of things to say he started making up things. He quoted from what he called a secret document. If he were in the House right now I would ask him to table that secret document. If he has one, then he should table it. He should put his paper where his mouth is.
While we are on the subject of Rambos, the President of National Sea raised the rhetoric today to the point of racism. I would like to quote what he said as reported in an article which I read in The Chronicle-Herald today. He said: "I hope the Government gets a lot of votes in Quebec for being so nice to France". Mr. Speaker, you are from Quebec.

and Quebecers had nothing to do with it. The President of National Sea had no business dragging Quebec voters into this affair.
I wish to apologize on behalf of Nova Scotians, because this was not coming from a Nova Scotian. This is a transplanted Bay Street lawyer who came down to Nova Scotia and who thinks he is speaking on behalf of Nova Scotia. He will pay the price for this type of thing, because he is not speaking on behalf of Nova Scotia. This is not acceptable to the people of Nova Scotia. On behalf of all Nova Scotians I apologize to all Francophones of Canada. Again I say that it was not coming from a Nova Scotian, but a transplanted Bay Street lawyer, a friend of Senator Michael Kirby.


John Carnell Crosbie: Machiavelli.

January 28, 1987


Gerald J. Comeau: The Machiavelli of Liberal politics, the next campaign chairman for the Liberal Party with Gordon Cummings-


J. Michael Forrestall: The next Rainmaker.


Gerald J. Comeau: The next Rainmaker, of course.
In conclusion, and I will not take too much of the House's time, I would suggest that the fearmongers who stood up tonight and tried to spread fear in the heart of Atlantic Canadians should be ashamed of themselves. I wish to paraphrase my friend, the Hon. Member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, that as an Atlantic Canadian I am not afraid to speak on behalf of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. If I think that the Government is doing something wrong for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, I am not afraid to stand up and say so publicly. If these members of the Liberal Party from Atlantic Canada were here tonight listening to this, I would challenge them as well. I am not afraid to speak on behalf of Atlantic Canada. I will continue to do so. Like my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, I have not been told what to say. I am saying what I believe in.
I wish I had the gift of words of my friend who spoke tonight straight from the heart, and that I were able to deliver the type of speech that he gave. But I recommend to Rambo Broadbent, who was not here to listen to the Hon. Member from Newfoundland and the speech that he gave, that he read that speech and learn something about Atlantic Canada, what it means to be an Atlantic Canadian, and what it means to speak on behalf of our people in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting evening, but I am sure we occasionally wonder why we do this to ourselves and we drag the point on often beyond where it makes sense. Unfortunately, today we have been dealing with a very serious problem through the mechanism of an emergency debate. There is no doubt that at some point a serious problem can always be examined from 500 different directions. Somebody has to grab the thing by the face and begin the process of solving it. It appears that this is what the Government did this week. There really had to be some type of movement toward a solution of the dilemma at St. Pierre and Miquelon.
The Conservative Government has undertaken that task and, for better or worse, we will hopefully move forward to a satisfactory solution for Canadians, or at least an interim solution that will lead us to some form of decent and equitable arrangement where Canadians are not deprived of resources which truly are theirs, and which we all in the House feel belong to Canada.
The issue with St. Pierre and Miquelon extends back to the last vestiges of the colonial process of France. If my history serves me, at the end of the Napoleonic wars France's colonies were stripped and she was left with two small pieces in Canada to exploit our fisheries in St. Pierre and Miquelon. It is
unfortunate that we in this generation have inherited that problem which simply will not go away.
We heard the Conservatives blast the Liberals in the House tonight for beginning the process of trying to make some agreements with France. France has fought very hard to maintain its economic stake in the gulf fishery, and to extract the wealth from it. At the time when Canada pushed the 200 mile limit forward there was a need to begin the process of making agreements with foreign nations that fished our Atlantic coast. That process began; the initial agreements were certainly unacceptable. What happened was that is over a long period of time the process has moved forward of trying to limit more and more the incursions by those foreign fleets into areas we claimed. That has been coming about.
As the Liberal Government passed away in 1984, the task of resolving one of the toughest problems in the Atlantic area fell upon the Conservative Government. There were some interesting aspects of it. I happened to be looking over some previous speeches made in this place a year ago about the problem with the factory freezer trawler. At the time, France had very large factory freezer fleet intentions in the area. When we came to the point of moving forward, I would suggest without adequate consultation although others would argue that there was adequate consultation, I found, when reading some old speeches in here, that we had harmed ourselves by moving forward quickly with the factory freezer trawler effort on our part. We had set a precedent where France was entitled to go ahead and do it. Our attempts to seek an arbitrated effort not to have France do it seemed ridiculous after we had approved that technology. Since Canada could use it in our areas, therefore, France reasoned, why should they not be able to? The problem of setting precedents by moving too quickly caused us some problem.
It has been some time now that I have moved into other areas as fisheries critic, but it seemed to me that some time ago Premier Peckford was very concerned about having more access into the northern cod stocks. On numerous occasions he spoke to the Government about the possibility of a mid-shore fleet, a fleet that would be able to move in and begin to harvest that resource and use more of to work for the people of Newfoundland.
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves tonight more than slightly ahead of ourselves and having to seize a very nasty problem and move forward with it, without having dealt with the requests of Newfoundland to move in and harvest those stocks, so that Newfoundland might not feel so completely deprived by this agreement. Had several things moved forward, maybe with a little more caution on the factory freezer trawler issue, maybe with assistance in developing that mid-shore fleet and access to the northern cod stocks, at this time when we find ourselves in need of national consensus to deal with a nation like France, a tough, hard bargainer in any forum, had we taken those types of procedures earlier, we may not have been faced with the potential for a serious split in national consensus that we do need.
January 28, 1987

To clarify the record, I have known my Leader in this Party for many years. Of all the people that I know who would never recommend an armed intervention in this type of situation, the Member of Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is the individual. Whether we debate it, or whether it was misunderstood, it is simply not correct to say that.
We have a very difficult situation. In the debate tonight and at other times when looking at some of the ways in which this House operates, one does get a little embarrassed. I must admit that there are times when even I am embarrassed at my own behaviour. We tend to get carried away.
On a serious issue like this, there is a basic need for unity in approach against other nations. There is really a need to attend a process. For Canadians to be effective in the world, there has to be scrupulous attention paid to the process of making sure that consultation has taken place, that the concerns and fears of other people have been examined and dealt with to the greatest degree possible, so that we can all move forward together.
I am certain it is difficult for the Government at this particular point in time to have Premiers in the Atlantic provinces expressing serious concerns on a major initiative which really needs support and unity to deal effectively with them. This will now take its course. The Government has bit the bullet and moved on. For better or for worse, the moving finger having writ moves on.
However, we are faced with many other issues. Recently we in the House debated the free trade problem. There is not consensus in the country on that issue. There will not be unity in facing the United States. There were some serious problems with the softwood lumber deal. In a speech which I made in the House my expression of concern was more that the Premier of British Columbia had undercut a national effort which had gone on for quite a long time. I guess there is a time when there is some need for consensus in an approach to solve an extremely difficult problem. There is a need, on the part of the Government, to go through the process of consultation to ensure that there is a field on which the maximum consensus achievable can be attained. On the part of the Opposition, I think there comes a point, when the country faces another nation in a very difficult situation which is critical for Canada, where we must look at facing it together to the best degree possible.
There are other such areas in British Columbia; this is certainly not the last one to go. I and many people in British Columbia have serious concerns about the Canada-U.S. salmon interception treaty. Most people on the West Coast remember very seriously that the document was pushed forward quickly and without adequate consultation, we feel, in order to be signed at a meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States in Quebec City. There are those people who would argue that it was not done hastily. So be it. However, in the minds of many
people it was. What was the motivation which pulled that agreement forward? It seemed to be more the Shamrock Summit than certainly the needs and concerns of the people who would live under its terms.
There is another issue. The St. Pierre and Miquelon dispute is not the last time we will have troubles with our neighbours. I draw to the attention of the House a serious problem with the A-B line bordering the northern part of British Columbia and Alaska. The Americans have claimed an equidistant operation. The old A-B line is not acceptable to them. They would move it out further. It would give them enormous access to Canadian fishery resources. The Americans have issued oil and gas leases on the other side of the A-B line. Canadians, fishermen who live in my constituency, have been arrested by armed American vessels on the other side of the line. They have fished on Canadian charts which show that to be Canadian waters.


J. Michael Forrestall: Does that have anything to do with the motion before the House?


Raymond John Skelly: That process has begun. The Hon. Member brings me back to the topic at hand. However, I would stress with him that there will be an enormous battle in the House once again unless the process is followed. It is of extreme concern to Canadians what happens in that northwestern corner where the A-B line sits. It is a gate which controls some of the richest fishery resources of Canada. If we do not do it properly, we stand the risk of losing them.
I would urge that the mistakes which have been made-and I use the term "mistakes"-be carefully examined and hopefully not repeated.
I think we have had an extremely vigorous debate tonight. I think the Speaker chose wisely by rating this problem serious enough for an emergency debate in the House. I think there has been a full debate on it. Hopefully the agreements which are put forward with France can be ones in which Canadians have a stake and on which Canadians work together. Hopefully the Government will move forward and try to assist Newfoundland with its very justified concerns. There have been concerns expressed about factory freezer trawlers and about the ability of Newfoundlanders to share in the wealth in those northern stocks. Hopefully they would be listened to and, even though late, there would be an opportunity to move in quickly, not only to bring Premier Peckford on side in seeking a solution, but to deal with the issue of trying to provide for Newfoundland fair and effective access to those resources, so that Canadians living in Newfoundland can be beneficiaries of our resources.
There is much to be done. Hopefully the Government will move forward from here in a positive direction, so that Canadians can back it, to whatever degree possible, in its endeavours to obtain a decent agreement with France.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join with my colleagues

January 28, 1987
from Atlantic Canada and from other parts of this great country to speak on a topic of tremendous interest and importance to the fishing industry and fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
The Canada-France boundary and fisheries agreement which we are debating tonight is really not an agreement. In first year law I was taught that an agreement to agree is not an agreement; it is merely a statement of intention. The Minister made very clear that there was no agreement. He simply said that there was an intention to proceed with a program which should lead to settlement of the dispute over the maritime boundary off the south coast of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon and to provide fishing quotas for France for 1988 to 1991 while the boundary is being determined.
The question many Canadians are asking themselves these days is: How is it that France is in our waters? How is it that France has any access to so-called Canadian fish? All Canadians must realize that until 10 years ago these fish were international fish and there was no such thing as a 200-mile economic zone. International law had not evolved to the point where a country such as Canada could declare a 200-mile economic zone, that being 200 miles from the coastline of our country or to the edge of the continental shelf.
Over the last 25 years we have reached the point in international law where coastal states have recognized jurisdiction over certain resources, marine and under the sea bed adjacent to the land. Those rights which Canada has accrue to other coastal states. Whether or not we like it, St. Pierre and Miquelon are part of France and when we speak about them we speak about France. Attached to that land mass are similar rights accorded to France under international law. Of course it is known by Members of the House that France cannot go 200 miles from St. Pierre and Miquelon without intersecting an area which falls within 200 miles of Canada. There we have the disputed zone.
Where will the line be drawn? The international court of justice has a series of rules, some of which are complicated equidistant rules and others which reflect the continental shelf, the land mass, et cetera. Ultimately these boundaries can only be decided in such a forum. Such was the case in the Georges Bank issue which was settled between Canada and the United States.
It was with a view to settling this dispute and exercising some control over the fishing effort of France that Canada has been attempting to strike an accord with France. We want an accord with France because to this point France has exercised no control over its fishing efforts in the disputed zone. France's fishing effort represented a threat to the continued health and viability of the entire Atlantic fishery off Newfoundland. It is with this motivation that Canada moved to negotiate or attempt to reach some kind of accord. From where else does France get its right to fish other than from international law?
There are three principal historical documents on which the French base their fishing rights. First is a 1972 treaty between Canada and France. Second is a 1982 agreement between Canada and the European Economic Community and third is a 1984 exchange of notes between Canada and France of June, 1984. For the interest of all Canadians, these three agreements were entered into by the former Liberal Government. It is, therefore, the ultimate hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition Liberal Party over the last two days to say that it accepts no responsibility for the fishing effort that France has expanded into Canadian economic zones.
The Liberal Party is not being consistent. It is clear that the Liberal Party is not putting the facts before the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. It is clear that the Liberal Party views this dispute or uncertainty as an opportuntity to gain votes, the votes of people who are concerned about their continued economic viability. Fishermen in this country and in Atlantic Canada who expend a great deal of effort and incur great risk to put food on the table deserve more and better. The treatment they receive from the Liberal Party is shameful.
Just what is it that Canada has agreed to do, Mr. Speaker? Canada has agreed to talk. Nothing else. There is no giveaway of cod or any other fish to France. In fact, the record should show that there is more than a 50 per cent reduction in the cod allocation to France for 1987 over 1986. In 1986, French vessels caught 21,000 tonnes of cod. In 1987, that figure will drop to 8,000 tonnes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lawrence I. O'Neil: The Opposition accuses us of going easy on France. It is quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. We hear a lot about a treaty expiring in December 1986. What expired was only the right of French vessels to fish in the gulf region. The treaty itself, signed by the Liberal Party, is a perpetual treaty, a perpetual obligation on the people of Canada and the fishermen of Atlantic Canada to share their fishing resource with a foreign country. We reject that. We also heard earlier in tonight's debate from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who selectively quoted statistics and compared apples and oranges. The contrast put before the people of Canada and Members of the House is not valid. It was misleading. It did not reflect the reality in which we find ourselves.
What about France's jurisdictional rights? What were the options? We heard from earlier speakers that Canada had three options, having decided that it wanted to resolve this problem. It could have reached a voluntary accord with France. Our Government tried and, like other Governments, it was unsuccessful. We then decided to pursue the objective of an arbitrated settlement, a third party settlement. What we are talking about tonight is whether or not a mechanism that has been agreed upon will result in a third party settlement.
January 28, 1987

Most alarming was to hear from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that we should have put our war boats in the water and that we should have used military force to deal with this issue. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the Canadian way. I suggest that that is not a route to be followed by any leader of a civilized nation. There are easier, better and more effective ways of solving a problem. There are more mature ways in the international community to resolve a problem than to pursue such aggression. The need for determination of the boundary, as I said, has become serious because of French overfishing in the area.
France has been taking advantage of the fact that the boundary has not been settled. In these circumstances, Canada cannot enforce Canadian fishing regulations in the large area France claims off the south coast of Newfoundland. The French fleets have expanded their fishery in this area to an enormous extent. While the customary share for France of a total allowable catch for cod in the area off the south coast of Newfoundland was 6,400 tonnes in 1986 and is again in 1987, in fact the French fleet caught approximately 26,000 tonnes of cod and had planned to take approximately 25,000 tonnes in 1987. This rate of overfishing produces a total catch of about
60,000	tonnes as compared with a total allowable catch established by Canada of 41,000 tonnes.
This represents a serious risk to the cod stock off the south coast of Newfoundland which is rapidly becoming depleted. The French have taken a position that they will not agree to refer the boundary dispute to an international tribunal in the absence of another agreement. Again, that underlies the whole point that there is no agreement to debate. There is simply a concensus as to a mechanism for resolving a very difficult international problem, and the resolution of this problem has eluded Liberal Governments that have preceded us.
As a Nova Scotian Member of Parliament, I feel that I must respond and I must comment on a press release which was telexed to me from Gordon E. Cummings, President and Chief Executive Officer of National Sea Products Limited.


J. Michael Forrestall: He is not a Nova Scotian.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: He is not a Nova Scotian but a resident. He is from Bay Street and is an active member of the Liberal Party. The press release reflects concern about the fishing industry and much concern about the political industry. The telex is really without basis in fact. It criticizes the Government and suggests that the Government of Canada has taken fish from Nova Scotia fishermen. This is clearly not true. The suggestion being put forward is that Nova Scotian jobs will be lost. This is not true, Mr. Speaker. If anything is true, this whole issue indicates the drive with which the Government of Canada is attempting to secure employment for the fishermen of Canada and the fishing processors.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He should be asked to resign.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I would like to join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) in expressing
my deep regret upon reading in the provincial newspaper of Nova Scotia that this same Mr. Cummings viewed this communication with the Government of France as an attempt to gain votes in Quebec. What is being said and articulated and I believe what is being revealed is bigotry. Why bring the people of Quebec into this debate as we negotiate with the Government of France? I have the honour to represent an area that has thousands of people who speak the French language. Why were the thousands of Acadians not singled out? This is a reference that I find most objectionable and offensive. It is an attempt to introduce, if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker, a red herring.
When people cannot deal with the facts in a debate, they try to put up straw men. This reference in The Chronicle Herald forces me to conclude that this particular gentleman is unprepared to deal with the facts, that he does not know what the facts are and that those facts do not support the conclusion that he wants to reach in any case.
There may be some legitimate complaints that can be raised about the lack of communication in the last week but let those complaints be complaints about the lack of communication, not an attack on the merits of a worth-while initiative. Let those complaints be recognized for what they are. They are simply a criticism indicating that perhaps there was not sufficient consultation and communication.
I do not believe that it is correct for anyone to suggest that all of this has been a tremendous surprise. Negotiations have been ongoing for months in this entire issue. It was inevitable that a point would be reached as it was on the weekend. The issues and options did not change that much and a choice was made. It was a choice that was on the table for some time.
As I prepare to close, I as other Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada want to state my commitment to ensuring that the fishing industry, the backbone of the economy of Atlantic Canada, will continue to be well and aggressively represented by Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. We will ensure that Members of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative caucus speak with an independent voice and are not trained seals. We were not the ones who sat in this Chamber in 1972, 1982 and 1984 when the federal Government of the day executed agreements with the Government of France and the European Economic Community, agreements that signed away the fishing resource that properly belonged to the people of Atlantic Canada. That is the issue to which the Liberal Opposition must respond but they refuse to address it. In the days that follow, that is the issue that Liberal Members will be forced to address by the people of Atlantic Canada who are listening tonight and hearing the facts. They will want to hear an explanation of the activities of the Liberal Government in those years. They will applaud the efforts of this Government and the Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada to put behind us those mistakes and to secure for all time and for all Canadians the

January 28, 1987
right to harvest and manage the fishing resource of Canada for the betterment of all Canadians.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that Members of the House should have a careless disregard for the truth as they speak and present their cases to a national television audience, they hope, and certainly to all Atlantic fishermen in the area. I do not believe that a Party should suggest that a debate go beyond midnight and then evacuate the House. I think that is a fair statement to make and I hope someone in the fishing community of Atlantic Canada is aware that that is what has happened. It is a farcical motion to move if one is not prepared to support it. Obviously the Liberal Party was not prepared to support its suggestion for an all-night debate. Where are they?
I listened to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) and I must say that in all the speeches I have heard in the House since I came here in 1972, I have never heard a more careless disregard for facts as I did while he presented his case to Canada and the Canadian fishing industry. I wish to address that.
The Hon. Member mentioned surveillance. It was a Liberal Government that made a deal with France that in the disputed area, we would not have surveillance over their boats for the amount of catch they took and they in turn would not have surveillance over ours. That was the Liberal deal with France. The difference was that the Canadian boats that fished within that territory landed at Canadian points and were subject to Canadian quotas. They could not catch beyond that limit. There was no such condition imposed upon the French fleet. They could catch to their heart's content and we had no rights or privileges to surveillance, examination or to board them because we surrendered those rights under a Liberal Government.
If the fishery policy of the former Government was so good, why was the Minister not re-elected to the House of Commons? He was defeated in a fishing community. Following the political map throughout the Gaspe, the Gulf, down the East Coast of New Brunswick, into Nova Scotia and over to Newfoundland, how did it happen that the Liberals lost so many seats to the Conservative Party. If the Liberal policy was so good, why did this happen? Not one former Liberal Fisheries Minister now sits in this House. Two of them had to seek haven in the other place and the third was defeated. One cannot speak very well for one's Party when that is the history of its Ministers.
Hon. Members spoke about surveillance. The Fisheries Committee, including the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and later the Hon. Member for Egmont, heard Conservative Members emphasize surveillance meeting after meeting. When we pointed out that the herring quota within our own waters had probably been exceeded threefold because of a lack of surveillance, we were mocked. The fact is that those on the coast of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. or the Gulf knew that the quota of herring was
being caught threefold and surveillance was not part of the program.
A member of the crew of one of the boats that was supposed to be on surveillance duty in the North Atlantic came before members of our committee and said: "I have been afloat all summer in a fisheries boat which is supposed to be surveilling the catch of the foreign fleets. We have never seen a foreign boat pull its gear from the water so that we could examine what was in that catch. We have never seen a foreign boat come to the mother ship and unload its catch. We have never been permitted to go into a hold of a Russian factory ship to see what was in it". That is the surveillance to which the Hon. Member for Egmont referred. That was a mockery of surveillance.
When surveillance was discussed in committees, I can remember the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) saying repeatedly that within our 200-mile limit, it looked like a city at sea because there were so many lights from the factory boats and their suppliers. Yet, as we were told, we never saw a boat haul in its gear or unload onto the factory ship and we never got into the hold of a boat. The Hon. Member for Egmont says we were doing the surveillance. Then, on top of that, they abandoned surveillance in the disputed territory except for Canadian boats.
The Hon. Member also mentioned the duty on fish. I believe the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate and the Hon. Member for Egmont were on that committee. We had to deal with a very difficult situation in our trade with the U.S. It was pointed out repeatedly that if we established a government-supported company in the fish processing industry we would unavoidably be subject to duty by the U.S. There was no way we could get the Liberal Government of the day to do anything but establish a subsidized company. Yes, duty was applied and the Hon. Member for Egmont says that is all the fault of this Government. That is just another one of the deceptive statements made in this House and we and the people of Canada deserve an apology.
I am sure that viewers did not get a different impression of the statement of the Hon. Member for Egmont than I did. He said the nose and tail of the bank were surrendered by this Government. The facts are that in the negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference and in the establishment of the 200-mile limit, Canada dropped its right to the ownership of the resource in the coastal waters and under the sea bed. That treaty was approved by coastal states about 30 years ago. The only nation which supported Canada on the 200-mile limit issue was India. They were mad at us because they have a 600-mile coastal shelf and they could not afford, they felt, to surrender any of their rights in that shelf in view of the Coastal Nations Treaty. However, we put it on the table and that is where the Fishing privileges on the nose and tail of the bank went down the tube before we even negotiated anything.
January 28, 1987

We were told by the Liberal Minister of Fisheries that NAFO will look after that. That is the same group that was precluded from the coast of North America, from Florida north, by virtue of the 200-mile limit. The only waters available to an international fishing fleet without regulation are on the nose and tail of the bank. That was surrendered without a fight as we so generously put them on the table to the detriment of the fishing industry. NAFO will not do the surveillance or designate anyone with authority to do the surveillance. It is fished indiscriminately and our efforts to maintain stocks at a reasonable level just cannot be maintained as long as that very fruitful area is left without surveillance and fished indiscriminately. We also gave permits to fish within our 200-mile limits to Cuba. That country already had its own 200-mile limit and in no way needed more fishing territory.
That is the history of the Liberal Party. It was received with great disfavour by the voters who pretty well cleaned the Liberals out in the Gaspe, the east coast of New Brunswick, and a few in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. That is the reception their policy got and they are trying to say that they looked after the fishermen. The voters did not think so then and they will not think so later. From the abandonment of our fish, to the abandonment of the seal hunt, right straight through to the nose and tail of the bank, the Liberal policy failed and the voters told them so. Any pretense that France has not given up many of its rights or that the treaties are still not in place is just that, a pretense. The only treaty the Hon. Member for Egmont mentioned which is not in force is that part which allowed the metropolitan fleet into the gulf area. That expired in 1986. The rest of the treaty is still in place. They will still fish without surveillance by virtue of a Liberal treaty.
It is a sad day when an issue cannot be debated on its merits and on its truth and when the people of Canada cannot rely on the statements of those who would incite, excite and mislead them. It is a deplorable situation that the Party which did so much of that in this debate has vacated the House to the last man. The Party that moved the motion now has one Member in the House. That is the seriousness with which this debate has been taken. I hope Canadians will note that. Canadians have been misled by their speeches. That is the reputation those two Parties put together for themselves.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate very briefly in this emergency debate for really just one reason. I want to give an overview of how I, as a Member from Atlantic Canada, see this issue. Let me begin by saying that Atlantic Canada has a very proud and ancient history. It did not start in 1867 with Confederation. It started centuries before that and very much involved the Atlantic fishery. It very much involved fishermen from France, Spain and Portugal who travelled here at great risk to fish the waters of the North Atlantic. We in Atlantic Canada know the contribution Europeans have made to the Atlantic Fishery. We know the history of Atlantic Canada on land and in the ocean.
We know the Province of Newfoundland, which is so affected by the issue of stocks in the Atlantic Fishery, was founded by those who braved the Atlantic waters in search of Fish they needed to feed their people. We know the history and recognize the facts.
Today, in 1987, the fishery is one of the richest resources in the world. In a world starved for protein we now recognize, once and hopefully for all time, the importance of the fish resources of Atlantic Canada. I hope every Canadian from the East Coast to the West Coast recognizes its value just as we recognize the value of the oil resources of Alberta and the grain resources of the prairie provinces. It is in this connection that we must move to protect this resource and preserve it for all Canadians. In order to protect that resource we must recognize the history of all the nations which were involved in the Atlantic fishery, which history extends back 500 years or more. I am sure all Canadians remember the voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1492 which led to the discovery of North America, the voyages of Jacques Cartier and all the other explorers, and the proud history of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. This is all part of our heritage and we understand that very clearly in Atlantic Canada.
The historic event which gives rise to the difFiculty which we face on the floor of the House of Commons today is the establishment of the 200-mile economic zone. The establishment of that zone is the most important incident which we have to deal with in this context. All those centuries were compressed to result in the imposition of the 200-mile zone. Therefore, those who say that there was a simple solution, that something very simple could have been done to right the problems of 500 or 600 years, are not dealing with reality.
Only 30 years ago the Soviets, for example, plundered the fishery of Atlantic Canada. Many nations took whatever fish stocks they could by whatever methods they could employ. There was absolutely no control on the fish stocks off the Atlantic coast. Only when the economic zone was established in 1972 were we able to get any control over the situation.
It has taken a long process of evolution to get us to this point. As well as recognizing the history, we must recognize what was involved in the dramatic event of the establishment of the 200-mile economic zone. When it was established we all knew that nothing would change overnight. We gained control of the zone through a long process.
The subject of this emergency debate is the participation of France in the Atlantic Fishery. We very recently had the same problem with Spain which Fished in Atlantic Canada for centuries. Spain is now excluded from the zone through actions of the Government of Canada in order to protect that Fish resource for Canadians. We have turned away the followers of Christopher Columbus who Fished in Atlantic waters for centuries. We required those fishermen to adhere to agreements established through the European Economic Community.

January 28, 1987
It is misleading to suggest that it has been a simple process or that there are simple solutions to this problem which has evolved over the centuries. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Atlantic Canada, to suggest that there is a simple solution, a specific action which can be taken to right the problems which accumulated throughout centuries in relation to the Atlantic Canada fishery. Anyone who has dealt with this issue over any period of time knows that it is a long and difficult process to obtain for Canada complete control of the 200-mile economic zone in Atlantic Canada. That is the ultimate goal. However, people should not be so anxious. It has taken 500 years to get to this point. We cannot overcome those centuries of activity in a decade or two.
When the Liberal Party was in power in Canada it made, at best, slow progress toward attaining total control of the economic zone. We are taking new steps in the process to gain the ultimate goal of total control. In that connection we must recognize that various European countries, particularly Spain, Portugal and France, have fished in Atlantic waters. That must be overcome over a period of time. Some of the specific problems have been dealt with, but the right of France to fish in Atlantic waters has not been overcome.
Particular difficulty arises from the presence of St. Pierre and Miquelon in what would otherwise be our national waters. Everyone involved in the Atlantic fishery knows of the existence of St. Pierre and Miquelon and of the traditional rights of the French to fish in Atlantic waters. The problem is what to do about it. How can the problem be resolved? How can we put in place a mechanism to deal with the problem? We are trying to eliminate the mischief of the rights of four nations to fish in Atlantic waters. In relation to France, that is only one part of the problem.
Those who would make more of it than only an evolution of the problem which has existed for centuries, which has been particularly prominent in the last four or five decades, are not being fair with the people of Canada. They know that there is and has been a problem and that it must be resolved. The question is how to do that. I defy anybody in this House or in Atlantic Canada to deny that there is a problem with regard to foreign intervention in the Atlantic fishery.
The Government of Canada has proceeded on the course of resolution of the problem. To disagree with the specifics of how the Government of Canada has attempted to resolve the problem is only to quarrel with relatively minor details. One must agree that the problem must be resolved in a manner which solicits the concurrence of the international community. It cannot be resolved by unilateral action.
That raises the matter of gunboats. We know that that kind of unilateral action has never in the history of the world resolved any problem. It is very clear, based on the history of Atlantic Canada and its fishery, that there is a problem with respect to foreign participation in the Atlantic fishery. There is a very specific problem with regard to the participation of France in the Atlantic fishery which, in turn, is related to the
existence of St. Pierre and Miquelon as a French territory. Everyone recognizes that that is a problem in connection with the traditional fishing activity of France in Atlantic Canada over the centuries.
That problem must be resolved and it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise. The question is: how does one resolve it? I have yet to hear anyone suggest in the House a way to resolve the problem. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) would be amenable to any suggestion from any Member of the House who could tell the Minister how to resolve the problem in a manner that did not involve any concessions on the Atlantic fish stock. No one has made that suggestion, apart from blowing them out of the water. Anyone who has taken that kind of approach has been sunk himself. We know that this is not a solution.
The Government of Canada, following the precedents of international negotiations in the last decade or more, has arrived at what it believes, through the Minister of Fisheries, is a step toward a resolution of the problem. Let the person who has a better solution to the problem come forward and resolve it in another way. However, they must be prepared to take the risk of failure of the solution. That is a risk that falls to us as members of the Government, supporting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We recognize that we must take the risk of the failure of the solution that has been proposed. That is the lot of those who govern. However, it is not the lot of those in opposition to take the risk of failure of the solutions that they may propose as alternatives. In short, it means nothing for someone in opposition to say that we should take another course of action than that which we propose. They take no responsibility.
The Minister and the Government have recognized that there is a problem with respect to the Atlantic fishery in relation to the participation of the French in that Fishery. A solution has been proposed and the Government of Canada is prepared to take the risk of the failure of that solution. What more can one ask of the Government? I rise in support of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has at least proposed a solution to a problem that has existed for more than 500 years and has been present in Atlantic Canada since the very foundation of this country in 1867. It has come to prominence in the decade or more since the establishment of the economic zone.
The case, simply stated, is that there is a problem and the Government of Canada has proposed a solution. It has done so in good faith, to the best of its ability, and the Government is prepared to take the risk of failure of that solution.
Let me conclude by simply dealing with those who would argue that this is not a good solution. I repeat emphatically that no one has proposed another solution. Those of us who were elected by the people of Atlantic Canada have an important duty to represent the best interests of Atlantic Canada and make certain that the interests of the people of
January 28, 1987

Atlantic Canada are protected in this Parliament and in the Government. That is why I take grave and great exception to the remarks of an individual who, in this case, heads National Sea Products, an important fishing company in Atlantic Canada. I am referring to Gordon Cummings and the remarks he made that have been referred to by my colleagues, the Hon. Member or South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). Those remarks are to the effect that the Government of Canada has sold out Atlantic Canada. We in Atlantic Canada have supported the Atlantic fishery, and our colleagues in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have supported Nova Scotia in the establishment of a factory freezer trawler and other initiatives designed to enhance the Atlantic fishery particularly for the benefit of Nova Scotia. For anyone in the position of a director president of a private enterprise company that has drawn on the resources of the Government and people of Canada to say that there is a sellout of the East Coast fishery is contemptible in the worst degree. We will not stand for that.
If Mr. Cummings wants to stand before the people of Nova Scotia and seek election to this House of Commons where he can represent the views of Atlantic Canada, let him do so. However, if he is going to stand up and say that we are selling out Atlantic Canada, he will have to answer for it. I can tell Mr. Cummings that when he comes to Ottawa to seek assistance for his company, we are only going to consider the interests of the people of Nova Scotia, the employees of the company and those who are employed in the Atlantic fishery. We will not take that kind of nonsense from a business executive who denies the interest of Atlantic Canada and the people of Atlantic Canada in favour of the profits of his particular company. We are here to protect Atlantic Canada and we will protect it for all the people, but mostly from the Gordon Cummings.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, if my distinguished friend from the great City of Montreal does not want to participate-


Marcel Prud'homme: I did not say that. You continue, I will listen.


J. Michael Forrestall: My intention was only to thank the staff and express appreciation for all their efforts. I also want to express appreciation for this motion having come forward this evening. I suggest to the House and my hon. friends from both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party that perhaps they have now learned a very fundamental lesson about our distinguished Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who talked about parliamentary reform and the rights of back-benchers to make their mark. This has been a free and open debate and I think it has been very enlightening.
I wish only to commend the House for the level of debate and commend those who participated for their thoughtfulness and very deep concern about the issue that is before us. Above
all, I want to thank the staff who have been here with us so patiently for these almost six hours.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, of course, I will join with my friend who just spoke in thanking all of the staff and yourself for your patience.

In fact, my main reason for taking part in this debate is that I would like to make a few comments on some of the speeches given in the House this evening.
I must say, Sir, that having been here since eight o'clock, like those who are still in the House, it is very enlightening for an urban Member of Parliament to get acquainted with a very important issue. I do not want to be facetious, but I will say I was impressed with the speech of the last speaker, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), which I listened to on the television in the lobby. I am sorry there were not more Hon. Members in the House because it is a very important issue. We could have learned a lot.


J. Michael Forrestall: You were the only Liberal in the House for four hours.


Marcel Prud'homme: If my friend wants to be-


J. Michael Forrestall: You were the only Liberal in the House for four hours.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, if the Hon. Member wants to be disagreeable, as usual, he knows perfectly well that I can be even more so-

And a lot more than he, I can assure the Hon. Member. I am making comments now and I do not think he should be desagreable, as we say in French. I have shown courtesy to every Hon. Member tonight. I have listened because I am interested. He cannot blame me for being interested in learning about a very important subject. I was present-


J. Michael Forrestall: You were not present.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I wish either the gentleman would leave the room or behave, as I know he always does.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will come back and challenge you on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have been in the House of Commons-


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to comments or otherwise of Hon. Members in the Chamber, my distinguished friend has not been here. He has not been in this Chamber. There has not been a member of the Liberal Party in this Chamber for the last three or four hours.

January 28, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must rule that this is not a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will certainly raise a question of privilege. If my hon. friend reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see most likely that I was recorded all night as saying: "Mike, Mike". I was addressing myself to him, asking him to shut up, as I do now. All night I have been here and all night I have listened to every speech, so much so that I will quote from every single one. I intended to say only a few words, but I will now take my 20 minutes and if the Hon. Member keeps interrupting, he will get more.
I was impressed by the speech of the Hon. Member for Halifax West from whom I learned a lot. It gave me great pleasure to listen to the exceptional speech tonight of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). He was so good that even the Leader of the New Democratic Party came to shake his hand and congratulate him. Everyone who listened to that Hon. Member, and to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), and others, was extremely impressed. The Hon. Member for Carleton- Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said we were not present. Well, I must have ears which can hear outside of the House because I listened to his complete speech when he said we were not present. The same applies to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) who said we Liberals participated in the debate tonight strictly for votes. I did not know that Mr. Peckford and Mr. Buchanan were Liberal, unless they switched allegiance today.


An Hon. Member:: They were not even in debate tonight.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member for Carleton- Charlotte said the Liberals were eliminated and our lack of interest in the fisheries eliminated us. It seems that he is not aware of the results of the last election. We were eliminated almost all across the country, not only in the Maritimes. But it will be interesting for the Hon. Member to know that the place we had the most success was in the Atlantic Provinces. Seven Members were elected. That represents 22 per cent of the Members there. Of the 250 Members left in Canada, we only took 13 per cent, so we did rather well, especially in Newfoundland which is the subject of the debate tonight. Three Members of the Liberal Party were elected out of seven.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso keeps talking. I must say to the Hon. Member who interrupted me earlier-and I have seen so many Hon. Members in and out that we are used to a one-term Member, and I hope that this would not apply to him-that if he keeps being disagreeable, as he seems to be tonight, he may be a one-term Member. Therefore, I do not think we should pay much attention to what he is saying.
The real reason I want to participate has nothing to do, really, with what has been said tonight. I wanted to listen
because for so many years I have listened, and this is a part of Canada which is of great interest to me.
I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that someone is going to get it, and it is not going to be me, if those Hon. Members keep interrupting. I have listened politely for 23 years to arguments. We may disagree but at least we listen to each other.
What is my main motivation?

You know I am a Francophone, a French-Canadian, that my heritage is French and that every time we have a debate in which one of our two mother countries is involved, whether it be Great Britain which gave me its political institutions-

You may laugh at that if you like.

But my political institutions come from Great Britain, respect them and I think they are probably among the best political institutions in the world. That is what Great Britain means to me. France gave me my cultural blood, what I am today. That is why when we have a debate where either both or one of our mother countries is involved, a debate that might arouse feelings among some people, feelings we would rather not see aroused, we must be very sensitive and realize what the debate is really about. 1 was delighted to hear one or two Members say that it was not engraved in stone. It was a consensus, not an agreement.
I have been listening very closely, and there is one thing I learned from the debate this evening, and I say this for the benefit of my friends at the French Embassy who will certainly be reading the proceedings. Anyone who knows anything about international politics realizes that this evening's debate will be followed very carefully and read by Ottawa's Department of External Affairs and by the French Embassy to find out what the mood was in Parliament during a debate involving this country and France. I hope they understand it would not have been in the best interests of either Canada or France if either country were to feel it had come out the winner.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that the problem has been going on for some time. It is very difficult to find a solution. I agree. I learned something from his speech. I am one of those who after 23 years, naively perhaps, still listen to the speeches of these Members because we come from all regions of Canada and we can learn something by listening to others. I did learn something this evening.
I am glad to say in French that I did learn a lot from my colleagues from the Atlantic Provinces. But I know as well that if one of the two sides-Canada or Canadians, and the French-were to gain a lot from these negotiations, one or the other will inevitably become quite frustrated. Experience has taught us that all boundary problems are always potentially very dangerous and very explosive because this kind of difficulties can indeed have dire consequences. We know that. There are in excess of 100 boundary problems in the world, Mr. Speaker,
January 28, 1987

in Latin America and in a number of other countries which every time run the risk of witnessing individuals tearing at each other. That is the last thing we want to see happening between Canada and France, obviously.
So this evening I heard something I knew already, but still I listened to all the speeches, I repeat, all the speeches of my colleagues, and we do have a major problem on our hands. It is unbelievable, simply unbelievable.
It just cannot be that a group of people can be so unhappy. I am talking now about the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces, especially those in Newfoundland. There must be something wrong somewhere. That is why I wish to attract the attention of the House and the attention of the Government to this issue. The Government must be extremely careful.
Yes, it is true that in 1984 Canadians had enough of the Liberal Party. We were severely rejected. But that is democracy.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you talk about fish?


Marcel Prud'homme: Canadians made their choice but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "I want to offer you a program on this and that. I want to have a new era in federal-provincial consultations". We were told in 1984 that the Liberals were arrogant. We were told that the Government always wanted to have its way. There may be some truth in that. At any rate, Canadians saw fit to reject the Liberals. But the Prime Minister was elected on something that he keeps repeating. Everyone knows that the Right Hon. Prime Minister is a friend of mine. I would not attack him. But I do remember one thing because I had to face that election. As a matter of fact, it was my best in 23 years, but that is on en passant. It was my easiest election. It seems that that was not the case for some of my colleagues.
The Prime Minister talked about a new era of federal-provincial consultations. So I ask myself: Why is it today that the Premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are so unhappy? No one can deny us asking that question. How is it that the fishermen of Atlantic Canada seem to be so concerned and so unhappy? Why are we here tonight? Why is it that Members opposite had a chance to participate in this debate? It is because I asked that the debate be allowed to continue. That is why the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is still in his place. We would have sent him home at 12 o'clock if I had not asked for this extension. I asked for it because I wanted to listen to all of the Members from Atlantic Canada, not only those Members from the New Democratic Party who asked for this debate. I wanted to know where each Member from Atlantic Canada stands on this issue. I wanted to learn what there was to learn for the best interests of the Maritimes. So Members opposite participated. Why should we cut the debate off at midnight when Members opposite may want to put their views to the public?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is my right. Would you kindly ask the Hon. Member to settle down? Indeed, I am about to conclude-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor. I am sure Hon. Members will listen to him since he has approximately 10 minutes remaining.


Marcel Prud'homme: Truman said something along the lines of: "If you cannot stand my speech, it may not be the best I have made, you have the option to go home". So I suggest that perhaps, Mike-


J. Michael Forrestall: I have been here all night.


Marcel Prud'homme: I know. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has interrupted everyone tonight.


J. Michael Forrestall: Except for those who were speaking.


Marcel Prud'homme: And the Hon. Member is still doing it. I am trying to find the riding of the Hon. Member on the seating plan. I know him so well by his first name which is Mike. He is a friend of mine. He does not change, he is always the same. I ask him in the name of our long friendship to be calm for a few more minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I greatly admire your patience with the Government's provocation tactics. Of course they aren't used to being on the Government side and since it won't be long before they are back on the Opposition benches, we can't really blame them for taking advantage of some of the trappings of power, and heaven knows some are doing more than their fair share in that area nowadays. Mr. Speaker, I think the subject of this debate is far more serious than we think.

Politics is like that. We know when it is a serious debate and when it is a frivolous debate.
I wish to conclude my remarks by thanking all the Members who participated tonight. I want them to know that I have learned a great deal. I am very delighted and happy to have listened to them all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: I wish to emphasize the fact that it is not because some of us come from Montreal or western Canada that we have no interest in what is going on in other parts of Canada. I did not come here as a Quebecer. I came here as a Canadian from the Province of Quebec to participate and learn what is going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 28, 1987


Marcel Prud'homme: I will never neglect the affairs of Quebec, as Members opposite do not want to neglect the affairs of the Atlantic provinces. I thank them for enlightening us.
It seems to me that the malaise is much more profound- [Translation]
The feeling of unease is far more profound than Members have been willing to admit this evening. And if the effect of this debate was to make the Government think twice to avoid any future problems,

That is the exact reason why I participate. If there are Canadians from one part of the country who are absolutely unhappy, we know only too well where that will lead. It will lead to confrontation and people coming here to demonstrate on the Hill. I am not predicting the future. It seems obvious to me that that is what will happen. My father always told me when I had an important decision to make to think twice, and then think three times. He said that if no one says a word that means that I would be all right but that if people started quarrelling and if people said: "It cannot be. It cannot be", then there must be a problem. And as the Hon. Member from Halifax says, there is a time when one has to take a decision. I remind Hon. Members that this is not the end of the debate.
I would like for Members from the Atlantic provinces to remember that they were elected under a clear platform of consultation with the provinces. Two Premiers who are not Liberals seem to be extremely unhappy at this time. That is why I asked myself what is going on. Two Conservative Premiers are attacking a Conservative Government. That is quite unusual. It was enough to cause me to reflect. I will not apologize for participating in the debate tonight.
If Mr. Bourassa were to attack the Liberal Government in Ottawa, I would want to know what was going on. We are supposed to at least understand each other. But it seems that there is a great misunderstanding. I want the Government to be extremely careful in this case. No one needs this industry more than the people of the Atlantic provinces need it, in particular the people of Newfoundland. One does not need to come from Newfoundland to understand what the people there are going through.
When there is unemployment in Quebec, I know that there will always be more in the Atlantic provinces. I know that when not everyone is too rich in Quebec that in other parts of Canada there are some who are poorer. I do not want people in one part of Canada to say that the federal Government does not listen. I do not want them to say: "You should see what they do to us. They listen to us even less". That is not good federalism. That is not good understanding. That is not what the Government which was elected by Canadians was chosen to do. They were chosen on a platform of co-operation, listening, and new avenues in Canada. It was supposed to be great, a love-in. It seems the love-in has been broken today, and I want to know why. I thank Hon. Members for their attention. I thank the staff for having stayed so long.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in the House at this time and to speak after the Hon. Members for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Those two Members have close to 50 years experience between them in this Chamber. Because of that, they have great knowledge about the institution and the important place it has in the lives of Canadians and of the East Coast fishery. This has been an important debate for the House.
I am pleased to acknowledge that 14 Members on the Government side of the House have participated in the debate, which indicates that this issue is very important to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. We have welcomed the debate. In fact, there are Members who may wish to speak after I am finished. I am not sure that will be the case. I notice that there were only 10 speakers from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. I will not chastise them for that. It is honourable that they were concerned about the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Sometimes I wonder how far their sincerity carried, because there have been a couple of speeches from Members opposite in which I do not think they mentioned fish in 20 minutes of dialogue. We will forgive them for that.
This debate has been important to Atlantic Canada. It has been important to members of our Party. It has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that members of the government Party can stand in the House and speak their own minds. They are not told to follow the Party line. If Members on this side of the House have questions, they are welcome to put those questions and challenge policy directions, and to provide direction on behalf of their constituents, their fishermen who are involved directly in the industry, and make sure that we get the best deal for Atlantic Canada.
It could also be for the inland fishery or the West Coast fishery. I mention that because it is perhaps a departure from what the House has seen over the last 25 years when members of the governing Party would follow the direction and policy laid down by the leader and the Cabinet of the day. That was a shame, because the Members were not given the opportunity to speak their own minds, to stand up for their constituents, and to influence government policy in the way Members have done here tonight. The House will function best if that opportunity continues.
In this debate, members of the Conservative Party have put the interests of Canadian fishermen first. They have said that other countries have fished within our territorial waters, and perhaps before they were established as our territorial waters, for hundreds of years. Yet the Government has taken it upon itself to conclude agreements which will establish for all time to come that that resource must first belong to the fishermen of Canada.
The Government has laid out a plan of action that will enable us and our fishermen to benefit from that resource for

January 28, 1987

years to come. Within the next year, the next five years, more and more benefits will flow to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada from our fishing resource and from within the 200 mile limit of the shores of Atlantic Canada. The Government has not been backward in approaching that objective in a deliberate way. There can be differences of opinion in how we achieve that objective. But there can be no question that this Party and this Government has as its objective obtaining the best possible opportunity in the next year, in the next five years, in the next 25 years, and in the next 100 years for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
I would only say beware of the sceptics of this plan. There are people who have expressed scepticism from the opposite side. They have listened to the debate and I think that they will conclude, as other Canadians will, that based on the remarks of Members on the government side, that we are proceeding on a course which will offer the best long term opportunities for fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to close by thanking the staff, yourself, and all of those who have participated in this debate until 2.15 this morning. It is 2.45 a.m. in Newfoundland and I am sure some of our supporters there are watching, and I am sure that they will be very pleased with the strong stand that the government Members have taken. With that, I would conclude the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I am satisfied that the debate is ended. I therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
This House stands adjourned until later this day at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.15 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, January 29, 1987


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadair, winner of the CF-18 maintenance contract after serious abuse of the tendering process, is now considering building a $20-million maintenance facility at Mirabel because it says it does not have enough space in Montreal to do the CF-18 work. In other words, after serious doubts were raised as to whether or not Canadair had the needed technology and personnel, we now learn that it does not even have the needed space or facilities to handle this critically important defence contract.
The question is how much will this cost Canadians? At the time the contract was awarded, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) told Canadians that we would not pay another cent for the Government's decision to accept Cana-dair's bid over Bristol's clearly superior bid. The bill Canadians will now have to foot will run much higher if Canadair seeks government support for this new facility, as a company spokesman anticipates it will.
To add further insult to injury, just last week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), in a speech to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, was quoted as saying the following:
By deliberately opting for Montreal in aeronautics, the Government is giving back-to the city one of its natural and historical roles-this is the background to the Progressive Conservative Government's decision last year to centre the aerospace industry in the Montreal region.
What does this say about the Government's commitment to other areas where the aerospace industry is important? How many other contracts will be finagled? I call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to repudiate those remarks, and I call upon the Government to examine this tendering process-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the people I represent are angry about the delays in reinstating capital punishment. It is no wonder. A beautiful teenaged girl from Standard, a married woman from High River, and a high school girl from Okotoks were all brutally assaulted and murdered. Two of them were covered with gasoline and burned, and the other was tied to stones and sent to the bottom of a lake. Now a peace officer has been murdered in cold blood.
More than 70 per cent of the people throughout Canada want the noose returned for those who deliberately plan and then kill another human being. There is no deterrent for planned murder now. Even when murderers are caught, we give them protection in the prisons, food and entertainment that working people cannot afford, and then let them out so that they can do it all over again. Where is the justice?
Our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is taking steps to correct this, and the sooner the better. Capital punishment will not stop all murderers, but it will stop a lot, and certainly no murderer will have the chance to murder a second time. I hope that it will soon be well known in Canada that if you deliberately kill another human being, you, too, will surely die.



DIABETES RESEARCH-EFFECT OF CLOSURE OF RAT BIOBREEDING PROGRAM

Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, rats are hairy little animals with beady little eyes that people generally dislike. That is the evident depth of thought that has motivated our scientifically incompetent Government to close the unique biobreeding rat program at the Department of Health and Welfare, even though the diabetic rats produced there are indispensable to diabetes research in Canada.
Ideology and incompetence share a happy marriage in the Government. Cut the deficit, privatize the rats, even if it cripples essential Canadian research on the world's third greatest killer of mankind. Thus continues the Government's march to minor league science even in health research.

January 28, 1987



S.O. 21 SPORTS REUBEN MAYES CHOSEN NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR

John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to draw the attention of Members to the achievements of a Canadian sports hero. The people of my hometown are justifiably proud of Reuben Mayes, a native of North Battleford, who has inspired sports fans in a football career which began with the North Battleford Comprehensive High School Vikings and continued with the University of Washington Cougars.
We all expected great things from Reuben when he was drafted last year as a running back for the National Football League's New Orleans Saints. Last week, by a landslide vote, Reuben Mayes was chosen Rookie of the Year by the Professional Football Writers of America. He rushed for 1,300 yards in his first pro football season and has won acclaim throughout North America.
On behalf of The Battlefords, indeed of everyone in Saskatchewan, I congratulate this distinguished young Canadian, Reuben Mayes, and wish him continued success in what is clearly destined to be a brilliant football career.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Three decades ago, Mr. Speaker, John Diefenbaker struck a resonant chord in the hearts of all Canadians when he evoked his vision of the north. The challenge and vast potential of Canada's frontier regions are as great today as ever.
The Government of Canada has a unique opportunity before it to help this country maintain its status as a world leader in cold weather technology. I am referring to the Centre for Frontier Engineering Research. This remarkable non-profit venture is doing pioneering research on the effects of low temperature environments on materials, design, and technology. This work is vital in increasing the productivity of the petroleum, mining, construction, and shipping industries. By improving our ability to work in cold climates, frontier research is indirectly helping us to reaffirm our sovereignty over the Arctic regions.
In order to further its research, the Centre needs a facility for cold regions engineering research which would include a low temperature structural laboratory and a downhole tubulars laboratory. The private sector and the Government of Alberta support the proposal. The assistance of the Government of Canada can make these specialized laboratories a reality. I urge the Government to support this centre of high technology excellence.
*
*



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Tory approach to government is waste, scandal, incompetence, and cronyism, as we have seen during the past week. However, nothing typifies this more than the phoney research project on dairy cattle by Dreamstreet Redgen which will cost the people of Canada $55 million in a Scientific Research Tax Credit. Responsible people in agricultural research, such as Dr. Larry Milligan of the University of Guelph, have condemned the scheme and said that it has to be insanity to allow the Dream-street research program to go ahead.
It is really only a scheme to save big corporations millions of tax dollars and funnel millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers back to the parent Dreamstreet tax shelter in the United States. Somewhere in the Government there is a guardian angel which allows this project to continue. Any honest, responsible Government would have cancelled it months ago.



COPYRIGHT ACT


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, Canada's artists have been waiting since the fall of 1985 for action on a new Copyright Act. They are beginning to be very disturbed by rumours that the Government is backtracking on the excellent proposals for reform unanimously made by the Copyright Committee. In effect, we are hearing that there will not be a comprehensive new Act but only some minor plugging of loopholes.

There are rumors that the Government has no intention of including performers' rights in the expected legislation, even though this is a major concern for the cultural community and agencies such as Union des artistes. Painters and other visual artists who are already excluded from copyright also have claims to make.

The only way for the Government to put to rest these most unfortunate rumours is to bring in a Bill soon with the
January 28, 1987

important and comprehensive recommendations of the copyright committee in it. Canada's creative people deserve no less.



THE ECONOMY


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, there is in Canada today an improved environment for foreign investment and a strong and co-operative spirit between federal and provincial Governments to encourage such investment. There is an improved labour relations climate. There is an increased emphasis on high technology industries. Are these claims from a Tory election handbook? No, that report card comes from across the Pacific, from the report released yesterday by the highly prestigious Keidanren, Japan's federation of economic organizations, following their 10-day trip to Canada last November when they visited many businesses and Governments across the country.
It has been 10 years since that group previously came to Canada. As a result of their recent visit, Mission Leader Kanao said they have found a new Canada. He predicted that with such improvements in economic and investment conditions there should be an increase of shipments of manufactured goods to Japan, more high technology joint ventures between companies of the two countries, and greater Japanese investment, particularly in Canadian manufacturing. We are honoured that those who have come to Canada with a clear view so quickly appreciate the opportunities available.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the City of Hamilton shafted by the Conservative Government. Can you imagine, Windermere Basin, part of the infamous Hamilton Harbour, which has been identified as one of the most polluted bodies of water in the Great Lakes, contains levels of hazardous PCBs up to 68 times what is considered safe.
The city, regional and provincial Governments are all prepared to commit millions of dollars for the clean-up, and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) comes to Hamilton last week and says it is not a federal responsibility. The federal Government has the responsibility to follow up on the International Joint Commission's recommendations to clean up the Great Lakes. By ignoring this desperate situation in Hamilton Harbour he is forcing the people of Hamilton and the Province of Ontario to continue to drink water from Lake
Ontario which is unsafe. I call on the Minister, if he is not afraid of the truth, to tell us why he held a private meeting with two Conservative Members of Parliament and ignored the Member of Parliament for Hamilton East in whose riding the Windermere Basin is found.



THE ECONOMY


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic indicators are looking better with each passing day. On the way up are housing and small business starts, building permits, consumer spending, international tourism, foreign investment, and the value of the Canadian dollar. On the way down are the Bank of Canada rate, the prime lending rate and mortgage rates.
Some of the indicators are nothing short of remarkable. Six-month mortgages are now available at 7.5 per cent, a rate unheard of since the 1960s and a fraction of the 21 per cent and 22 per cent being charged just five or six years ago. Clearly the foresighted actions of the Government deserve some of the credit. Initiatives such as the dismantling of the NEP and FIRA and the establishment of Investment Canada, together with deficit reduction and a spending control policy, have all added up to fiscal sanity and economic growth. We cannot stop now. We must do all we can to ensure that this welcome trend continues and that all regions of Canada benefit.

S)



DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY-EFFECT ON CONSUMERS

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, when Canada's Energy Ministers meet this Friday they should look at the Conservative Government's bungling attempts to deregulate the natural gas industry. Canadians will have the dubious pleasure of paying more for their own resources at home than will American consumers of exported Canadian gas.
Beginning February 9, the Manitoba Public Utilities Board will try to find out why Inter-City Gas Corporation expects residential consumers in Manitoba to foot the bill, $60 million a year, for its contract to buy gas from TransCanada PipeLines for $3 per thousand cubic feet. At the same time, TCPL is selling gas in Houston, Texas, for $2.55 per thousand cubic feet.

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
Deregulation is not helping consumers. Consumers of natural gas in Manitoba and Ontario are paying $125 a year more than they should be. That costs $60 million in Manitoba and $600 million in Ontario. The Energy Ministers of Canada should look at this unfair and unequal situation.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SUPPORT FROM U.S. PRESIDENT

Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, last evening in President Reagan's State of the Union Address he pledged to conclude a "historic" free trade agreement with Canada, their largest international trading partner. This can certainly be seen as a positive indication of the Reagan administration's continued support of a trade enhancement deal.
Canada survives on trade. Over 30 per cent of our national income is generated by exports. As our most important trading partner, 78 per cent of our exports enter the U.S. market and 22 per cent of their exports enter through our borders.
No former Canadian Government has approached this 120-year-old problem in such a spirit of co-operation. Instead of cooperating with our closest and most significant trading partner, the previous administration chose to suffocate measures leading to a comprehensive trade agreement.
The Conservative Government is committed to further negotiate bilateral trade talks with our friends south of the border in order to ensure a framework which will create employment in every region in Canada and enhance our economic recovery.



DISASTERS


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, on New Year's Eve a tragic fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, claimed the lives of 96 people, two of whom were from my riding. It is with the greatest sympathy that I express my regrets to their families. The origin of this fire presumably began over a bitter labour dispute between the union and management at that hotel.
I have a recommendation for the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Transport. I suggest to the Ministers that there be regulations requiring airlines and travel agencies to inform their customers of the regions of the world where terrorism or political or labour-management unrest exists. This would provide the Canadian travelling
public with invaluable information when deciding where to holiday.
As a precautionary measure, Canadians deserve to be aware of violent disputes, and I strongly urge the Ministers to consider my recommendation.



THE SENATE


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, a recent survey by the Canadian Press revealed that less than one-third of the 104 Senators attended regular sittings of the Senate during the fall session. This was out of 19 sitting days.
Exceptional circumstances such as ill health are understandable, but such a lack of enthusiasm from this predominantly Liberal body calls for a reassessment of the role of the Senate and potential Senate reform. It is time that serious consideration is given to the concept of an elected Senate, responsible to the voters of Canada for its action or inaction.
The people of my Province of Alberta have long supported the concept of a Triple E Senate, one that is elected, equal, and effective. Many Albertans are impatient for such change as they feel that Alberta's proper place in Confederation can only be enhanced by an elected Senate.
The Senate is indeed a necessary part of our Confederation and its purpose for existence is sound. However, the time has come for Senate reform and the accountability of the Senate to the people of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last year French fishermen overfished off the coast of Newfoundland by about 21,000 metric tonnes of cod. The Minister may know that that is about nine million codfish. If one stretched those cod end to end, they would form a line from Newfoundland right across the ocean to Paris. Despite that, the Minister has authorized an additional quota of
15,000	metric tonnes. Surely it is enough for his Government to have sold out the forestry workers of Canada to the United States; why did he sell out our fishermen to France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: First, Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not do his homework or at least read the
January 28, 1987

elements of the agreement that I announced yesterday. We have not offered any additional 15,000 tonnes of cod. In fact these amounts, which are provided for in the long-term agreement with France and the EEC, and as well the allocation in the 3PS area, are contained within the fishing plan which was announced last year, fully discussed and negotiated with representatives of the industry and the Governments of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic Provinces.


John Napier Turner: That is not what the fishermen are saying, or the Premier of Newfoundland. What the Minister has done is offered this gift to France in order to maintain cordial relations, so called, so that cabinet Ministers can continue to enjoy the cocktail circuit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Napier Turner: Why would the Minister cut the Atlantic quota for Canadians by 10,000 metric tonnes and issue those licences to Frenchmen for 15,000?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Shame.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The answer to that, too, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. In fact those licences were only issued so we could keep track of how many French vessels were blatantly overfishing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -in a disputed zone under provisions approved by the Government of which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was a part and which he endorsed as Prime Minister when he was Prime Minister for a short while.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Minister cannot substantiate that one whit.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: am going to try to make some sense out of this. I am going to go to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald James Johnston: Good luck.


John Napier Turner: May 1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister to try to get together with us and look at what has happened here? The French Government is claiming in effect the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is like us claiming the Eiffel Tower. Yet the Government has authorized an adjudication before the World Court, sacrificing our sovereignty and the rights of our fishermen. Will the Deputy Prime Minister
Oral Questions
not overrule the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and pull us out of this absurd deal with France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has asked three questions and made three incorrect statements, which shows how ill-equipped he would he to lead a Government of this country.


An Hon. Member:: He has already proved that in the past.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Absolutely, and we will prove it, too.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We saw what he did in Finance.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that France-


B. Keith Penner: Get rid of this Minister. He is a disaster.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -lays claim to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is pure poppycock. It is not the case. In fact what we are doing by entering into a period of negotiation with France is to find for once and for all a solution to a problem created by a Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a part.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER AND PRIME MINISTER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that answer was amusing coming from a Minister who would obviously have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Atlantic Canadians and, specifically, Newfoundlanders, have been brutally sold out by this Minister, whom they will never again trust. The Minister was sworn to uphold their interests. Why did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans write to the Prime Minister on June 24, 1986, with respect to these negotiations and say:
I want to assure you that my goal throughout will be to manage our fisheries discussions with the French in a manner that does not jeopardize the cordial relationship between Canada and France-


Jacques Guilbault: Shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who was putting presure on the Minister to go easy with France and brutalize Newfoundlanders?


Jacques Guilbault: Shame!


Thomas Edward Siddon: You know, Mr. Speaker, as is usual with members of the Opposition, they love to take quotes out of context. If the Hon. Member would wish to read the entire text-


Jacques Guilbault: We will table the whole letter, don't worry.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -he would realize that the Prime Minister said:
Your comments on the socio-economic importance of the cod fishery and the implications of the French claim are useful. I agree that in dealing with this

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one hand the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and on the other our bilateral relations with France.
That is a completely responsible statement from the Prime Minister.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Obviously the French hand was a heck of a lot heavier than the hands of the Newfoundlanders which were stretched out asking for help, because you turned us away.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning on VOCM's open-line in St. John's the Hon. Member for St. John's West said with respect to lack of consultation: "I can't see any legitimate defence of the fact that they were not present at this particular meeting. Let's just say that those responsible for this are certainly insensitive to the importance of the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador".
Clearly there is a split in the Cabinet over this issue. Will the Deputy Prime Minister declare this deal null and void, and fire the Minister of Fisheries, or will he leave the Hon. Member for St. John's West with no choice but to resign in protest against this bad decision for Newfoundland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to interpret the words of my hon. colleague. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that there is no split in Cabinet over this affair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: From day one the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, industry representatives, and other Atlantic provinces have known very well-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Are you calling them all liars?


Thomas Edward Siddon: -that our objective is to get France to agree to submit the unresolved boundary dispute to international arbitration so that we can stop once and for all their blatant overfishing of fish stocks which are for the benefit of the fishermen the Hon. Member represents, and which are being overfished to the extent of 20,000 tonnes per year, or $40 million. That is the opportunity we seek to turn to the advantage of Newfoundland, about which the Hon. Member is saying that its Government could not possibly address and that we should not possibly address that challenge.


REQUEST MADE BY NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister on the same subject.
I know he has assumed an interest in this subject.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Premier of Newfoundland wrote to the Prime Minister just before Christmas and made it very clear in his letter that the
Government of Newfoundland did not want any additional fishing rights given to France in one part of Canadian waters as an attempt to obtain a settlement of the dispute about St. Pierre and Miquelon? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the existence of that letter? Will he tell us how it was possible that the Prime Minister of Canada could ignore such a request?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, of course the Government of Newfoundland does not want additional quotas given up to France in other parts of those waters, in particular the area known as 2J+3KL. But the Government has had to consider the possible advantage of eliminating once and for all the overfishing by France which is extracting from Canadian fishermen some $40 million worth of value per year in exchange for some possible modest offsetting contributions elsewhere.
There is no commitment, and the Government will not make any such commitment between now and the end of the year without the full support of Newfoundland and the industry.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Fisheries has just said that a possible modest concession has been made. I point out to him that today the Premier of Nova Scotia said that that possible modest concession will cost Atlantic Canada $200 million. It may be modest to the Minister but it is not modest to the people of Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Premier of Newfoundland has opposed this deal, since the Premier of Nova Scotia has opposed it, and since spokespersons for virtually every Atlantic Government are in opposition to it, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the Government of Canada made a deal that pleases the people of France but is opposed by everyone in our Atlantic provinces?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the NDP would want to understand the facts as they are in truth. In fact no fish have been promised to France beyond the end of the present year, and those which have been promised to France within this year fall within the groundfish plan which has been negotiated fully with other Governments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Bull!


Thomas Edward Siddon: There is a small exception in the area to the very north. Those are surplus cod stocks which have never been fished by Newfoundland and which we do not believe France will fish either.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Come on, what are you talking about?
January 28, 1987


Thomas Edward Siddon: No commitments have been made. What we have done is we agreed to enter into-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You don't know what you're talking about!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -negotiation of the boundary issue. Those who are unwilling to negotiate are unfit to govern.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CANCEL AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Party that now governs made a commitment to provinces all across Canada that when their interests were at stake they would be full participants in negotiations. It was this Government that cut Atlantic Canadian provinces out of the deal completely. That is what this Government has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Furthermore, the Minister has said that there is a surplus of cod. There is not a surplus.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Since this deal that the Government has made is of an interim nature, and is opposed by all the Governments in Atlantic Canada that have spoken on it, and the industry opposes it, the fishermen oppose it, no rational Canadian, except in the Conservative Party, is in favour of it, will the Government now cancel the interim agreement?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is the folly of this place and this Question Period that questions of this type are purely designed to distort and exaggerate-


An Hon. Member:: Resign!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members would expect me to comment that the observations of the Hon. Minister are of great interest to me, but most of the time in this Chamber if those observations have to be made, I have to make them. Will the Minister please answer the question?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I agree with you absolutely, Mr. Speaker, as always.
We have agreed with France to sit down between now and the end of the year and negotiate terms of reference by which the boundary dispute, which is a long and unresolved irritant, would be referred to compulsory third-party arbitration. In exchange, we have agreed to negotiate interim fishing arrangements with France which would help us to curb the overfishing problem.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Stop negotiating for us.
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: Both of those initiatives are to be negotiated by December 31. Both will bring benefit to Atlantic fishermen. If, in the process, the demands of France exceed that which Canadian fishermen and Atlantic Governments can support, there will be no agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT MADE BY PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has said that he has cut back the cod quota for Canadian fishermen in the interests of conservation, then declares the cod surplus and gives them to the French.


An Hon. Member:: That is right. Shame!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Premier of Nova Scotia has said that Atlantic fisheries will lose at least $200 million. He talks about cordial relations with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please put his question?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Does the Minister say that the Premier of Nova Scotia does not know what he is talking about? Is this cordial relationship being paid for on the backs of Atlantic Canadian fishermen in the amount of at least $200 million?


Thomas Edward Siddon: do not intend to comment on the remarks of the Premier of Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He also has not had very much time to reflect upon the elements of this agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: Keep going, that's good.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If the Opposition would quit floundering around and listen for a moment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are an expert on floundering.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -I would like to reflect on the comments yesterday of a former Liberal candidate and staffer in Prime Minister Trudeau's office who said:
"The fact that they (the French) put their names on a piece of paper is a great step forward," said Brian Flemming, Halifax lawyer and admiralty law expert.


IMPACT OF AGREEMENT ON CANADIAN FISHERMEN
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it true that, in making this agreement with France, the Minister has sold out the Canadian position by creating a floor

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
which will mean that Atlantic Canadian fishermen will never get a fair agreement from the international arbitration?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, that too is a rather senseless question.
Mr. Flemming, the former Liberal candidate and Trudeau staffer, Halifax lawyer, and admiralty law expert, said that:
-the initial loss to Canada may be necessary in order to arrive at a long-term agreement with the French over waters around St. Pierre-Miquelon, where nine French trawlers will operate under Canadian licences.
That was the statement of a former Liberal candidate and staffer-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands.


CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONSHIP
James Douglas Manly: My
question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Premier Peckford has pointed out that granting rights to France for northern cod has created a very unhealthy precedent which will open the way for countries like Spain and Portugal also to apply to have fishing rights in that area.
Considering this and all the other negative aspects of that agreement, the people of Atlantic Canada wish to know why the Minister and the Government are putting the interests of the relationship with France ahead of the interests of the relationship with the Premiers of Atlantic Canada, the people of Atlantic Canada, and the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Again, that is not the case. If we cannot agree to terms of reference to refer the question of the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary issue to compulsory third party arbitration, and if both Governments cannot agree to fishing allocations during the period when that process is under way, and I might add that if the fishermen and the Governments of Atlantic Canada cannot accept those conditions, there will be no agreement. We will not sell out the interests of Atlantic fishermen for an agreement at any cost.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have already sold out.


QUOTA OBSERVANCE BY FRENCH TRAWLERS
James Douglas Manly: wish to ask the Minister why the Government concluded an agreement with France without ensuring that France would at least respect the quotas that had been established by Canada for its trawlers? Did we receive that type of assurance? If not, why not? If those quotas will not be respected, will this agreement be cancelled by the end of this year?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Hon. Member's question indicates his misunderstanding
of the situation. What we consider to be illegal overfishing France considers to be its right to fish in an area it claims as its sovereign territory. Thanks to the previous Government, that arrangement was approved.
The Hon. Member opposite and his colleagues seem to say that they would rather fight than negotiate, or they would prefer to see France continue to abuse that resource and take fish and income out of the mouths of Atlantic fishermen. We do not agree. We want to solve this problem once and for all for the benefit of Atlantic Fishermen.


An Hon. Member:: Stand up for Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES, AND OF MINISTER OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING, OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John Savage, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia.
I also wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Stanley B. Hagen, Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training for the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the serious allegations that improper political interference was used to obtain parole for convicted drug trafficker, Conrad Bouchard. Will the Minister immediately order a full and complete inquiry to determine whether there was political interference in this matter, and to ensure that the integrity of the National Parole Board has been maintained?


James Francis Kelleher: I can
advise the Hon. Member that I first became aware of these allegations on Monday. I immediately contacted the RCMP and the Chairman of the National Parole Board and asked them to look into these allegations. That is presently under way. As a matter of fact, it was under way on Monday.
January 28, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the Government should launch an immediate inquiry concerning those very serious allegations.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF BOARD MEMBER
John V. Nunziata: My supplementary question to the Solicitor General is this. Pending the conclusion of this full and complete inquiry, will the Solicitor General suspend National Parole Board member, Louis Laporte, in view of the allegation of Mr. Laporte's involvement in this matter? Can the Solicitor General assure the House today that no Member of Parliament improperly interfered in this particular case?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we have a system of justice in this country that a man or people are presumed to be innocent. Immediately upon learning of these allegations on Monday I asked both the National Parole Board and the RCMP to investigate. I think it is only proper and fair that I hear from them in a preliminary way before I take any action.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Is the Minister aware that the federal Government's agreement with the United States on softwood lumber exports has placed the financial arrangements of lumber companies with their banks in jeopardy? The situation is directly caused by leading banking institutions using the abundance of misinformation on Canada's settlement to their benefit. Could the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to get in touch with the banking institutions and inform them that the agreement between Canada and the United States on the lumber industry is a good one?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Did you vote yes or no on the Bill?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. friend for-


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust that under the circumstances the Hon. Minister will not be tempted to answer with just yes or no.
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: No, Mr. Speaker. I first want to commend my hon. friend for being alert to possible problems with regard to credit facilities for this industry. I want to make clear, first of all, that we expect banks to show the same level of reasonableness and fairness to all their customers. If we have specific instances of the kinds of scare tactics which he is mentioning, and if we could have documentation of them, I would like him to bring them forward, because certainly if there has been any instance of breach or violation of law, we will act accordingly.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. We have a Tory parole commissioner recommended by the Hon. Member for Joliette. We have a Tory lawyer who immediately hires an inmate liberated by that commissioner, after pressure has been put by the same lawyer. My question is this: Is the Minister ready to co-operate fully, not with the RCMP but with the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, to investigate on possible corruption and political pressure in connection with paroling in Quebec? Will he co-operate with the Standing Committee?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have previously advised the House and the other Hon. Member, these are allegations at this point. I do not know what truth, if any, there is to them. I immediately asked the RCMP and the National Parole Board to look into these matters. That was scarcely 48 hours ago. I think simple justice demands that no action be taken until at least I have some preliminary reports on what action should or should not be taken.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government and the Minister do not seem to understand that the role of the RCMP is not to look into this kind of allegation. It is to look into criminal wrongdoing, not political pressure.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE MEETING BE CONVENED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to convene immediately a meeting of the standing committee. Is he prepared to ensure that these very serious allegations of possible political pressure in the National Parole Board in Quebec will be fully investigated by that committee soon?

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite knows that for some seven years he and I have sat together on the Justice Committee, and that the Justice Committee, through its steering committee, will take up any topic any Member of Parliament raises before it. We will give it a full and fair hearing and decide what course of action we will follow at that time.


FORESTRY
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The new softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States has provided new funds for the provinces to develop the forestry industry which have not been available to them before. These funds would be very useful to the scientific community to develop silviculture in a scientific way to rejuvenate, particularly, B.C. forests. Would the Minister undertake to discuss with officials in British Columbia ways of establishing, for example, a heritage fund?
Since the scientific community cannot use all the funds quickly and still use them properly in order to rejuvenate B.C. forests would he discuss with B.C. officials the possibility of establishing a heritage fund so that we can have the long-term benefits of these new funds?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and colleague advances a very interesting proposition. It is certainly worthy of consideration, particularly in a province like British Columbia. As my friend knows, the funds will accrue to the province. I will undertake to discuss this proposition with Premier Vander Zalm and, far-seeing and visionary as he is, I am sure he will embrace the idea.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Sam Wakim, the close personal friend of the Prime Minister from college days, is back in the news. After delivering the $20 million a year legal business of the Export Development Corporation to his firm in Toronto, and over the Christmas break arranging for two of the partners to become judges of the High Court of Ontario, one of whom was his former campaign manager, he appears to have-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Innuendoes left, right, and centre.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member for York Centre has a question. I hope that question will not involve the propriety or otherwise of members of the Bench. I would ask the Hon. Member to be most careful.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My simple question to the Deputy Prime Minister is to confirm that Sam Wakim, as was mentioned in Shirley Walker's diary revealed before the Parker Commission, arranged a meeting on behalf of Oerlikon to lobby DRIE-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say to the Hon. Member for York Centre that the Chair is having difficulty here. I know it is appropriate sometimes to lay out some facts upon which a question should be based. However, with respect, the Hon. Member has gone on for a little too long in the preamble, and I would ask him to put his question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm, or will he investigate and confirm, that Sam Wakim lobbied on behalf of Oerlikon-Litton for the low level air defence contract with the Department of Supply and Services, or with DRIE, or with the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, here we go again dropping names by the Hon. Member and attempting to smear the character of individuals and engage in innuendo, such as the Hon. Member for Sudbury suggested that no one in the House should do. The Hon. Member makes quite a habit of it. There is a police investigation. If there is any wrongdoing associated with anyone and if he has any evidence that there is wrongdoing, he should tell the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me simply ask aren't the Canadian people entitled to conclude from the spectacles we have seen and the revelations we have had that to do business with this Government you have to operate through close personal friends of the Prime Minister?


An Hon. Member:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that kind of question does not deserve the dignity of an answer. I am surprised that a long-standing Member-
January 28, 1987_____________________________COMMONS


An Hon. Member:: A Privy Councillor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -a Privy Councillor and a former Minister-


Henry Perrin Beatty: A former Solicitor General.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -a former Solicitor General, would engage in that kind of innuendo and smear.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Smear.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have got the letters to show you, too.


John Napier Turner: Do you want to table them, Ray?


An Hon. Member:: Ray, go back to sleep.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members and Hon. Ministers will refrain from exchanging suggestions about what each other can do with the time which is available, unless those suggestions are at least sought through the Chair. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
DEBATES	__________________2779
Oral Questions
meetings, decided that there was a possibility of concluding an agreement within the terms of reference and conditions which had been agreed to and were well known to the various Governments prior to that date.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, obviously the French Government thinks it was a fine agreement. The people of Newfoundland are sick and tired of this Minister acting like a French poodle instead of a Labrador retriever.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is not here to keep Hon. Members from being hard on Ministers, but I think one might leave the dogs out of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I hope this place is not going to the dogs.


ROLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. Since in fact the Government of Newfoundland was part of the negotiations up until the last week before the agreement was signed, will the Minister not tell the House why he dropped that input from the people of Newfoundland? Are we returning to the days of the kind of federal-provincial relations which existed under Pierre Trudeau?
* *
*


FISHERIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and deals with the interim agreement that has been signed between the Minister and the Government of France. The Minister would have us believe from all his answers today that this agreement is a fine one. If it is such a fine one, why did the Minister not consult with the Premier of Newfoundland before he signed it?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I did not characterize the agreement as a fine one.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted. I do not know whether I should characterize the Hon. Member as a red snapper or as a fear monger. The fact is that the arrangements under which this agreement was concluded, an agreement which gives nothing away at this point, were fully known to the Province of Newfoundland. My office has been in daily informal contact, and while we can certainly appreciate the basis for Mr. Peckford's reaction we believe that when Newfoundland fishermen have to face a choice between ultimately resolving the boundary question or having this unsatisfactory situation continue, they will weigh the factors and decide to see the boundary issue resolved once and for all.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: In an issue as difficult as this, sometimes a measured step has to be taken toward a solution. In this case the Government of Newfoundland and the industry were fully involved up until the final occurrence, the final trip to Paris last week. French officials, after reconsidering previous


OERLIKON LOW LEVEL AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister said that Oerlikon's ADATS missile system was able to shoot down anything that could fly in any weather. In view of the

January 28, 1987
Oral Questions
fact that documents I have right here in my hand say that such is not the case, will the Minister rise in the House of Commons to admit that his answer of yesterday was incorrect? Will he instead replace the words he used by saying that this system will shoot down anything that can fly in any weather providing it is not snowy, rainy, cloudy, or hazy outside?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been a busy boy for the last 24 hours going through these documents. I have the same document as the Hon. Member has. If he will look at the page, he will see that there are two elements to the Low Level Air Defence system, one of which is the ADATS missile and the other of which is the Skyguard gun. The Skyguard gun works in all weather. The system is all-weather operational. It is capable of shooting down anything that can fly in any weather, including the Hon. Member.


EXPRESSIONS OF DISAGREEMENT
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will know that the range of the gun is about four kilometres. The Minister's answers yesterday indicated that he wishes to treat concerns about the capability of our Low Level Air Defence system very lightly. It will be no joking matter if this system fails our troops in the field when it is needed most, regardless of weather.
Again, how does the Minister explain Ministers disagreeing with each other, officials disagreeing with each other, and Ministers disagreeing with officials? Who is right? The only reason this is a controversy is because we are hearing all kinds of different answers.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises the question of whether or not there is any disagreement as to whether it is an all-weather operational system. It is an all-weather operational system. It meets every element of the standards set in the request for proposals, as was fully explained to the Hon. Member in the briefing he received from DND.
The Hon. Member will be aware of the fact that tomorrow the Department of National Defence is offering for all members of the Defence Committee of the House of Commons yet another briefing. I understand the Hon. Member will be present representing his Party, and officials of the Department of National Defence will be delighted to take the Hon. Member step by step through every element of this to demonstrate to him that it is all-weather capable.


MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS-IMPACT OF FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. A senior American official, Daniel Amstutz, stated yesterday that the United States wanted basic changes in the operation of our farm marketing agencies. Can the Minister assure the House that no aspect of the operation of those agencies will be involved in the free trade negotiations?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question as it provides me with the opportunity to respond. I wish to begin my response by saying that the story to which the Hon. Member referred is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. We recognize, and it has been stated in the House by myself and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that of course marketing systems are part of the Canadian fabric. They have been designed and put together in close consultation with all sectors of the industry. They have worked well for producers, processors, and Canadian consumers.


REQUEST THAT MARKETING BOARDS BE PROTECTED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given that the SAGIT subcommittee on Marketing Boards has said that these boards should not be touched and that the marketing boards themselves are legal under GATT, will the Minister resist this latest attack on important Canadian institutions by directly communicating with the United States, indicating to the Americans that these will not be put on the bargaining table and that the functioning of these boards will be protected?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the SAGIT committee. He also referred to the position and recommendations conveyed to the chief trade negotiator on behalf of the SAGIT group. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of the membership of the SAGIT group.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that this will be the last question for Question Period. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
January 28, 1987


IMMIGRATION
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister for Immigration and Cultural Communities in Quebec, Mrs. Robic, on a number of occasions has asked the Minister responsible for special help to assist the Quebec Government which is facing an influx of refugees who have taxed to the limit the financial and human resources of that department. After having said that Ottawa was definitely not ready to make any commitment in that respect, is the Minister now in a position to say yes to Quebec?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have said upon receiving successive requests from the Quebec Minister that there were no specific funds in the federal treasury to cover such situations. Quite the opposite! We ourselves have to support extra costs as a Government. I simply said that if there was any leeway in our programs, I would be willing to evaluate them. At any rate, 1 will be meeting with the Quebec Minister in Montreal by the end of January, I think.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a supplementary question. You will understand that since I have assumed new duties, I must try to find out to whom I should ask questions dealing with immigration.
Yesterday, the Journal de Montreal under the signature of Mrs. Monelle Saindon, reported that the Minister of State for Immigration had announced at the Centre social d'aide aux immigrants in Montreal that he would ask the federal Government to provide some assistance to non-profitable organizations and to the Quebec Government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know who is the minister responsible for Immigration, either the minister to whom I am addressing my question or the Minister of State for Immigration, and are both ministers working together to have precisely the same view on the same issues and on the same commitments?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Immigration said yesterday, and I am repeating exactly his comments, that he would urge the federal Government to assist charitable organizations dealing with refugees in Quebec. The question asked by my colleague earlier was about some assistance to be provided to the Quebec Governement. I think that the Hon. Member has nothing to fear. My colleague and I are constantly in contact with each other and I think that you now have before you the Minister for Immigration.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the 1985-86 annual report of the Canadian International Development Agency.


BANKS AND BANKING
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in my Budget of last February I indicated that the Government was prepared to facilitate the establishment of international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver.
[ Translation]
At the time, I made it clear that this measure would reflect our desire to promote Canada's trade and economic interests in Europe and the Pacific Rim. 1 also indicated I would initiate talks with the banking community and the provinces with a view to pursuing this important objective.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Hon. Members and the House that I intend to present a detailed Ways and Means motion for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of such international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver.

In recent weeks and months there has been considerable comment arising out of our proposal, in both financial and political circles. Sadly, much of that commentary has had more to do with pure fiction than with cold, hard facts. So let me set the record straight.
The Government is proceeding with the necessary measures to allow the establishment of international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver because we feel this very focused incentive will return to Canada some banking activities now being conducted abroad. These activities, which involve loans to and deposits by non-residents, now receive favourable tax treatment for certain transactions in such places as the Channel Islands and Panama. Our actions are aimed at attracting to Montreal business which now normally goes to the Channel Islands. Likewise, business which now originates in the Pacific Rim could move to Vancouver. In other words, we want to attract business that normally would not be conducted in Canada.

January 28, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Toronto is Canada's largest and most important financial centre. Our actions will not take anything away from that city. We have been careful in developing our proposal not to include banking operations now conducted in Canada which are not tax motivated and which would shift employment from one region to another. Only those banking activities which meet the dual test of attracting business currently done offshore while not displacing business which now exists in Canada are being considered.

It is our intention to further the national interest by strengthening the international competitiveness of our financial institutions, while providing for a reasonably strong presence of our international financial expertise in Montreal and Vancouver.

In fact, our action will complement the major initiatives which we have taken to enhance the competitiveness of our financial services industries to help the Canadian banking centres compete equally with the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Swiss and others. We are lifting the shackles on the financial industry with our new regulatory proposals which my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), announced before Christmas.
If there is one region or city which will benefit from this Government's action it is the Province of Ontario and particularly Toronto. Our proposals have sent a strong signal to the world that we believe in Toronto and have confidence in Toronto as one of the world's major financial centres. The vast majority of international business in our financial system is being done in Toronto and this business will continue to be carried out there. Our purpose, therefore, with this new initiative, is to bring new incremental business to Canada, not to move existing business from region to region or leave it offshore.
We will be monitoring the operation of this measure to ensure its effectiveness with respect to these objectives.

By establishing international banking centres in two of this country's major cities, we are sending a message to those who might go to other countries to take advantage of special tax provisions that they now have a second option and that option is Canada.

We have had extensive discussions with the financial communities, in particular the banking industry in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. This Government has been sensitive to the concerns raised by those interested parties. We have listened and now it is time to act. Unlike some of our critics who rely on emotional appeals to a narrow regional point of view without examining the facts, we as a national Government are addressing this initiative for the good of the country as a whole.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1), I wish to lay upon the table in both official languages copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and, pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of said motion. I am also releasing copies of technical notes to facilitiate the understanding of the proposed legislation.
In closing I look forward to participating in a reasoned consideration of this issue based on a full appreciation of our intentions and the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government has managed badly what could have been a good issue. It has created division, set city against city, and apparently needlessly if we accept the Minister's statement of intent today at face value, as of course we do.
The Minister told us today that he is interested in attracting new, incremental business, that he is interested in creating opportunities for Vancouver and Montreal, and that this will not hurt Toronto.
The Minister also talked about "cold hard facts". However, we heard no facts whatsoever in his statement. The Minister made a statement of good intentions. Since he is an honourable man, we will wait to see his good intentions acted upon. But look at what has happened up to now. Expectations have been raised in Vancouver and Montreal. The proposed international banking centre in Vancouver was included in a Regional Economic Development agreement. After having raised expectations, the only activities which will be covered are those concerning loans to and deposits by non-residents. The actual measure is much weaker than the one which the cities had come to depend upon.
Second, the Minister said that the aim is to attract to Montreal and Vancouver certain kinds of business which would not normally be conducted in Canada. However, the Ways and Means motion and the explanatory notes offer us nothing which would limit this tax break. The Minister complains that commentators have "dealt more with pure fiction than cold hard facts". However, the confusion was created by the Minister himself; he refused to allow his department officials to appear at committee before Christmas where they could have given us the facts, if they exist. The only facts which have been made available to the Standing Committee on Finance are two studies which indicate that the revenue foregone by establishing an international banking centre would not be compensated for by the advantages. Presumably, the Minister has other studies. Why has he declined to make them public? We hope that his officials, who are due to appear before the committee at 3.30, will give us this information today.
January 28, 1987

We presently have no cost-benefit analysis. It is a strange situation for a Minister, who has announced that he is committed to reducing tax expenditures, to tell us that he is going to give tax breaks to foreign banks without telling us what they are in return for. We do not know what the benefits, if any, will be. We still have no economic analysis. We have heard nothing about what kind of retaliation we can expect from other countries due to this very unusual situation which utilizes the national tax and fiscal policy to assist regions.
It is clear that the proposal before us has not been well thought out. If this measure helps Montreal and Vancouver, does not hurt Toronto, and brings new business to Canada which would not otherwise come, we will all be very happy. However, the proof remains to be seen. We still do not know what jobs will be created. We were told last night that Vancouver is very hopeful that new jobs will be created. Other studies have shown that this is highly unlikely.
I trust that the Minister will soon back his statements of good intentions with a very solid cost-benefit analysis which will allow us to reach a realistic conclusion on the value of this measure.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, as an Ontario Member of Parliament, born in British Columbia, who is co-president of our Party's Quebec caucus committee, 1 believe that I can speak objectively on this proposal.
I am pleased that the Government has brought its intentions forward in a more precise way than it did in the Budget statement of last year which led the Vancouver Board of Trade, which appeared before the committee last night, to believe that it had a commitment, only to learn that that was not the case in the minds of many Members of Parliament. The circumstances under which this statement has been put forward are perhaps a bit bizarre.
The Finance Committee began to study this issue in December. We have made some progress. The Minister accused the Finance Committee of dealing in fiction rather than fact. It is the lack of fact received from the Department of Finance which has heated up this issue and led to unnecessary friction among regions on an issue which is proving to be quite difficult.
As the Minister knows, half of his caucus applauded his statement and the other half left the House of Commons as he delivered his statement. I need not say from where those Members come.

The Minister has made a statement, and it will certainly be helpful to the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and the study it is now working on, especially since witnesses for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are to appear before the Committee this afternoon. I think we will need specific information on the impact in terms of jobs and tax expenditures, to find out whether or not-as it says in a report by Governor Rasminsky and his assistant, Mr. Lawson, who made
Statements by Ministers
a study of this question in 1984-there will be a significant loss in terms of foregone tax revenue.
Are we going to see a significant loss of tax revenue or are we not? For the time being, we don't know, and in all the testimony received from the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Toronto Chamber of Commerce, and other witnesses, including those from Vancouver, we sense a general mood of uncertainty, and this is partially due to a lack of information from the Minister of Finance and his departmental officials.

New Democrats have concern, in general and in principle, about new tax concessions being made available, particularly in a year for which the Government has announced major tax reforms. We are particularly concerned because the estimates of tax losses range from an estimate of $1 million per year by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce to estimates from Toronto of very major tax losses.
We will be observing the job impact. The Minister says that he hopes there is a chance to bring back banking activities which are now in tax havens, in le paradis fiscal, as they say in French, such as the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Macao. Will this activity be brought back to Canada, or will we simply transfer activity which is now in Toronto?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my belief that all political Parties represented in Canada's Parliament endorse the principle whereby regional expansion incentives can be offered to urge investors to consider regions other than southern Ontario, for instance. And all Parties in office- which means the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and our own Party since we have been elected in western Canada- have used various means to promote investments in the manufacturing industry.
Now perhaps this is the first time we have to ask ourselves whether we should actively urge a service industry-international banking-to locate in one or more specific regions of this country.
I can say that in principle, especially these days when the service sector accounts for 70 per cent of our economy, we in the New Democratic Party are not against Government attempts to promote investments in the service industry. But it does not mean that we do not want to scrutinize specific proposals made by the Government.
In other words, if the regional development incentives are accepted, as they are by all Parties for location of industry, I do not believe we necessarily need to oppose the use of similar techniques for the location of service industries. However, we will have to look closely at the details, and particularly demand that the Department of Finance give us serious cost

January 28, 1987
Petitions
benefit studies on the tax impact and the employment impact of these particular measures.


PETITIONS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, this petition is certified correct as to form and content. It is signed by some 282 residents of the Main Square apartment buildings in my constituency. They state that the federal Government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have stated that rent increases in these apartments have been 10 per cent, 10.25 per cent, 10.6 per cent, and 11 per cent for 1986 and 1987 alone. The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that rental increases in the Main Square apartment buildings be rolled back to comply with the Ontario provincial guidelines which limit increases to 4 per cent per annum.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a number of petitions today. The first is from residents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan and, I believe, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, regarding the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act for drugs, which these individuals oppose.
I have a petition from an organization called the Concerned Citizens Organization also objecting to the federal Government's proposals which they believe will result in higher cost in provincial Government drug plans.
I have a petition from the Westford and east end and areas of my riding, which is a very old, established working class area, in which the residents suggest that the changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians.
From the residents of Atikokan, a small community at the western end of my riding, a considerable number of residents have petitioned the House and called upon Parliament to reject those proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
Finally, I have three sets of petitions from all over the riding, including workers at Can-Car Rail who join with other citizens of my riding in opposing the plans by the Government regarding generic drugs.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I want to submit one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen petitions bearing 1000 names from Windsor, Ontario. It is part of thousands of names fixed to petitions in opposition to the
Patent Act which reflects a surrender to American interests and an abbrogation of responsibilities to the Canadian people with respect to medical care and drug prices.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me advise the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) that I have received his letter in sufficient time. The application is completely in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 29 I request the adjournment of the House for the consideration of a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, specifically, the announcement yesterday by the federal Government of an interim agreement with the Government of France concerning additional fishing rights for the French fleet off the coast of Newfoundland.
This unilateral decision by the federal Government has enraged the people of Newfoundland to the extent that calls are coming in from all over the province, many of which are calling for Newfoundland to reconsider its position in Confederation. The Premier of Newfoundland has expressed his outrage at this unilateral action and last night he was joined by the Premier of Nova Scotia who said, "This is the straw that breaks the camel's back", claiming his province will be
January 28, 1987

seriously affected by this agreement, with a net cost to the Atlantic provinces of some $200 million.
Given the fact that such an interim agreement will not be brought before the House of Commons, and given the need to persuade the Government to reconsider this agreement before it is finalized, 1 believe an emergency debate is required now.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. The Chair is of the opinion that it is a serious matter of national significance and, under the circumstances, the Chair is prepared to agree that there ought to be an emergency debate under Standing Order 29 on the subject raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa.
Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair takes it that there is unanimous agreement in the chamber?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my obligation to advise all Hon. Members that the emergency debate will commence at eight o'clock this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p.2756).
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray), I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement today, this day's sitting will be extended beyond 6 p.m. by 17 minutes.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon when I commented on Bill C-18 respecting changes to Canada's transport regulations, I emphasized the fact that the situation in 1987 is not the same as it was 20 years ago, that things have changed. The situation has changed at home, Mr. Speaker, in the United States, in Europe, in Asia-deep changes have been made in market structures and those changes already have an impact here in Canada.
National Transportation Act, 1986
I asked many questions yesterday afternoon, and I will ask another one: In your view, Mr. Speaker, who has been and will remain the best analyst, the best judge, the one person who is best placed to adjust rapidly and efficiently to market changes? I sincerely believe that the best judge, the best analyst is the producer himself, the entrepreneur who must set his prices on the basis of his various costs with respect to manufacturing, delivery, the cost of materials, labour, and taxation. The question therefore is this: are we going to live at all costs within a regulatory framework that is rigid, constraining, outlandish, inadjusted, outmoded and regressive? My submission is: No, Mr. Speaker.
Three vital elements are of concern to me in this matter- the true public interest, absolute security, and the assurance that Canadian businesses from now on will have every opportunity to take their rightful place on the labour market, in the regional transportation market, in national and international transportation.
It has often been said, in terms of Bill C-18, that safety is a very serious and honest question in the minds of the public. It has been stated by the former Minister of Transport and our present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that safety will not be compromised. We have worked in the past, and will continue to work in the future so that safety will not be an issue. Canadians should today and in the future enjoy the peace of mind which comes from knowing that Canadian transportation is one of the safest in the world. We are continually striving to improve our safety programs. Suggestions that the National Transportation Act will jeopardize safety are completely without foundation.
The Government's commitment to safety is also evident in a variety of initiatives with respect to each mode of transportation. For example, in 1985 the Aeronautics Act was amended and strengthened in many respects. The Canada Shipping Act amendments which will improve marine safety will be brought back before the House. A uniform National Safety Code for trucking was approved by federal and provincial Governments in October and a new Railway Safety Act is being developed. Other safety initiatives in the transportation of dangerous goods, in highway programs and in accident investigation are being introduced.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we, as Canadians, are generally an informed, mature, competent nation that is quite capable of deciding by itself what service is best capable of satisfying our needs based on the quality/price ratio, especially in the area of goods and passengers transportation. I find it outdated that in a free country that is highly civilized, technologically well advanced, we should live with a transportation policy that does not serve the interests of passengers, suppliers of goods and services, producers and consumers. Consistent of course with the most basic standards of safety and good social conduct, we

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
must guarantee the free circulation of goods and people, without constraints, hindrance or intervention other than that of the free market, the free choice.
To provide all Canadians, wherever they live, and their communities with an extra opportunity to control their economic and regional development, the new transportation policy will have to stress competition between the various systems of transportation and between competitors within each system. This is what our reform is proposing. Yet, Mr. Speaker, people can still be found who continue to deny this fact, who would like the status quo to be maintained, and who strongly wish things would remain as they are now. Let us ask ourselves whether it is normal for consumers, contractors and passengers, in a country such as ours which relies very heavily on transportation networks, not always to be able to choose the carrier which they feel would provide the best service at the lowest cost.
In the various regions, the spin-offs from our transport reforms on economic development are many, and, in many cases, immediate. Our purpose in freeing the transportation network users from a whole series of constraints is to encourage the most enterprising Canadians to go ahead with the creation of new jobs and the production of consumer goods at competitive prices.
In Canada, the prices of ordinary consumer goods, among others, are closely linked with transportation costs. To limit, through regulation that do not reflect the new realities, the availability of various means of transportation and the free negotiation of rates could only be detrimental to the economic and social development of our country. The user must once and for all be freed from hindrances and obstacles through universal mobility. You know just how much I am dedicated to the promotion of the handicapped. These citizens should be able to avail themselves of the same services as all our other fellow citizens. Like them, from now on, they must be freed from these very hindrances and obstacles.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Federal Government made these major and long-awaited changes to the transportation network regulations. These changes are basic and can only be made here, in Parliament, through an amendment to the Act which is 20 years overdue.
The package of proposals found in Freedom to move is the result of a whole series of consultation with those who are directly or indirectly involved in the transportation world in Canada, as well as the Federal and Provincial Governments. These consultations were carried out in all parts of Canada by the Transport Committee.
The results of these meetings clearly show that Canadians want some major changes and a comprehensive reform in our transport system. Our will to change the transport system must be considered in its general context, that is within a comprehensive economic policy under which the "Made in Canada" principle constitutes a priority and is always present.
Let us look more closely at the contents of this Bill. First, I would like to speak about air transport. The situation of air transport in Canada is such that simply to maintain present economic regulations would be a disservice to air carriers, shippers and travellers. We began to make some changes in our domestic air transport policy in 1984 by reducing and simplifying the regulations.
But we could not stop there, Mr. Speaker. A large number of important issues had yet to be settled. We are now proposing to pare down economic regulations to take into account North American realities and specific objectives. These objectives are to improve and, if need be, increase services to the public, and to provide carriers with reasonable opportunities for competition on the Canadian market.
Another one of our objectives is to eliminate eventually needless costs and paperwork for the industry and consumers.
For an air carrier, the test to enter the Canadian transport market will be whether he can prove that he is ready, willing and able to provide a certain service while meeting the related safety and insurance requirements. For all practical purposes, passenger and freight tariff regulations are eliminated. However, in the case of services in a monopoly situation, the new federal control agency will be able to hear the complaints of users from a given region and make a ruling. Otherwise, users will be able to choose the company which provides the best prices and service.
In the regions north of the 55th parallel, our Bill aims at providing more competition for the benefit of residents of these regions while garanteeing essential services in those limited and remote markets. Our Bill also aims at preventing monopolistic prices. Northern communities and all carriers will be able to express their views on the issuing of operating lines to new contractors. Prices and rate increases will still be regulated. The abandonment of any service in the North will require 60 days notice. In other words, Mr. Speaker, everything in our reform has been done to respect the interests of citizens, even and especially if they live in a remote area.
The new legislation provides financial assistance for certain domestic services judged to be essential. To provide these services, we shall proceed by calls to tender whenever possible, as it seems to be the most effective and profitable method.
I would now like to speak about rail transport. I should point out that I have a personal interest in this sector as my father worked for the CN for 33 years. Once more, our Bill contains major reforms that will benefit both carriers and users. The new legislation will for the first time allow shippers to negotiate privately with Canadian railway companies. This means that both shippers and railway carriers will be able to negotiate better rates and better services. This is good news for railway clients but it is also very important for our Canadian railways which will then be able to compete with U.S. carriers for transborder traffic.
January 28, 1987

For instance, Mr. Speaker, ports on Canada's East coast are a major source of container traffic. The transport sector in the area, however, has a deadly competitor in a network of deregulated carriers that are conveniently located. The container shipping market in Eastern Canada will not survive unless it can truly compete with the American market. And it will survive only if it enjoys the same advantages and is subject to the same regulations on its own terrain. Setting common rates will no longer be allowed, although present protection afforded the Prairie grain shipping network will continue.
There is more good news for shippers. Shippers who have access to only one railway will be entitled to a better deal, Mr. Speaker. Interswitching limits and terminal running rights will be extended. Options are also provided for obtaining competitive line rates for the transport of goods carried by two companies. This is a key element and a crucial one in our railway freight network. All shippers, captive or not, will have access to better mechanisms to settle disputes with the railway companies. The new legislation provides for recourse to the federal regulatory agency which may then proceed by mediation or arbitration.
To deal with the issue of abandonment of branch lines that are losing money, the Government proposes to take a comprehensive approach. Instead of continuing the sterile debate on this matter, we intend to propose some significant new options with a view to improving transport services in areas served by branch lines and, when possible, allow them to be retained.
Under the present system, there is no provision for allowing a third party to acquire railway property and infrastructures and setting up a profitable railway company. As a result, there is no incentive for the other parties to maintain service, at a time when railway transportation over short distances is becoming increasingly attractive, especially in the United States where this new approach has in some cases proved to be very satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address that part of the proposed legislation which deals with extra-provincial trucking. Over the years, this sector has become an important link between shippers and their markets. Federal and provincial transport ministers are working together to develop a plan for regulatory reform of the trucking industry, the purpose being mainly to standardize provincial regulations across Canada.
Legislative and regulatory reform will provide an incentive for competition, leading to a set of new options for rates and services that will be as close as possible to the real needs of the shippers.
By freeing the trucking industry from its regulatory harness and by allowing healthy competition, this reform will have a direct impact on the price of consumer goods, since overall transport costs will tend to drop instead of increase. There are immediate advantages for the Canadian consumer, for the producer and for jobs.
National Transportation Act, 1986
The new situation resulting from the proposed reform will put small- and medium-sized businesses in a better competitive position, since this sector is necessarily an intensive user of trucking services.
The Government is therefore proposing to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act to bring it into line with the provisions of the agreement concluded between federal and provincial Transport Ministers in February 1985.
Thoses changes are included in Bill C-18 which will be more thoroughly discussed in this House. However, it should be acknowledged that Bill C-18 will complete the reform undertaken concerning other means of transportation. The transportation industry is constantly under development, Mr. Speaker. The Government's policy cannot be static. It should be periodically updated and readjusted.
The national transportation policy and the reforms advocated in the new legislation will have to be adjusted. Our bill has anticipated those realities.
Recognizing the need for review and periodic analyses, the legislation introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Transport provides for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the legislation four years after its implementation.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am proud of the legislation we have introduced. It is one of the major pieces of legislation which this Parliament will be discussing. Seldom do we have to consider reforms whose potential impact and implications that are so large and beneficial to all Canadians.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is part of an overall economic policy that is innovative in many respects. I am convinced, and I see that my time is coming at an end, Mr. Speaker, that all Hon. Members will realize the importance of the Bill and that we can discuss it with the utmost equanimity to the greatest benefit of the Canadian people who want to go on unhindered as we all want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke on Bill C-18 represents a remote area, Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine, a riding which is in fact part of the Gaspe area, right in the middle of the Gulf.


Albert Girard: It is a very beautiful area.


Fernand Robichaud: Yes, I know that area, it is one of the beautiful parts of Canada, just as Westmorland-Kent is. They are somewhat similar.


Albert Girard: It is right next to us, next to Restigouche.


Fernand Robichaud: I would like to have the opinion of that Member, and 1 will simply read to him a message from the Maritime Premiers, and I quote:

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Following a meeting in Fredericton last week, the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. denounced the proposed National Transportation Act, saying it would further widen the economic gap between central and eastern Canada.
The Premiers want Transport Minister John Crosbie, who tabled the proposed legislation in early November, to add a clause ensuring that regional development will take precedence over a profitable transportation service, when the two conflict.

I would therefore ask the Hon. Member for his opinion on that proposed clause to be added to the Bill, which would give regional development priority over profit.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has said, the Gaspe area that 1 represent is quite distant from here. As I said in my remarks, I sincerely believe that changing existing regulations will increase our opportunities for economic development.
But I should like to indicate to my friend the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) that I am very much concerned about the regional economic development in both our ridings. Experience has shown that in spite of the fact that they followed these regulations for years, the Gaspe area, the Maritime Provinces, the Magdalene Islands, Newfoundland and the areas north of the 50th parallel, are faced now, in 1987, with the same situation. I would not want to play politics with this, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot help mentioning that the previous Government had had 25 years to change these regulations and look into this problem.
Over the past two years, unemployment rate in my area has come down nearly 10 percentage points. The economy has much improved, thanks to low interest rates and increased employment opportunities. The regional development through Bill C-18 will mean increased competition, which is good not only for carriers, but for users and consumers as well. It is our duty here in the House to improve the situation, and that is what we are going to do.


Ross Belsher: I wish to commend the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) on his speech on this important subject in Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation.
The Hon. Member will recall when he was part of the Standing Committee that was holding hearings for the Freedom To Move exercise that we went though a little over a year ago, that in the Atlantic area we were asked to pay special attention or acknowledge that transportation did play a part in economic development. The Hon. Member talked about this in his question. Does this Bill acknowledge that transportation does have a part to play in economic development?


Darryl L. Gray: Yes. I had the honour and the advantage of travelling with the Standing
Committee. We met many groups concerning regional economic development. In looking at the Bill as proposed in the House, the major premise is to create an efficient transportation system, not a monopoly, but a transportation system that will give opportunity to isolated areas, such as the one I represent, the Maritimes, and the North, and give those areas an efficient transportation system in order that they can compete on a regional, national, and international market. When this is included in this regional development, as I mentioned before, it has not worked. We are attempting to reduce the regulations that we presently have on hand. Any individual who is willing, fit, and able to serve his region, regionally, nationally, or internationally will be able to compete. Regardless of our politics, we all know in the House that a sound economy is the most important factor for the regions and isolated areas.
In this Bill, by reducing the paper work and regulations, and always guaranteeing safety, and as we allow more people to compete and our economy builds up, we can look forward to more regional economic development.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) is a Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, and was a very active participant in the consideration of Freedom To Move, as well as other transport matters. I wish to ask the Hon. Member this. One of the things we heard during our hearings when we travelled in those three centres in southern Canada, then the trip through the western Arctic, was the concern about safety, tied in with the concern about viability of the companies. The former Minister of Transport categorically said that safety would be the number one priority and consideration. I wish to ask the Hon. Member what will be faced by the passenger on the last flight of an airline that is going bankrupt? What type of corners has the owner of that company had to cut in order to keep the plane flying for that length of time? Will he be guaranteed a safe environment, or is there a risk because of the cut-throat nature of the competition, that whether he wishes to or not, the owner will be forced to cut corners?


Darryl L. Gray: I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. We have talked at length concerning safety. I believe that in this Bill safety will not be compromised. There is no guarantee when buying a can of beans that if the company is on the verge of bankruptcy there perhaps may be more bacteria in that can of beans.
An agency will be set up to monitor the safety, and all operations of these airline companies. The employees of that agency will continue these check-ups and verifications for all companies. I would assume that, whoever will be hired to work with these safety regulations, if their job is not being done properly, they will be replaced by a more competent person. Personally, I do not feel or believe that safety for any airline, railway, boat, or truck that will travel in this country will be compromised because of this Bill.
January 28, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short question from the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


Joseph Lloyd Reid: In the moment left, may I ask the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) what the distinction is between the policy of this Government in its process of deregulation from that of the United States, so that it can be said to be truly a made-in-Canada piece of legislation?


Darryl L. Gray: This is a made-in-Canada Bill in the sense that this is economic regulatory reform. I should make this point, Mr. Speaker. We talk about deregulation, and perhaps at times Hon. Members would like to create fear that everything will become wide open. This is economic regulatory reform, not complete and utter deregulation. It is made in Canada in the sense that our economic situation today in 1987 is much better than what the economic situation was in the United States. The United States fully deregulated its transportation industry. This is not the case in this Bill. We look at our provisions for northern and remote areas. In the Alaskan situation, the Americans threw it wide open. We have not done that. We have kept regulations. We are guaranteeing essential services. We are leaving openings for contract to tenders for airline operations. This is truly made in Canada for Canadians to help Canadians from east to west.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in the debate on Bill C-18. At the outset I should like to thank the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) for agreeing to switching positions with me this afternoon.
I came to the House as a new Member in 1984 and I was fortunate enough to be assigned by my Party to the Standing Committee on Transport. It was an interesting experience to take, through a standing committee, a philosophical base, the Freedom to Move paper, to see the reaction from part of the country, to see the legislation which has been drafted, and now to hear the debate. It is not often that within two short years a new Member is able to experience that total process, and I feel pleased to have been part of it.
In preparation for today, I looked at my notes and scanned some of the interventions before the Standing Committee on Transport. As well as understanding more and more of what was happening in the House and in the country-


Stewart Donald McInnes: Just remember Robert Burns.


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, just remember Robert Burns.
It is clear that the changes to the National Transportation Act are consistent with the philosophy of the Conservative Government. They are consistent with the tack it has taken in a number of areas. Unfortunately that direction leads to the selling off or dismantling of the Canadian economy as we
National Transportation Act, 1986
know it today. It is a grand design which will lead to Canadians having less say over what happens and having less benefit from our own work and investment.
Let me briefly list those areas which are part of that grand design, as I see it. There is the whole question of free trade, of having things on the table, under the table, or beside the table. Things are out there for discussion between our neighbours to the south and ourselves. There are items to be negotiated such as the Auto Pact and now marketing boards. We all remember softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, hogs and sugar. There is also the Bill dealing with patent drug legislation, designed to give American multinational companies the freedom to make as much money as they can, with no protection for Canadian consumers. Natural gas is another example; we are under pressure from the United States, and we are deregulating it. Now there are threats by the American Government and its steel industry concerning steel imports to the United States. What will be next? Will it be hydro exports from Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario? Will it be water? Will that be on the table as well?
One thing which brings that grand design into focus is the impact of the National Transportation Act or the impact of the deregulation prescribed in Bill C-18. In our Canadian nation we work together as much as we can. We trade within and share resources from western Canada with eastern Canada and finished good from eastern Canada with western Canada. We have a road ribbon and a rail ribbon across the country from East to West. It will start breaking down and will be fragmented as we see those ribbons going north and south. We have already seen Canadian specialty grains going from Vancouver to Seattle and then being shipped out. We have seen potash from western Canada entering at the Saskatchewan-U.S. border and being railed to Chicago, bypassing thousands of miles of track and hundreds of miles of water in Canada. We are even seeing iron ore from the Labrador-Quebec area being shipped to the eastern seaboard of the United States and being railed back to Lake Erie for the American steel mills there. That rail ribbon which bound the country together and existed to create a link could be seen as no longer necessary because of north-south links. If Bill C-18 goes ahead, it will be the final icing on the cake. It will not only allow but encourage, because of its structure, that kind of north-south situation.
Quite frankly, CN and CP are as guilty as the Government because they are the ones that bought subsidiaries in the United States. They are railing Canadian products on their own lines through there, doing Canadian workers out of jobs. If we go to this north-south arrangement in trucking-and we are a little fish in a very big ocean in terms of North American transportation-we will find that large American trucking companies will gradually take over our smaller ones. The largest trucking firm in Canada is about one-thirtieth in terms of order of magnitude compared with United States firms. They have the economies of scale and the grid systems. All the hubs are in place. They could very easily come in and out

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
compete with us, driving our Canadian companies out of business. Some Canadian workers may obtain jobs with the new American-Canadian firms, but at what cost? Will it be at lower wages and American rules? That is not acceptable. Our sovereignty is too important to allow that to occur.
In the context of rail and road, people who live in larger centres such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Windsor, Vancouver, and other major corridors may do okay because they are major hubs. However, what about the medium sized and very small communities in between? In terms of trucking we have a regulatory system which provides stability. It is stability under monopoly; there is no question about it. There are those people who argue "give us free enterprise, allow the market-place to work, and drag prices down". But what about Terrace Bay, Sioux Lookout, or Atikokan which only have small numbers of consumers? Once the companies have fought it out and there is a winner, we are back to a monopoly situation. However it is a monopoly with a difference; it is a monopoly with no regulations to protect consumers. There is nothing to prevent such a company from jacking up its rates to a point where a town must close.
These are not my comments. During testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport, the Ontario Trucking Association and the National Trucking Association agreed that small communities would suffer, that their service levels would decline, and that costs to consumers would increase.
We are a country of small communities spread across the land. We must recognize that whatever laws are put in place they must be in balance. We must protect the weak at the same time as we provide rules which make sense for the strong. The same applies to rail. We will find situations where rail lines increase the rates to small communities rather than the cross-subsidization which now occurs.
Let me now turn to the air industry, an interesting aspect of transportation in the context of deregulation in that we are already half way into it. Thanks to the previous administration, the air industry no longer has the same restrictions it used to have. The ease of entry and exit has been greatly increased.
There are now a couple of interesting situations. We have turned the clock back to the day when we began to see the need for deregulation in the air industry. At that time, there were two major airlines in Canada. What do we have today? We have two major airlines. The big ones have been gobbling up the little ones and a medium-sized one actually gobbled up a big one. Now we have the Crown corporation, Air Canada, on one end and Pacific Western and CP on the other. I give the few smaller airlines that are left a year to survive before they too are either into some kind of management deal or company-to-company arrangement, or in fact are purchased or taken over by one of the other two.
The difference now is that these takeovers will occur without the rules that have protected consumers and the rules that
required cross-subsidization. Lots of money will be made on the Golden Triangle, Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, and perhaps even the run to Vancouver, but the profits will not be used to subsidize the runs to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, London, Halifax and any number of medium and small centres. We will be getting chaos.
Let me give the House an example of this. Last week, my office made a booking for a flight out of Thunder Bay for this morning. The person who was supposed to fly to Thunder Bay got to the airport this morning and was told that that flight does not fly any longer. When we checked, we found that that flight had never existed. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that increased service for the consumers of Canada? Of course it is not. It is total chaos. That chaos will continue until such time as we decide to reestablish a set of rules.
Fit, willing and able really sounds great, but what it replaces was even better. It replaces public necessity and convenience. Flights were to be necessary for the good of communities and for the good of airlines and they were also to be convenient. In this Government's blind devotion to free enterprise, it is again looking at the United States model. The Government clearly accepted the rhetoric without looking at the facts of the situation there.
During hearings on the Freedom to Move White Paper, we did not hear much about the American situation, primarily because the committee refused to go to the United States to learn of it firsthand. A couple of representations were made to us. One that interested me was, ironically, a presentation made in Halifax by officials from Newfoundland. I say it was ironic because they were telling me, a Member from Thunder Bay- Atikokan, that my neighbour to the South, Minnesota, had experienced a very negative reaction to deregulation in the air industry. We were told that over time, rates went up and service went down. In fact, one community went from having a jet service serving about 60 to 70 people a day to having a little putt-putt serving eight or nine passengers 10 times a day. There is no comparison whatsoever in the quality of service, comfort, noise level and ancillary facilities. Is that the kind of deregulation this Government wants? Does it want to turn a vast majority of our communities into areas served only by small commuter services? I certainly hope not.
One of the great myths of deregulation in the air industry is that there will be all these cheap seats. There were cheap seats for a while but the cheap seats were on the major runs, not the small runs. These cheap seats have gone. The industry itself dropped permanent cheap seats in favour of sporadic cheap seats. With only two competitors and markets that are becoming increasingly monopolized by one of the carriers, the cheap seats will disappear because the consumers will be captive. If they want to fly, they will have to fly with X company or Y company because only X company flies here and Y company flies there. They will spend more time going from terminal to terminal rather than being able to travel in a continuum.lt is clearly a myth that there will be cheap seats.
January 28, 1987

In the United States, rates have gone up approximately 50 per cent, well over the rate of inflation, over the past seven years. Service has gone down and communities are suffering. In Canada, the City of Sault Ste Marie no longer has Air Canada service, nor does the City of London. What is next? What other communities will see a withdrawal of a major carrier? What other communities will go from jet service to prop service, from service four or five times a day to perhaps once a day or even three times a week? No, it does not make sense.
The Hon. Member who spoke previously talked glowingly of the inclusion in the Bill of provisions for the North. There is a very good reason for that. Unlike southern Canada where there is a very clear difference of opinion between transporters and shippers about what should be done, there is almost unanimity in northern Canada. We saw the joyous situation of Chamber of Commerce after Chamber of Commerce telling Conservative members of the committee that they were out to lunch and did not know anything about the North. They told them that they needed regulation in the North because that is the only way to protect the industry.
What would happen if there were to be total deregulation? Rather than having an air industry and all its infrastructure based in the North, southern airlines would come North, skim off the cream in the summer months and desert the North for the winter months.
I give members of the Transport Committee credit. It took a while but they saw the light. They saw that the same rules could not apply in northern Canada. I argue that the same rules cannot apply in Atlantic Canada or the near-North as apply in the Golden Horseshoe of Toronto. We must throw out blind ideology. We must deal with the real Canada, the Canada that stretches from sea to sea and to the Arctic Circle. We are not dealing with the United States of America with its population of 250 million. We are dealing with a very small population spread over a very large land mass.
In conclusion, it is important to Canada that we chart our own future. It is important that we continue our independence and decide what is right for Canada and Canadians, not what is right in the context of our neighbour to the South.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP have stated a number of times that the smaller cities will be discriminated against and that seat sales applying to Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary will not apply to smaller cities like Moncton, Thunder Bay and Windsor. Could the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) explain the latest series of seat sales to places including Sydney and Yarmouth? Fares from Fredericton to Gander are being reduced from $412 to $165; from Saint John's to St. John's, $396 to $158; Frobisher Bay to Hall Beach from $472 to $189; Churchill, Manitoba, to Gillam, from $176 to $88. Possibly the Hon. Member could explain why seat sales are going on and why the NDP maintains the smaller centres will be worse off?
National Transportation Act, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The major airlines, in testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport, indicated that the day of cheap seats would soon disappear. I want to make it clear that in my comments I did not name any communities. I recognize there are seat sales in a number of communities in Canada right now, but when those communities are served by only one carrier I doubt very much whether there will be any seat sales.
One of the interesting things about this proposal is that instead of cross-subsidization, where the lucrative routes would help pay for the less lucrative routes, this Bill proposes that the Government subsidize those routes. We have the very interesting situation of the Government proposing more bail-outs at a time when cross-subsidization is working well.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about monopoly of the market-place and compares that to the monopoly of regulation. In the free market a new service would spring up as soon as prices went too high. Under regulation someone cannot enter into a market and take a competitive stance. I am amazed that the Hon. Member drew that comparison. He talked about service as if a regulated industry would guarantee service and there would be no foul-ups at the station when he arrived. I am amazed at that also.
How can the Hon. Member say that regulations would guarantee service when 23 of the isolated communities he talked about have lost their service between 1960 and 1984? Secondly, how can he ask his constituents to pay full rates when 80 per cent of his neighbours to the south travel on discounted fares on U.S. airlines?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the latter question first and work my way back up. Quite frankly, my constituents believe in stability, not chaos. They see that there is chaos in the U.S. airline industry. While there may be some seat sales around, the over-all cost of air fares in the U.S. has gone up by about 55 per cent since deregulation, well above the inflation rate.
The Hon. Member made an interesting comment about monopoly of regulation versus the competitive market. That gets back to the question of stability. In northern Ontario an entrepreneur works extremely hard over a number of years to develop new services into communities which did not have air service before. What the Hon. Member is saying, and what this Bill will allow, is that after he has done all that work, developed a clientele, established his base of operations, someone else is going to come in at the last minute and skim off his profits. What happens then? The fellow who established the service and has been reasonably decent about prices and is not gouging the people will be unable to compete. He has an infrastructure in those communities and is not based in a large metropolitan area. His investment is at risk. He will pull out. Then the new guy comes in and how long does he stay? That is the kind of chaos that is possible. In fact, we have seen it and that is why we are fighting this Bill.

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Albert Girard: Mr. Speaker, I wrote my question down so I could get a simple answer instead of having somebody skating around. Has the NDP examined the principle of the new Act where economic regional development is an objective? Could the Hon. Member also explain how the new provision in the Act for non-predatory incentive rates acts against regions of the country? It is a plain and simple question and I want a plain and simple answer instead of a skater.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, even though I live beside the largest skating rink in the world I have never learned how to skate. Let me deal with the objective of the Act. It contains nice-sounding words and they are there because of pressure from the Atlantic premiers.


Albert Girard: He is skating.


Iain Francis Angus: However, there is nothing in the Bill to implement them. I challenge the Hon. Member to show me the clauses in the Bill which implement that nice motherhood statement. They are not there.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, the NDP says the legislation will provide access and advantage for U.S. railway and trucking companies in Canada which are not available to Canadian railway and trucking companies in the U.S. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on that?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, during our hearings and in consultation since then with the Canadian Trucking Association, among others, indicated that because of U.S. laws they are unable to operate freely in the U.S. in the same manner in which this Bill proposes to allow all trucking companies to operate in Canada, particularly the Americans. If, as we believe will happen, the American companies begin to not only come into this market and establish some hubs in the Toronto area, for example, and then go from there, given their size-we all know that the larger you are, the better able you are to compete-they will will be able to out compete us. They have economies of scale and a national transportation network in the U.S. What Canadian trucking company will be able to go down and establish a trucking centre in Chicago or farther south? They just will not be able to do so. I do not have the specific numbers, but we have seen a lot of small trucking companies in the American industry go bankrupt because of deregulation. The situation now is that fewer and fewer companies are hauling goods on the highways in the U.S. That is one of the dangers and the Hon. Member should realize that.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I find it almost ludicrous that the NDP does not have any faith in the ability of Canadian business to compete with the U.S. in any field, including trucking.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, if the rules were equal and the companies were the same size, then I would bet my money on a Canadian company. However, they are not and, quite
frankly, we will be squeezed out in trucking the way we have been squeezed out in a hell of a lot of other things by the U.S.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to my friends opposite, it is the turn of the Liberal Party if they have a speaker ready to
go.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to deal with Bill C-18, concerning the National Transportation Act,
1986.
This Bill applies to transport by railways, transport by air, transport by water, transport by a commodity pipeline, and transport for hire by an extra-provincial truck or bus undertaking.
It is therefore a Bill which will affect the industry responsible for moving goods, merchandise and of course people from one end of this country to the other, both in the West-East and north-south directions.
Mr. Speaker, that is where this Bill raises its first problem: It will affect differently the various regions of Canada. Its implications on remote areas will certainly be greater and more direct than in the central part of this country and, in many cases, will be negative.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, it was felt that the National Transportation Act needed to be looked into and amended for the purpose, of course, of improving and updating it.
The previous Government had recognized that changes were necessary and had proposed a gradual deregulation of the transport industry. Since the enactment of the previous Act in 1967, our economy has of course undergone several changes, which affected the transport industry.
The task of the previous administration, the Government of the day, was to make the legislation more flexible in order to allow the transport industry to better serve the country and the needs of consumers as well as its own. The changes were to occur gradually to allow for a gradual adjustment of the industry. The idea was not to spin the transport industry into a frenzy by introducing major and sudden changes. And that is exactly what this bill will bring about. The entire industry will be turned upside down and will not be given time to adjust.
Of course, the bill has already drawn criticism from the trucking industry, the rail industry, as well as from the air transport industry. And all this is happening because the Government has now decided that it is time for a change. Of course, we agree that changes are necessary, but should we turn everything upside down? Why such haste? Where did the pressure come from? In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, this is a question we must ask.
January 28, 1987

I take this opportunity to refer to some comments made by industry representatives. I shall begin with the trucking industry.
"Domestic truckers will be run off the road by American-based truckers if proposed transport deregulation is adopted by the federal and provincial Governments" industry officials say.

I hear some noises from my colleagues to the right. May I remind them I am merely quoting what was said by people in the trucking industry. I think it would be wise to listen to these people, and I shall continue:

"It's like letting Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan loose", said Ken MacLaren, Executive Director of the Canadian Trucking Association.

Those were comments by some people in the trucking industry. And now, on the subject of aviation safety, according to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board there have been more accidents involving aircraft since deregulation. I shall continue:

"Deregulation will hurt us", CPR says.

Being in a terrible hurry to propose these changes, to table the Bill and have it adopted in record time, the Government has failed to give all parties a chance to express their views. Some provinces were not even consulted. The parliamentary committee responsible for considering the Bill did not hold hearings in all provinces, although every province, without exception, will be affected by this Bill. Although hearings were held in four cities, the Government did not do justice to the witnesses and interest groups that came to suggest amendments to the Bill, originally Bill C-126, as you know, Mr. Speaker. And this despite the fact that the Government had promised a new era of consultation, when every action undertaken by this Government would be discussed with the people concerned, people in the industry and people from the various provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we must also consider the impact of this Bill on the transport industry, on services, on employment and also of course on safety, and my list is by no way exhaustive.
Government Members would have us believe that deregulation will bring in more carriers, especially in the air transportation industry. We are told there will be more competition and better rates. However, we can see today that is not the case. We have already seen a trend towards consolidation, and I am thinking of the purchase of CP Air by Pacific Western.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Large companies have purchased shares in small local carriers in order to take over that part of the market, which means that .Canadian airlines are eliminating small carriers from this local market. They control that market.
As far as trucking is concerned, Quebec truckers are afraid of an increased penetration by American truckers of the Quebec market.
Mr. John Kennedy, of Kingsway Transport Limited, says: "A shakeout is developing. There is no question deregulation will have a devastating impact on the financial condition of the Canadian motor carrier industry and ultimately result in a wave of mergers, bankruptcies".
[ Translation]
As far as rail transportation is concerned, the major national railways, CP Rail and CN Rail, are against the legislation as proposed.
Let me deal briefly with safety, and 1 will stick to air transportation. Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the statement made by the Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye :
None of the Transport Canada regions has been able to inspect all the carriers operating within its jurisdiction at least once a year.
We know about the problems already. Then imagine what will happen when we get into the race for privatization. The legislation provides no strict directions as to safety, and for this reason we cannot support any deregulation bill until strict safety measures are in place.
And, already, in anticipation of that deregulation bill, some companies have started making staff changes. 1 am referring here to New Brunswick where Air Canada has decided to reduce the number of its mechanics at the Moncton, St. John and Fredericton airports. Why is it actually being done? Is it in anticipation of privatization that this staff is being reduced?
In the case of Moncton, St. John and Fredericton, when there is a mechanical failure affecting an aircraft's airworthiness, they will have to call a mechanic from Halifax. They will have to call someone from Halifax and ask- him to get to Moncton, St. John, or Frederiction. This requires at least 2 hours in the case of Moncton, and much more for the two other airports, to examine that aircraft before it can resume its flight. Of course, they assure us that passenger safety will in no time be threatened. But for people in New Brunswick this means a service reduction. They will have to wait for that service. This leads me to the question of jobs. In the case I mentioned, three jobs will be lost in New Brunswick. The figure is not that significant. But let me deal briefly with the CN. Because we all know the CN has received from someone higher up the order to prepare for privatization. In its haste to rationalize operations in preparation for privatization, the CN is reducing staff throughout the system, but especially in Moncton. One thousand jobs will be lost. You may ask what the connection is with this Bill. I said earlier that the proposed

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
legislation would have an impact on employment, and this is one example of how certain regions will be affected. I would like to mention one particular weakness in this Bill, and I am not the only one to do so, and that is the absence of a clause ensuring that regional development will take precedence over profits. Mr. Speaker, we believe it is absolutely essential that the new National Transportation Act contain a reserve clause reflecting the essential role played by transport in regional development.
I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to bring the following to your attention.

"Following a meeting in Fredericton, the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island denounced the proposed National Transportation Act, saying it would further the economic gap between central Canada and eastern Canada.
The Premiers want Transport Minister, John Crosbie, who tabled the proposed legislation in early November, to add a clause ensuring that regional development will take precedence over a profitable transportation service when the two conflict".

And I would also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a letter I received from the Chairman of the Premiers Council, which says basically what I said just now, and I quote:
Since the new Act does not guarantee that in case of a conflict, regional economic development objectives will take precedence over requirements that transport services should be a profitable concern, we cannot give it our support.
"We" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
We believe it should contain a clause that would subordinate the concern for commercial viability to regional economic development objectives. The federal Government's reluctance so far to include such a clause is particularly worrisome when we consider the negative impact Bill C-18 will have on transport services in the Maritime provinces.
We have written to the Hon. John Crosbie about this question and would like discuss the matter with him very soon. We hope that you support our position. Yours very truly.
Even after pressure from the provincial Premiers, the Minister's reaction was certainly not favourable.
I now want to refer to a meeting of the Transport Committee where the Minister himself said that he did not really share the views of the Premiers of the three Maritime provinces who wanted to include in the legislation a provision that in every case would allow one situation to take precedence over another. The Minister of Transport has refused to meet this request by the Maritime Premiers who are genuinely concerned about the threat to their region's economy.
We can say that in its present form, the Bill does not allow for any regional considerations, not even with respect to remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, regulation has helped us deal with a number of problems connected with regional economic development. It is
unfortunate that the Minister would rather not include a clause to that effect.
If deregulation paves the way for a highly competitive market, we simply must provide some kind of protection against the loss of services.
Mr. Speaker, such shortsightedness brings Bill C-75 to mind-I will conclude shortly-Bill C-75 which had to do with Canada's merchant marine and whose clause 4 had been the target of witnesses who appeared before the committee. Sure enough, Government Members were not prepared to listen to the objections of the witnesses right until Bill C-75 died on the Order Paper at the end of the previous session, even after a speech of nearly seven hours delivered by my colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).
Eventually Government Members rose to voice their opposition to clause 4, so the Minister of Transport agreed to re-introduce the Bill, but without clause 4. Naturally we are pleased that the Minister finally came to his senses in the case of Bill C-75. Mr. Speaker, we hope the Minister will see the light, though it may take him some time, but we will give him all the time he needs because we are going to debate this measure for quite a while yet.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) with great interest. I wish to make several comments and then I will ask him a question. There seemed to be a stressing of profitability, profitability, profitability in his speech. Yet one of the best companies we have in Canada is a private company which has been trying to make money for these many years, that is, Wardair. It is a highly successful company located in Edmonton. It has spread its wings throughout much of the world and is now going across Canada. My first flight on Wardair was 22 years ago. It has been a very safe airline with an enviable record.
I suggest there should be less stress on profitability and more stress on what the airline actually does. There has been a suggestion that the Government has been deaf to representations following the release of the Freedom to Move policy and that attempts to shape and improve the policy were ignored. That is far from the truth. This legislation has been developed in a co-operative effort with the private sector, carriers, shippers, users and communities. More than 500 groups and individuals made representations during this consultative program to which we have listened. The standing committee has listened to the people across the country. In addition, the House, through the Standing Committee on Transport, had a very definite impact on the shape of this legislation. Members of the standing committee include all Hon. Members of the House. The committee had two separate sets of hearings, one hearing on the over-all policy and another focusing on the northern and remote areas of the country. The recommendations were taken to heart and were included in the legislation.
January 28, 1987

Perhaps the most notable provisions resulting from the meetings of the standing committee were those governing the regulations of northern air services.
In the year 1985-86 there were substantial losses reported. The Hon. Member's colleague, the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), told the Standing Committee on Transport on May 10, 1984:
It is a sad fact that our regulated industry is in decline. The regulated system we set up to protect a fledgling industry is now clearly hindering progress. Airline losses topped $100 million in 1982.
Would the Hon. Member not agree with his colleague that much of the blame for airline losses must be directed at the excessive amount of regulation burdening the industry and stifling its economic efficiency and growth? Would the Hon. Member also comment on the success of Wardair, a private company, which has made money?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. He asked me to comment on the profits of Wardair. I have nothing against a company making profits and I congratulate this company on the service it provides Canadians.
The Hon. Member also asked whether I do not find deregulation desirable. I did not say in my speech that it is not. We realized a few years ago that we would gradually have to go to some form of deregulation. I agree that it was absolutely necessary to make some adjustments to the National Transportation Act, but I do have some reservations when the Government wants to turn the whole industry upside down without giving it enough time to adjust.
That is all I wanted to say. Deregulation is desirable, but it should be gradual.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he could explain how the new Bill, in its present form, could affect Canadian National's decision to close down or at least to lay off a large number of its employees in Moncton. Perhaps he could also tell us whether the impact on the situation in Moncton could have both negative and positive aspects.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to answer my colleague's question. CN, as a Crown corporation, has more or less been given a mandate or instructions by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to prepare for privatization, which means that CN must make itself a profitable concern. And since time seems to be of the essence, they have to cut services which means less work for CN repair shops. And that is exactly what is happening in Moncton. In the rush to rationalize all their operations, they are cutting jobs-1,000 of them. If this Government had any concern at all for regional disparity, it would manage to keep the CN shops open. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compare this situation to the one at the Port of Churchill in Manitoba. According to the Ports
National Transportation Act, 1986
Canada authorities, the port at Churchill was not viable, and they decided to shut down the facilities. However, the Minister of Transport intervened, saying that the port must continue its operations because it was one the major industries in that part of the country. Wonderful! So if the Minister is so concerned about regional development, he should do the same for the people of New Brunswick.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on Bill C-18 which I believe will rank as one of the most important measures passed by this Parliament. It provides a new deal to consumers of transportation services right across Canada, including, of course, my region, which is western Canada.
When we took office two years ago, we found a regulatory regime in the transportation sector that had largely lost touch with changes in our national economy. It was one that frequently frustrated rather than facilitated the efforts of producers across Canada to get their goods to market. While careful regulation is required to achieve important objectives, including regional development and safety, we believe, as indicated in our Freedom to Move paper, that more can be accomplished with less but smarter and better regulation.
After extensive consultation with the public, provincial Governments, the transportation industry, shippers and other interested parties, we have concluded that now is the time to act. Canadians need a revised transportation policy and legislative framework today.
The Acts which are before us today-the National Transportation Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act-provide that policy. They will provide for greater reliance on market forces, reduced government interference, and a regulatory process that is both open and accessible. They will promote competition which will result in improved prices and services for both travellers and shippers. They will streamline the remaining regulatory procedures and replace the Canadian Transport Commission with a new national transportation agency. In effect, we are freeing the Canadian economy from the shackles of an over-regulated transportation sector. Too much cement does not the efficient movement of people or goods make.
My comments will focus on the impact of the legislation on Canada's rail system, particularly in western Canada. Everyone in the West should benefit from these initiatives- the primary resource producers and individual employees of lumber mills, potash and coal-mines, and so on, who will have more secure jobs because their products will be moved to market more efficiently, and the railways themselves.
Under the present Railway Act, Canada's railways can set rates collectively. Competition has been stifled, particularly in my region where there is now little incentive to offer lower rail rates or different services to meet the varying needs of

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
shippers. The current system works against the needs of both shippers and railways. The shippers do not get the best service at the best price. Some rail traffic is being diverted from Canada to U.S. railways where deregulation in 1980 resulted in a significantly more competitive rail market. Put simply, it is high time we reformed the regulatory regime for rail.
I would now like to say a few words about the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hinton Train Collision. The report tabled on January 22 made a number of safety-oriented recommendations. As Hon. Members know, our Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) asked CN, CP and VIA to undertake a number of measures. These include the immediate establishment of a policy giving priority to use of units equipped with a reset safety control device as lead locomotives, determining an action plan within 60 days on key recommendations such as hours of work and periods of rest, work scheduling and medical supervision, as well as asking the railways to establish a schedule for implementation of the advanced train control system.
Under this Bill for the first time shippers will be allowed to negotiate confidential contracts with Canadian railways. The key words are "negotiate" and "confidential". Under this legislation a shipper and a carrier will be permitted to negotiate a contract with services and conditions that reflect the shipper's specific circumstances, and with rates tailored to the competitive position of the shipper and the railway. That contract will be negotiated privately, and there will be no obligation to disclose all the terms publicly. In that sense, it is like almost all ordinary commercial contracts. To distinguish it from past practice in the railroad sector, it is called a "confidential contract".
These contracts are the ordinary way of doing business elsewhere. They are long overdue in our transportation sector. For the first time carriers will be able to offer individual shippers special rates or services without making these known to other shippers. That is a major boost to competitive bargaining. To avoid possible abuse, all confidential contracts will be filed with the new national transportation agency. Summaries of the non-confidential aspects of the contracts will be made public, as they should be.
At the same time, we are not forgetting shippers who benefit from existing freight rate provisions. Railways will continue to publish tariffs under the National Transportation Act for shippers who wish to use them.
Our legislation also retains the requirement that all rates charged by railways must be compensatory. That is to say, they must cover the costs directly associated with the services provided. However, there is an important qualifier. Noncompensatory rates may be offered. Where anyone lodges a complaint, however, such rates will be disallowed unless the railway, upon investigation by the new agency, can establish that the rates do not lessen competition and were not put in place for an anti-competitive or predatory purpose.
All parties involved stand to win under these new freight tariff rules. Shippers will negotiate for rates and conditions that reflect particular circumstances. Getting the best service at the best price will help myriad shippers to expand markets, increase production and thereby protect and create new jobs.
Canada's railways will be able to compete more effectively with their American counterparts for transborder traffic. Above all, the Canadian public as a whole will benefit from the job creation arising from a more competitive rail transportation system.
This Bill also takes the historic step of significantly altering the transportation environment for captive shippers, who have long been the forgotten players in our national rail system. Indeed, as a former Crown attorney, they remind me of victims who are all but ignored in our criminal justice system. Captive shippers are those without access to a practical, cost-effective alternative to a single railway carrier. There are captive shippers across Canada, in major urban centres as well as in outlying regions. As an Albertan, I am very well aware that many, if not most, of these shippers are in western Canada. It is no wonder that our reforms here are so strongly supported in my region.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that more than half of the railways' revenues come from captive shippers? Among the shippers the most often and most seriously affected are western Canada's major resource industries, including potash, sulphur, coal, petrochemical and forest product operations.
Our reforms to the National Transportation Act address this problem in three ways: through increased inter-switching; through terminal running rights; and through competitive line rates.
At present, the inter-switching of cars from one railway to another at a compensatory rate is guaranteed only within a four-mile radius of the point of interchange. The limitation was established in 1908 to provide for competition between railways within city limits, using London, Ontario, as the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson), who is in the House, will know, as the model. Despite the phenomenal growth of our cities since that time, inter-switching limits have never been changed to reflect the new realities.
With the reformed National Transportation Act, we are extending inter-switching limits to 30 kilometres. This will benefit virtually every shipper located on a rail siding in an urban area served by two railways. We estimate that there are thousands of such shippers across Canada. To maintain fair competition inter-switching rates will be compensatory.
The second provision in the Bill is with respect to the adoption of terminal running rights. Within 50 kilometres of any interchange point a railway will now have the right to run trains over the tracks of another railway in order to pick up or deliver goods. The second railway will be compensated for the use of its tracks. A minimum three-year commitment to operate this service will be required. To ensure equity the new service must be made available to all shippers on the line, not
January 28, 1987

just the larger, more lucrative ones. The Government cannot take full credit for introducing terminal running rights. These rights were originally proposed to the Government by CP Rail. We recognized the value of the idea and we adopted it. The consultative process does bear fruit.
I would like to give Hon. Members a concrete example of how terminal running rights will benefit the West. There is a large petrochemical complex in the Fort Saskatchewan-Scottford area near Edmonton. Most of that petrochemical complex is now captive to CN Rail. Under the new legislation, CP Rail would be permitted to run its trains on CN's tracks to get to and from the petrochemical complex. Thus, in addition to shipping via CN, the complex will have a viable alternative to ship its products by CP Rail. There will be competition where competition did not previously exist. Competition is good for Canada.
For those shippers who cannot benefit from the new interswitching limits or from terminal running rights, our new National Transportation Act provides for a concept called competitive line rates. That means that captive shippers will have access to another rail carrier at the closest interchange with that carrier. This will bring the benefits of competition to the shipper by enabling him to use the carrier that offers the best combination of service, routes, and rates, whether it is the local carrier or a competing carrier.
However, to avoid domestic traffic moving over United States' railways where the destination of the goods is within Canada, including traffic to a Canadian port for export, and a competitive Canadian alternative route exists, the shipper must use the Canadian alternative in order to be eligible for joint line rates.
Where the shipper and the carrier cannot reach an agreement, the shipper has recourse to the new National Transportation Agency. We do not expect this safeguard to be used often. Nonetheless it will be important as a means of providing shippers with real clout in negotiating rates.
We expect that the new policy will take relatively little business away from the local carrier. In most cases, the local carrier will offer the best deal, especially since switching costs money. But for the first time, the carrier operating locally will have to compete for the shippers' business. Is that bad in an increasingly competitive world economy?
Competitive line rates will be of particular benefit to large resource shippers in the West. Under the new provisions, a major Alberta sulphur producer now captive to CN Rail would have the opportunity of switching to CP Rail at the nearest interchange about 80 kilometres away. Competitive line rates would apply on that 80 kilometre stretch.
Briefly, this is how the matter would work in practice. The sulphur producer would ask CN Rail to quote a price for moving a shipment from his plant to the docks in Vancouver. Knowing approximately what the competitive fine rate would
National Transportation Act, 1986
be under the legislation for the movement from the plant to the interchange, he would ask CP Rail to quote a price for moving the shipment from the interchange to the docks. If CN was prepared to match or better the CP rate, plus the rate from the plant to the interchange, CN would retain the business, which is right. If CN were not prepared to quote a competitive rate, it could lose the portion of the movement from the interchange to the Vancouver docks. If CN and the sulphur producer could not reach an agreement on the rate from the plant to the interchange, the producer could ask the National Transportation Agency to set a rate based on a costing formula contained in the legislation.
Competitive fine rates have been endorsed by such organizations as the Coal Association of Canada, the Council of Forest Industries-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Naturally.


David Kilgour: -the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Propane Gas Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Retail Council of Canada, and many others. Thousands and thousands of jobs are involved in those industries. These companies generate billions of dollars in sales, and thousands of jobs for Canadians.
The extended inter-switching limits, terminal running rates, and competitive fine rates will markedly increase the transportation options available to captive shippers. More shippers will have a choice of carriers. They will have an opportunity to negotiate for the services of these carriers. We are confident that shippers and carriers will sit down and reason together in a businesslike manner to establish mutually beneficial arrangements.
I have referred to large resource producers in the examples, but other shippers will benefit from these provisions. The major resource industries are the backbone of the western economy. When those companies are thriving, the region I represent thrives. In addition to employment opportunities within the resource companies, jobs will be created in hundreds of smaller service companies. Western Canada's small business base will be strengthened and expanded. Quite simply, this legislation will help put more people back to work in western Canada.
I have mentioned that shippers will be able to apply to the new agency for resolution of several important matters. I wish to outline several provisions in the new National Transportation Act that will ensure timely and inexpensive settlement of various private and public disputes. At the request of parties involved in private disputes, mediation services will be provided by the National Transportation Agency. If these fail, final offer arbitration will be available. In such cases, an independent arbitrator appointed by the agency will consider both the carrier's and the shipper's final offers, and will choose one of them, unless the parties have first made alternative arrangements. That offer chosen by the arbitrator becomes the "deal" between the shipper and the carrier for up to one year.
2798

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Final offer arbitration is important because it will encourage private settlement of shipper-carrier disputes. Where such private settlement proves impossible, the deal imposed by the arbitrator will at least have been developed by one of the parties involved.
The new Act also features a more effective investigation procedure for matters of public interest. Upon receiving a complaint, the National Transportation Agency will be empowered to inquire into any carrier's rates, acts, or omissions which may prejudice the public interest. In particular, the agency will take into account the new transportation policy set out in the legislation in deciding whether the public interest has been harmed.
May I turn now to the difficult and often controversial issue of branch line abandonment. Our current rail legislation gives the Canadian Transport Commission two methods for dealing with an application for branch line abandonment. The CTC can allow the line to be abandoned, or it can order that it be retained with a government subsidy.
I am pleased to say that the legislation before us today will provide the CTC successor, the National Transportation Agency, with more useful choices when handling applications for branch line abandonment. For example, the new agency will be able to facilitate and approve the sale of a branch line to another operator, in effect establishing a short line operation. It may recommend that Ministers provide financial assistance to shippers, or a provincial Government or others to develop more effective and less costly means of transportation to replace the branch line. The NTA may also recommend that the Minister order one railway company to interconnect its branch line with the lines of another company, thereby providing the opportunity for the branch line to be more competitive. It may decide that the line has the potential to be economically viable and should be retained. It may order that the line be retained with a subsidy for three years, at which time the decision will come up for review. It may simply allow the branch line to be abandoned.
Under the new application procedures, the definition of branch line costs and losses will be changed to ensure that these are limited to costs actually incurred in operating the line in an efficient manner.
The legislation establishes time limits during which the agency must respond to applications for branch line abandonment. A railway will be required to give at least 90 days' notice that it intends to apply for the abandonment of a branch line. Shippers and interest groups will have 60 days from receipt of the application to file objections. The NTA will then have 120 days to make its decision.
Where a branch line is clearly uneconomical and will remain so in the future, the agency will order that the line be abandoned. However, in cases where the line serves a large region of Canada and where its abandonment would significantly hamper shippers, the Governor in Council can order that it be
retained with compensation to the railways for their losses on the line.
These new provisions ensure a more flexible and balanced approach to branch line abandonment, and allow for the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars in providing adequate transportation services.
May I make it clear that the new provisions will not affect the prairie grain lines within the permanent grain network.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You want to bet?


David Kilgour: The current protection from abandonment that these lines have until the year 2000 will be continued under this legislation.
The Government is committed to maintaining a healthy, viable railway industry. That viability is not threatened by this new legislation, contrary to what some people have said, and perhaps will say after I sit down. These reforms do not compromise the safety of the Canadian rail system. Safety remains of paramount concern to the Government. Rather, we are convinced that the legislation will do much to strengthen the industry and the economy of Canada.
The reformed National Transportation Act will now give Canada's railways the opportunity to become more efficient and to compete with other transport modes and with American carriers. It will give primary resource producers and other shippers more and better options for moving their products to market, particularly export markets. It will create employment opportunities for thousands of Canadians in a wide range of occupations from one end of the country to the other.
In short, the legislation contains a signal reform to our rail transportation system across the land, one that is long overdue in a modern, confident industrial democracy like our own.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the Hon. Member, and I have three questions for him. I will try to ask one question now and follow it with two quick ones.
My hon. friend talked about confidential rates for shippers. I presume he meant that it did not matter whether they were close to or far from their markets. Does he believe that a small shipper who might move a few hundred carloads per year will be able to obtain the same confidential rate as a big shipper who moves several thousand carloads of sulphur, potash, or coal per year in competition to the same market?
Does he really believe that the railroads will agree to the same confidential rate for small shippers and big shippers, when we take into account railroad economics, economies of scale, and volumes of shippers? Does he believe for one moment that a small manufacturer of agricultural implements in the Prairies which ships a couple of hundred carloads per year will receive the same kind of deal as Massey-Ferguson or IAC which moves thousands of carloads per year? Would he
January 28, 1987

not agree that in such instances the confidential rate is anticompetitive and discriminatory?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I most emphatically do not agree with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). If I should turn out to be wrong, I hope the Hon. Member will bring to my attention or to the attention of the Government any case where a small shipper was being penalized in the way he just described.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is too late then; he is broke.


David Kilgour: We are trying to give shippers a square deal compared with the two railways which basically carry most of the traffic in Canada. The days are over when CN or CP could say to a small, medium or large shipper of potash, to take an industry in my friend's home province, "You will pay what we want you to pay or you can carry the potash out on your back". That era is at an end.
The whole thrust of those parts of the Bill dealing with the railroads is to ensure that small and medium shippers-in fact all shippers-have a chance to obtain prices other than duopoly pricing by the two carriers. That is the whole object of the exercise, as I hope the Hon. Member knows.
When the matter gets into committee for clause by clause consideration and to hear witnesses, no one will listen more carefully than I will to the concern raised by the Hon. Member. If there is a way to prevent it from happening, again no one will be listening more carefully than I will to how we can ensure that a small shipper is not penalized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a short supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that is not what small shippers told us in Atlantic Canada and in Winnipeg in those brief hearings we were allowed to have.
I have another question for my hon. friend. He talked about competitive line rates. The Canadian Trucking Association, both railroads, and some shippers told us-and $750 million of Canadian Pacific revenue is at stake-that under the competitive line rate system bulk commodities, such as the ones he mentioned from his province and mine, would move south across the border to the United States, would travel to Seattle or Tacoma or to eastern and central United States, and would come back into Canada. They told us that the business would be lost to Canadian truckers and railroads and that when dealing with products for export they may well use a U.S. port rather than a Canadian one.
In other words, U.S. railroads and truckers will have access and capacities in Canada which will not be allowed Canadian railroads and truckers in the United States. Even individual states will be able to prohibit Canadian trucking companies and Canadian railroads, let alone the United States administration. That is not a level playing field. Competitive line rates will take traffic to United States transportation systems at the expense of Canadian ones.
National Transportation Act, 1986


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my friend has raised a couple of issues. I will deal with both of them.
On the question of U.S. rail taking traffic away from Canadian carriers, if my memory is correct, between 1980 and 1985 three-quarters of a billion feet or more of lumber in British Columbia moved by truck to the cheaper rail system in the United States and bypassed the rail system in British Columbia. That is a lot of lumber.
If the people who operate small and medium sized mills are so concerned about gouging by the railroads in British Columbia that they are prepared to ship their lumber by truck, as the Hon. Member knows, hundreds and thousands of kilometres to the Washington border to get on a cheaper rail system, that says something about the monopoly or duopoly practices of our two railroads or, in the case of British Columbia, of its three railroads.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you kidding?


David Kilgour: No, I am not kidding.
On the question of trucking, my understanding is that shippers from St. John's to Nanaimo are urging us with a single voice to deregulate trucking. I understand the desire of the trucking industry to obtain the benefits of greater flexibility and competition. Truckers are entitled to some time to adjust to a more open system of competition; I completely agree.
The federal and provincial Governments have agreed with the proposition and have decided to provide for a transition period during which a reverse onus public interest test would apply in addition to the fitness test.
I am convinced that greater opportunities will present themselves where a combination of service and price can be worked out to the mutual advantage of both truckers and shippers. It is the kind of flexibility which is needed and is built into the revised Motor Vehicle Transport Act which we will be discussing perhaps tomorrow or the day after. The legislation will allow truckers time to adapt to changing economic conditions in the industry.
However, I might point out that the study conducted on behalf of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators has provided a very positive outlook. It concluded that the gradual lessening of regulatory control by the provinces over market entry and trucking rates has already brought about important changes in that industry. The Canadian trucking industry is better prepared for regulatory reform than was the U.S. industry before deregulation.
Are you trying to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that I have run out of time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a question or comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Hon. Member made several references in his speech to how this

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
would assist Canadian Pacific among others, could he respond to the concerns expressed by Canadian Pacific that the legislation, as currently tabled, may have exactly the opposite effect to what was supposed to be the case?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, with respect, obviously the Hon. Member was not listening to my speech or I misdelivered something. I certainly did not mean to suggest that it would benefit CP.
I worked on a steel gang for CP and on a section gang for CN, so I know the railways from the rail up. The object of the exercise is partly to ensure that the two railways stop exploiting, with a capital E, shippers in any part of the country including urban centres.
Since the Hon. Member was obviously not listening to my speech, I guess there is not much point in repeating it now. Presumably she would not listen if I repeated the portions of my speech which dealt with that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is avoiding my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member avoided the question. He did not answer the specific question concerning Canadian Pacific and how the legislation will do the exact opposite to what it is supposed to do. I am sure the Hon. Member would be very happy to answer the question at another time, as opposed to skating and obfuscating.
Nonetheless, at this time I would like to look at this legislation in the light of what it will mean to the average Canadian worker. I am sure there are workers from the rail, airline and trucking industries watching this debate with much interest because they would like to know how it will directly affect their jobs.
In the past couple of weeks, I have had a chance to meet with both airline and rail employees. They have asked me to express in the House of Commons their concern over the difficulties that have already been faced by airline employees because of deregulation and over the difficulties which are currently facing workers in the rail industry. I wish to refer to two specific cases.
There is a major Canadian airport in the City of Toronto. Last week, I had the opportunity of meeting with a number of employees who are extremely frustrated by the attitude of their employer which is attempting in its own way to deal with deregulation on the backs of employees. I refer specifically to Air Canada. I have in my hand a petition signed by several hundred Toronto Air Canada employees who are extremely concerned about the company's attempt to deny workers basic human rights not only under Article 12 of the 1985-87
collective agreement between Air Canada and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers but also basic human rights under the Canada Labour Code which permits employees to enjoy statutory holidays. Air Canada is attempting to blackmail its employees into giving up statutory holidays by designing a shift system which is so unconscionable that more than two-thirds of all employees employed in the machinists' section at the airport in Toronto will never, ever have a weekend off as of the beginning of this year.
There are 294 employees at the ramp and hangar at the Toronto airport. Under the new scheduling process, only 34 per cent of these workers will have Saturdays and Sundays off. Sixty-six per cent of the employees will never have a weekend off. The reason for this is that the company has made it quite clear to the union that even though this particular scheduling system is not the most effective and efficient one, the company wants its employees to give up their rights to statutory holidays in return for getting some weekends off.
The reason I raise this problem in the context of this massive piece of legislation is that with the introduction of deregulation in airlines, we have had a chance to look at what will happen in the transportation industry. Some of us might be cynical and say: "Well, too bad, these employees should never have weekends off'. However, even the Canadian travelling public must admit that the morale of employees is extremely important.
When I met with these workers last week, they revealed to me that the situation in Toronto is getting so desperate that there are in fact breaches of safety. Mechanics at the airport are working on airplanes on which they should not be working specifically because management is telling them that even though they may have up-to-date licences to work on 727s, they will work on DC8s. They must do this even though they have not had the upgrading required for those who have not worked on a particular airplane for three years.
I further heard from these same employees their concern about safety checks on individual planes. These are being done on a rushed basis. Normally, an hour and a half is set aside for an individual safety check. These employees told me that in some cases, mechanics are required to certify three, four or five airplanes in the time it would normally have taken before deregulation to examine one airplane. The Government's claim that safety is not being compromised in rubbish.
In examining the American experience, one finds that the first thing that went after deregulation was safety. In 1979, the American Federal Aviation Administration had 2,000 inspectors monitoring 237 air carriers. In 1984, after the United States embarked on its program of airline deregulation, it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers, an increase of 70 per cent in the number of air carriers travelling the airways and a decrease of 700 inspectors. This massive cut was made at a time when we were being promised that safety would not be compromised.
January 28, 1987

This legislation should be thrown out on one ground alone. There is absolutely nothing in it to guarantee the safety not only of airline passengers but also the protection of regions from reductions in service routes, rail line abandonments and other eventualities. There is the question of safety of passengers and there is also the question of job security.
The reason the Air Canada situation in Toronto is so disturbing can be understood after reading statements made by Mr. Claude Taylor and Mr. Pierre Jeanniot in the December 15 issue of the Air Canada employee newsletter. These gentlemen say that they hope they can look back with gentle pride on the hope and caring that members of the Air Canada family have given to many people. According to Mr. Taylor, he is proud of the work employees have done with crippled and sick children, men and women needing temporary homes, young people seeking help for drug or alcohol abuse, and agencies that provide food and clothing for the less fortunate. He is speaking of the Air Canada family.
The Air Canada family includes machinists who are now faced with never, ever getting another weekend off without giving in to the company's demands to give up statutory holidays. Why does the Canada Labour Code designate statutory holidays if companies will subsequently tell their employees that they can never have days off unless they give up their rights under the Canada Labour Code? It is a fraud which I have already brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). I hope to get a positive response from him. However, I think it relates to this particular debate as well because it is a harbinger of what we may expect after the rail and trucking deregulation which will occur if we accept Bill C-18 in its current form.
I would like to take a few moments to examine the situation of rail employees. In the last week, I had a visit from a group of rail employees from the great City of Belleville. One of these employees had a long history of rail involvement. His father was a railroader, his grandfather was a railroader and he was a railroader. I sympathized with him because my grandfather was also a railroader.
This group showed me figures relating to the repair shop in Belleville showing that from January 1 to October 31 of 1986, the number one car equipment repair shop in the Great Lakes region was the shop in Belleville. That shop was number one in October and September. At the same time as this operation has shown CN that it is viable, economic and is doing the best job of about a dozen shops operating in the Great Lakes region, it is being closed down. These employees have been given their notices and have been told that they can either move to Toronto or another area or quit their jobs. In many cases, these employees have several years of service and are well established in the community of Belleville. They do not want to be put in the position of having to move to Toronto, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Sarnia, Capreol, Cochrane or Hornepayne simply because they have to save their jobs. They want to stay in Belleville and were led to believe that if they performed as an efficient operation their site would be saved.
National Transportation Act, 1986
However, on January 9, 1987, CN laid off 47 workers in Belleville. Those same workers had several meetings with the local Member and were under the impression as late as the latter part of last year that there would not be lay-offs and they would not lose their jobs because they were productive and operational.
Belleville is a microcosm of what we see happening in Moncton. It does not matter if you are able to justify your existence. It does not matter that I have here a document which shows that the Belleville operation was the most effective and efficient shop for the repair of CN cars in the whole of the Great Lakes region. For Canadian National and the Conservative Government the emphasis on quality and productivity has given way to political considerations.
One reason this Bill in its current form is not supportable is that there is absolutely no guarantee for the many regions. Perhaps Belleville is not as big as Toronto. Perhaps it does not have the political clout some other communities might have. We are only talking about 47 employees here, but they have made their home and their life and put down roots in Belleville. Now they have been abandoned.
In this Bill there is absolutely no guarantee for the workers who have been dealt a dirty blow by CN as a result of this closure, nor is there a guarantee which will protect regions like Belleville and eastern Ontario from reductions in service, routes, and rail line abandonment. At the same time there are no guarantees for passengers.
It seems to me that when you are dealing with a country the size of Canada you have to address the sensitive issue of rail line abandonment. Certainly the Conservative Government, when it was in opposition, made much political hay out of the abandonment of certain responsibilities at VIA Rail. We have to be extremely sensitive that any legislation seeking to amend in a major way national transportation routes has something to protect the regions. It is not surprising there is no such condition in this legislation because I think that over the last two and a half years the Conservatives have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not interested in regional enhancement. They are not interested in ensuring that not only the far-reaching and isolated areas of our country are served by rail, road and air, but so are even the smaller community in provinces like Ontario, communities like Belleville. They are not interested in making sure that a well-operated, functional and effective shop remains open. Their policy is centralization and to give it all to the big at the expense of the lesser areas and regions.
Over the last couple of days we have seen the fishery dispute which we will hear about in an emergency debate tonight. Not only are the Conservatives prepared to sacrifice the regions for the larger centres, they are also prepared to sacrifice Canada when it comes to the interests of other countries, whether it be the U.S. or France. Again in this legislation we see they are not prepared to protect Canadian interests on the international

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
scene. I refer specifically to the absence of any provisions to prevent major foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies and routes. The U.S. has a 25 per cent limit on foreign ownership of transportation companies. What do we have in this legislation? The Bill has no provision to limit foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies. The only guideline is the fact that all mergers and takeovers over $20 million and 10 per cent of the voting shares of any Canadian transportation firm will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. That does not mean they will set it aside or refuse it. All they will do is review. The only other proviso says that all those below those ceilings will be reviewed in the normal procedure by Investment Canada. It seems to me that in a country as large as Canada, as sparsely populated and with communities dependent either on rail, air or road for the links which keep the country together, it is folly to consider passing a Bill which would permit foreign takeovers of all our transportation companies with no guarantee that the control of our system will remain in Canadian hands.
That does not surprise us in the Opposition because this has been the hallmark of the Conservative Government. A little bit of pressure from France, and the Conservatives sell off our cod stock. A little bit of pressure from the U.S., and they sell off our softwood lumber industry. Are we going to be foolish enough to pass this Bill in its present form, a massive piece of legislation, without providing any guarantees that our railways, which have linked this country from coast to coast and provided the basis for our history, our airlines and our trucking routes as well, have absolutely no Canadian majority ownership? Are we going to see CN or CP sold to the U.S. or foreign multinationals in the same way we saw de Havilland sold to Boeing?
By making some positive amendments to this legislation we have a chance to ensure that Canadian ownership of our transportation industry remains intact. I suggest that this is a critical amendment. It would in some measure allay the fears of those who really do not trust the Conservative Government to protect the interests of Canada when it gets the slightest pressure from outside. Our interests seem to take second place to France or the U.S.
It is totally unacceptable that in this Bill we are willing to put our rail, air and trucking routes up for grabs to the highest bidder. Those bidders may not act in the best interests of our regions. They may not act in the best interests of our consumers. They may not act in the best interests of Canada.
Many Canadians settled from coast to coast as a result of the development of our national railway. It seems to me that in one fell swoop in this Bill, unless we include certain amendments to provide protection against massive foreign takeovers, the national dream that Canada is linked from coast to coast could very easily be sold south of the border. That would simply be another note in the saga of Investment Canada. We cannot allow that, and I think most of us in the Opposition agree that the concerns expressed last week by the rail workers
in Belleville or the airline workers at Air Canada are legitimate and valid concerns which must be addressed before we move forward with any wholesale change. It could inhibit not only the protection of jobs but could also inhibit the survival of our very nation, given the transportation infrastructure we have depended upon in the past.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand the position of the Liberal Party on this Bill. Would the Member who just spoke be kind enough to tell us what the position of her Party is? Is it or is it not in favour of it in principle?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The current Bill stinks. Is that clear enough?


David Kilgour: Does she know that the Combines Investigation Act and Investment Canada remain in force? The existing legislation does not prevent foreign acquisitions. Could the Member tell the House where she is coming from? Is she opposed to everything in the Bill? What, if anything, does she approve of in the Bill? I do not expect her to speak for her Party. Has she read the Bill?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, with regard to where I come from, I would be facetious if I said that I come from my mother's womb, so I will not. I will say, instead, that I come from Hamilton East.
With regard to the Bill, it is clear that we have outlined major concerns and reservations. In its current form the Bill is completely unacceptable because it contains no guarantees against foreign takeover of our transportation systems. The Member claims to be knowledgeable about this Bill and I am surprised that he is not aware that there are only two conditions in this legislation which govern potential takeovers.
The first condition is that all mergers and takeovers over $20 million and over 10 per cent of the voting shares will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. The second is the normal provisions set out by Investment Canada. I am not surprised that the Member originally referred to that agency as the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He is so out of touch that he does not realize that the first thing his Government did two years ago was to denude completely and take the teeth out of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and replace it with Investment Canada, which we prefer to refer to as "divestment Canada" because it offers no protection to Canadian companies but rather opens us up to takeovers by foreign corporations with very little concern for the Canadian sovereignty which we in the Liberal Party would like to protect.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's remarks. I hope I am right that the Liberal Party has changed its mind as it is obvious that Government Members have. A former Liberal Minister of Transport, Otto Lang, started all of this. When the present Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister of Transport and proposed deregulation, the present Government
January 28, 1987

House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) and I raised hell about it in the Transport Committee. Has the Liberal Party now changed its mind? Will it agree to fight this legislation?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously aware of the fact that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) introduced deregulation in the airline industry as the Minister reponsible at the time. It has been made clear by my statements, those of the current transport critic, and those of the former associate critic, the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), that we have various concerns about how deregulation is affecting safety in the airline industry. Those are legitimate concerns which I believe the Member shared with the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe when they examined this issue in the Transport Committee. I believe that we owe it to the travelling public, as well as to the employees whose necks are on the line, to do everything possible to guarantee safety in the airways. If that is not possible through the type of deregulation which we have proposed, we will have to back off.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) a question with regard to the rights of the handicapped in this new transportation policy. There is nothing in Bill C-18 which deals specifically with the accessibility, comfort, safety or rate structure for the handicapped on all modes of transportation. I regret that the Government has not seen fit to address that serious problem by setting mandatory minimum safety and access standards for the handicapped and incorporating them in Bill C-18.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The absolute absence of any recommendation vis-a-vis accessibility by the handicapped is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The introduction of legislation to mandate accessibility for all future transportation development would address the problem at the source and show the political will to follow up on the commitment we made to the handicapped in the employment equity Bill. For the Government to say that it is seeking employment equity while refusing to incorporate into other legislation the concept of accessibility for the handicapped is to impinge upon the ability of the handicapped to compete equally in the market-place. This is one area in which it should be addressed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker suggested that our safety would be like that of the United States. She may not be aware that we are hiring more safety inspectors as we gradually introduce economic regulations. She may not recall that this Parliament passed amendments to the Aeronautics Act in June, 1985, to increase air safety standards across the board. She may not be aware of that and of other safety initiatives taken in all modes of transportation.
An enormous amount of effort and concern goes into the issue of safety in our three modes of transportation. We have set up a civil aviation tribunal to hear and determine appeals from administrative decisions quickly and fairly. One hundred
National Transportation Act, 1986
additional safety personnel are being put in place across Canada to work in the area of the transportation of dangerous goods. We have very high safety standards in this country.
For example, radar is essential to safe air transportation. Radar systems have undergone radical changes during recent years. We must keep up in this area of technology and are doing so. We have committed more than $800 million to an airport radar modernization plan which covers Canada from coast to coast. That will, of course, increase safety. Our major carriers are in the top range of more than 120 international carriers with enviable safety records. Our record has steadily improved over 20 years.
I will have an opportunity to speak on the issue of the disabled in relation to this legislation in future debate in the House. I believe that is a very important issue and look forward to speaking on it at another time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Member was listening when I said that I met with mechanics from Air Canada last week. They told me that they are currently compromising the inspection service at Air Canada in Toronto because they are being pressured to ensure the inspection of two, three or four vehicles during the amount of time which should normally be devoted to one vehicle. Second, these same individuals informed me that there are mechanics at Air Canada in Toronto now who are working on planes on which they should not be working. Their expertise is normally on a 727, but they are being asked to work on DC-8s and other airplanes without having the normal refresher course that takes place when one has not worked on a particular aircraft for three or four years. These are two serious breaches of safety which have been brought to the attention of the management and which have been raised on numerous occasions by the workers. They are not getting satisfactory answers but these are safety concerns that must be addressed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). While I enjoyed listening to her answer to the question asked by my colleague, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Banjamin), perhaps I could translate it into more understandable English. She said that the Liberal Party has one position when in government and another position when in opposition.
I wish she had been here before 1984 when the Liberal Government in fact began the process leading to deregulation. Now that the Liberals are in opposition, they oppose deregulation. It is a somewhat inconsistent position.
I agree with her reference to mechanics. I have talked to mechanics in Vancouver who told me that CP was putting advertisements in newspapers in Los Angeles for mechanics to work in Vancouver. Is the new Conservative deregulation policy to hire American workers to work in Canada when there is so much unemployment here?

January 28, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
The Parliamentary Secretary said that we are protected by Investment Canada from foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies. Investment Canada is a toothless tiger which encourages takeovers. One only need look at the case of West Kooteny Power, in which an American utility company is taking over West Kootenay Power, a Canadian power company, to the great opposition of the residents in the Kootenays and the Okanagan Valley.
Investment Canada decided on December 24 to simply roll over and play dead and let the American utility company take over that Canadian company for the so-called benefit of Canada. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is unsupportable.
Like many other MPs, last November I received a letter from the Vice-President of Canadian Pacific Railway in which he stated: "If enacted without change, Bill C-18 would preclude the railways from being genuine and effective competitors in the transportation market-place ..." and went on to say that: "Bill C-18 would place the integrity of Canada's railway system at risk". Perhaps the Government has made some amendments to the Bill since then in order to meet these concerns because it is a serious criticism, certainly of the Hon. Member's speech in which he said this Bill would help the railways. I hope he will respond to that later in the debate.
I want to make the New Democratic Party position clear. The Bill is anti-competitive and will lead to more monopolies. It is anti-safety and will make our transportation system, especially our airlines, less safe. Third, the Bill is anti-service because it will mean less service than already exists, especially when Canadians have come to appreciate a high standard of service in transportation.
Finally, this Bill is ideological. The Conservative Government is attempting to follow the American example without realizing that there have been faults with the deregulation process in the United States, particularly with regard to safety and service. The Conservative Government has also failed to realize that Canada is different from the United States and cannot simply follow American trends.
The Government is enacting this legislation to increase the wealth of their rich friends in the transportation business, not to help ordinary Canadians who will ultimately suffer. Ordinary Canadians will oppose this type of deregulation when they realize its consequences.
We are not against deregulation that is meant to correct overburdening regulations that are administered by many bureaucrats in Ottawa. However, we do not want the pendulum to swing so far that we have a system in which there are a few companies that operate to make a few of them wealthy while diminishing our safety and service.
This Bill would abolish the Canadian Transport Commission and replace it with a much weaker National Transportation Agency that would have no authority over fares, routes, or entry or exit into the industry. It would probably have far fewer employees than the present CTC.
It would replace public necessity and convenience as the test for entry or exit into the industry, and replace it with a fit, willing and able test. It would make it easier for companies to abandon airline and rail routes, and leave remote communities stranded.
It would end regulatory oversight over fares, routes and schedules except in some remote areas. This Bill would allow rail shippers to strike confidential contracts with individual shippers. It would open entry of U.S. rail lines into the Canadian market.
Several articles have been written about the American system. For example, I refer to an issue of Time magazine on January 12, 1987. The article entitled: "Be careful out there" states:
The Northwest DC-10 was speeding toward takeoff at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport when the warning came from the flight engineer: "There's a whale on the runway!" Another Northwest wide-bodied DC-10 had just left a taxiway and poked its nose into the path of the oncoming plane. "I see it", replied the amazingly cool captain of the departing aircraft. He abruptly jerked his jumbo jet into the air. His wing cleared the fuselage of the crossing plane by a mere 50 feet. There were 501 people on the two jets. They had barely avoided what would have been the world's second worst air disaster, akin to the 1977 collision of two Boeing 747s that killed 582 people on a fog-shrouded runway at Tenerife in the Canary Islands.
What went wrong under clear skies at Minneapolis last March 31? Two air traffic controllers, sitting side by side in the terminal tower, each failed to realize what the other had done. One had cleared the taxiing plane to cross the runway. The other had told the second plane to roll toward takeoff.
The article goes on to discuss airline safety and states that what many aviation experts fear is that:
-what is still one of the safest air transportation systems in the world is slipping dangerously as air traffic grows relentlessly through the unfettered competition of deregulation. The experts voice three major concerns: There are not enough controllers, and too many of them have a low experience level.
That is what has happened in the United States. Second:
We have a lessening of the experience level of flight crews.
That will happen in Canada. Third:
Some of the most economically troubled airlines are deferring maintenance whenever possible, and a few have been heavily fined by the FAA for violating safety standards. The impacts of these varied trends, says Patricia Goldman, vice-chairman of the NTSB, is that there is a "narrowed margin of safety".
The article goes on to state:
-the era of do-or-die rate-cutting competition has pressured carriers to slash costs and take risks.
That is an example of what is happening in the United States as a result of the deregulation that our Government is proposing to follow. Carriers are slashing costs and taking risks.
Let us examine how this affects air safety. The Government states that there will be more economic activity and increased participation in a deregulated environment, where the winners will stay and the losers will go. However, what do transportation companies in the United States do when they begin losing? The examples of that are in the United States. They begin to cut corners.
January 28, 1987

Do you remember Arrow Airlines, Mr. Speaker? That is the airline whose plane crashed near Gander last year with the loss of the lives of so many of those young servicemen. It turns out that the air crew was not rested, that the plane was overloaded and that the plane was not de-iced. It cost $1,500 to de-ice a plane, and Arrow Airlines was having financial troubles. 1 would not like to take a ride on an aircraft owned by an airline which was close to bankruptcy or in financial trouble in this kind of deregulated environment. Look for the report of the Federal Aviation Association, the FAA, in the United States which will report on the crash of Arrow Airlines. Some of those factors will come to light. That is not the Canadian way. We do not believe in operating in airlines in this way. However, it will become that way if the Government proceeds with this kind of deregulation.
I mentioned the matter of competition and the fact that we could have a few airlines working and the rest of the small airlines being forced out of business. That is what is happening in Canada. We in fact have two airlines, Pacific Western Airlines, which just took over Canadian Pacific, and its host of companies, and Air Canada, which takes 90 per cent of the passenger load. So we have a concentration of power.
I will quote from Business Week on November 22, 1986, with respect to its cover story "Is Deregulation Working?" It talks about People Express which started out with lots of good fares and so on, but is now in fact laying off people, selling the airline and so on:
It wasn't supposed to turn out quite this way. The great wave of deregulation during the late 1970s and early 1980s was predicated on the belief that replacement of the dead hand of regulation with the invisible hand of the free market would spur competition-
However, the article goes on to say that it has not spurred on competition:
The market share of the top half-dozen or so companies, which dominate these markets, is growing. "No one realized how rapidly the industries would concentrate," says Washington lawyer Mark Leddy, a former Justice Dept, antitrust official.
"People are reeling from it."
Let us take my home Province of British Columbia. There is really only one airline flying into Prince George and points north because CP Air has been taken over by Pacific Western and Time Air is part of that group. What will happen is we will have less and less competition and that will mean the freeze-out of small cities which will go from jet service to prop service, to a lesser degree of prop service, to perhaps no service at all. That is a real problem for Canada because we do have such vibrant small communities and that is how we exist.
We will have the problem with our railways as well with lack of competition, concentration, and other groups coming in. We will have the problem of the American railways coming in and seizing goods from eastern Canada and transporting
them to Seattle. What will happen to the Port of Vancouver if that happens?
This rosy picture of deregulation is not all it is cracked up to be. Since similar legislation was brought into the United States, 150,000 jobs were lost in the railway sector. People said: "Well, that is good. Maybe jobs need to be lost", but where are these jobs going to be picked up? They tend to be high paying, skilled and semi-skilled jobs which will be replaced with low-paying service sector jobs. That is not the way to have a dynamic economy. There is also great pressure on the workers in the United States to accept poor working conditions. Wages, benefits and safety conditions have all suffered as a result of the single-minded determination of companies to keep costs down at any price. Vancouverites in my home town will likely be forced to pay higher fares, suffer reduced services and face questionable safety when they travel to remote regions of British Columbia. This legislation makes it easy for transportation companies to abandon the less profitable remote areas.
I am energy critic for my Party and I want to make a Canadian comparison because it is an interesting comparison on deregulation. On November 1 of last year the Government deregulated natural gas. Previous to that the price of gas was regulated in Alberta. The commodity price and the transportation prices were regulated by, among others, the National Energy Board. We went to a system in natural gas where we let the market do it. What happened? The big guys benefited. We found the big energy users in eastern Canada could get contracts at $2 a thousand cubic feet for gas, whereas the consumers had to pay $3 a thousand cubic feet. It was not the little guy who benefited, it was the big companies. The Americans benefited. They got our gas at $1.75 a thousand cubic feet. That is an example of monopoly for the little guy, competition for the big guy.
I can summarize by saying that I find this Bill to be anticompetitive, anti-safety and anti-service, following the Americans at any cost without learning what the Americans have suffered as a result of their so-called deregulation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.17 p.m., 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock, when the House will proceed with debate on an interim agreement with the Government of France concerning additional fishing rights for the French fleet off the coast of Newfoundland.
At 18.18 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
January 28, 1987

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Leave has been granted to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, an interim agreement with the Government of France concerning additional fishing rights for the French fleet off the northern coast of Newfoundland.


John Edward Broadbent: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, those most affected by the agreement that was announced yesterday by the Government of Canada are clearly the fishermen, the people in the industry and the Government of Newfoundland. At the same time, those completely ignored in shaping the content of the agreement were the fishermen, the people in the industry and the Government of Newfoundland.
Very clearly, this agreement was designed by the Government of Canada, not to please the people of Atlantic Canada but to please the people of France. The clear intention of the Government was to prepare a document that would serve as the centre-piece for a photo opportunity for the visit to Canada by the President of France in a few weeks from now. That is what it was all about. I say that it is time the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) recognized that he was elected in Manicouagan not Marseille, that he is responsible to the people of Canada and not to the people of France. That is what he should understand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Given the nature of this agreement which gives French fishermen access to some 15,000 tonnes of cod that they did not have before, remarkably enough, in precisely the same area as the curtailment to Canadian fishermen of some 10,000 tonnes, perhaps it is legitimate for Atlantic Canadians to ask what type of Government could reach this agreement and make it seriously as a proposal? What could have led to this?

According to the Government, Mr. Speaker, we have this proposal because of a dispute about the boundaries of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. The Government wanted to use this proposal to settle the dispute. The Government of Canada says, and in my view it is right, that Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon's boundary extends to the 12-mile limit. However, the Government of France wants a zone that is almost as big as Nova Scotia. According to us and according to the Government, international law is on Canada's side. That is our
opinion. The French take a different view. We on the Canadian side and at any rate Members in our party are saying we should seek a ruling by an international body, by a third party.

It seems to us that when there is a dispute over conflicting claims about fishing rights off the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which presumably had been made in good faith by the two governments, that the rational, sensible approach would be to have it resolved by some third party intervention.
I see the Minister smiling over there, and I will come to what I think he is smiling about.
We think that under the circumstances the correct approach would be to try to persuade our French friends that we are right. Obviously, they tried to do the same thing with us. Then we would say, "Well, if you don't agree with our view, which clearly you do not, and we do not accept yours, then if you are good friends and traditional allies, the appropriate thing to do is to have some third party pass judgment on this which is acceptable to both sides." I suspect that the Government will say that is exactly what it tried to do. Our Government will say, "Yes, we wanted to do that, but the French Government refused". Under those circumstances, what does a rational, fair-minded Government with some sense of obligation to its people, and some sense of self-respect do? One of the reasons there are frigates and a naval presence on the coast is to enforce our sovereignty. Not that long ago we chased-


John Carnell Crosbie: You are advocating war now. This is something new.


John Edward Broadbent: -we chased a Spanish vessel half way across the Atlantic Ocean in order to legitimize our claim to sovereignty. That is what we did.


John Carnell Crosbie: They had no right to be there.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister who is participating in a Government that has sold out Newfoundlanders is now joking about this. I say to him that a sovereign nation with a sense of respect-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


An Hon. Member:: It is not a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: The rules of this House do not permit an Hon. Member to make false characterizations as to whether a Member is smiling or not smiling, or what he is doing. There has not been a smile on my face. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party should stop that kind of low and detestable tactic and stick to his speech. I have not a smile, not a grimace, not a grin, because I am listening to him with disbelief.


An Hon. Member:: I think he listened to his Government with disbelief.
January 28, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has a number of interesting points to mention to the House this evening. Perhaps before drawing conclusions too early in the debate the Hon. Member would set out the fact pattern upon which some conclusions might or might not be drawn later.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Minister says that he was not smiling, then maybe it was just the perpetual smirk that is on his face, and 1 will take back what I said. In looking at the Minister, that is exactly what I thought he was doing. If he says he was not, then I will accept his word for it.
What I will not withdraw is my accusation that he has just participated in the Government decision that has sold out the interests of his own province, and he can reply to that.
Before the Minister rose to his feet I was saying that a Government with a sense of self-respect would have made a serious attempt to negotiate a settlement. We did that. When the French did not accept our arguments, it would have proposed that we refer it to a third party. We did that. If the French do not agree, rather than giving them additional fishing rights somewhere else in our territory, which this Government has absurdly done, we ought to have done with the French what we did with the Spanish trawler not long ago.
Without firing a shot or being in any sense warlike, but in the sense of protecting our own sovereignty, we should have used our Coast Guard in order to enforce our territorial integrity. That is what we should have done.


John Carnell Crosbie: What a bluff.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, what a bluff? This Government does not know what a bluff is. Every time it has a battle with the United States, France, or any other country, it gives in completely to what the other side wants. What I am saying is that ought to have been the next step. I say that with seriousness. I am talking about a well understood and traditional ally of Canada, and also a country with an international reputation for not yielding to anyone in any flexible negotiating way, and there should be no illusions about that.
The French Government might then have seen that we were serious, if we had taken some of their vessels actually under our control to enforce our sovereignty. The French perhaps would have gone very fast at that moment to get an international settlement. That ought to have been the route.
What did this Government do instead? Instead of standing up with some sense of self-respect for our own integrity, the Government said to the French Government, "We will give you some fishing rights in part of our waters, which no one disputes are our waters, and where we have curtailed the fishing rights to our own Fishermen for conservation reasons. We will allow you to go into these waters". That is brilliant bargaining. That is what the Government has done.


John R. Rodriguez: That's tough bargaining.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Chamberlain diplomacy.


John Edward Broadbent: Not only is it bad in principle as an approach to enforcing our own territorial integrity, it is also in flat contradiction of the wishes of the Government of Newfoundland. After the news of the accord came out yesterday and we raised questions in the House, I phoned the Premier of Newfoundland. I say to my hon. colleagues in the House that I do not claim to have a great deal of expertise in the details of the fishery. I have done some checking, and I hope what I am saying now is accurate. I am totally convinced that what I am saying about the international bargaining process is accurate. I phoned the Premier of Newfoundland and asked him his opinion about what conceivably could lie behind this. I wish to say to my hon. friends on the other side of the House that he was at a loss.
What he did tell me in that conversation was that he, as the Premier of Newfoundland, before Christmas wrote a detailed letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the leader of the national Government, which made it very clear from the point of view of the Government of Newfoundland, which is the province most directly affected, that there were to be no additional concessions in terms of fishing rights in any other waters as an attempt to resolve the St. Pierre and Miquelon conflict.
If the Government wanted a co-operative attitude with any Government in the country when the economic foundation of the province was in question, it would listen to the provincial Government of the area. Surely it would do that if cooperation in the federal system means anything. The Premier made clear to the Government of Canada, on a Premier-Prime Minister basis, right before Christmas, that there was to be no concession.
Just before that time the Government of Newfoundland, the industry, and the fishermen were party to ongoing talks and negotiations. Suddenly they were cut out and meetings took place in which they did not participate. Then last week officials from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans went to France to sign this incredibly unacceptable deal with the Government of France.
It is pretty clear why they were cut out of the negotiations. If the federal Government had continued to have as part of its negotiating team, as it ought to have had in the circumstances, representatives of the Government and people of Newfoundland, it could not have made the kind of deal it did. The federal Government knew that, because the Premier of Newfoundland had made clear to the Prime Minister before Christmas that any new territorial concessions for fishing rights were not acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland, and correctly not acceptable. Giving the Government of France additional territory in one part of the fishery in order to resolve a conflict in another must be about the stupidest kind of bargaining one could ever imagine.

January 28, 1987
In case one is inclined to think, as some Members on the government side might be, that Mr. Peckford is an aberration who, for whatever reason, has a battle to pick with the Government of Canada, we saw in very vivid form today the reaction of another Premier from Nova Scotia.


David Orlikow: Another Conservative Premier.


John Edward Broadbent: Another conservative Premier who, according to a Canadian Press wire story, found it to be an incredibly unacceptable deal. I telephoned Premier Buchanan as well to try to get from him some rationale about what he thought might have led to this decision. The Premier of Nova Scotia also had no answer about what could cause the federal Government to make such an incredible deal. His rough calculations, according to figures which appeared in the press, were that this would cost the people of Atlantic Canada some S200 million.
We have the Premier of Nova Scotia and his Government opposed. We have the Premier of Newfoundland and his Government opposed. So far as I am aware, any spokesperson for the industry or the unions of the workers directly affected have been totally opposed to the deal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who supported it?


John Edward Broadbent: That is a good question. The only people who supported it were members of the federal caucus of the Conservative Party, which we can be assured will be a greatly diminished number in about two years from now.
If one asks oneself the question, as one must, how the Government could take this approach and why we ended up in such a deal, one looks for some kind of rationale. I regret to say that the only rationale I could find is that in this tentative agreement with the Government of France we have another illustration of the Government's whole approach to international negotiations. Its approach is to make concession after concession until it has given the other side enough so that it feels overstuffed and then signs an agreement.
I wish I was kidding in this context. I wish my remarks were simply facetious. However, I do not think that at all. 1 believe that is what the Government has done. It is kind of a Willy Loman approach to international relations-a smile, a handshake, give away what you have and you will get an agreement. As strange as that ought to be to anyone, it is the approach of the Government. We have seen it in the negotiations with the United States.
I ask the Conservative Members, who I agree are paying serious attention to this debate, to think about that. As soon as the Prime Minister came into power, in terms of our bilateral arrangements with our greatest trading partner, the United States, what did he do? The Government gave up FIRA. Then it made concessions on shakes and shingles. Then it caved in on the pharmaceutical industry. Then it caved in completely on the softwood decision. In sector after sector the Government, in terms of getting a free trade agreement with the United
States, has been giving the United States everything it could conceivably want, and then some. It followed the same kind of approach with the Government of France by giving it additional fishing rights in one part of our territory as a gesture to obtain an agreement to negotiate settlement elsewhere, not to have a settlement.
Any foolish person can get an agreement with someone else if one gives the other person everything he wants. That is not the way the Prime Minister of Canada ought to be governing the people of Canada. He was elected to govern Canada, not to give Canada away piece by piece.
Obviously members of my Party and the people of Atlantic Canada will be pleased that we have had this debate. Before it is too late, I hope the Government will come to its senses. I hope it will listen to the people of Atlantic Canada. I hope it will listen to the arguments which will be made on the opposition side. I hope it will listen to the Governments of its own Party throughout Atlantic Canada. In short, I hope it will change its mind and tear up this agreement. I hope, just for once, the Government will say no to another country-no to France and yes to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think we should compliment the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party for bringing forward this important motion. In the spirit of parliamentary reform, I think it is important that all Members of Parliament have an opportunity to discuss from time to time issues of critical importance to Canada. Indeed this is such an issue.
I was going to say that it is always easy for opposition Members to be critical. It is far more helpful if they come forward with some good ideas, proposals, and solutions to difficult problems with which the Government and previous Governments have wrestled for many years.


John Edward Broadbent: We just did.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I hear the Hon. Leader of the NDP. I was about to compliment him for bringing forward some solutions. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party suggested that the time to negotiate has ended. I find that to be somewhat incredulous because Canada has always been a peaceful nation.
The problem we inherited is one which extends back some 450 years in the history of our country and it is not one which suggests a simple solution. In fact we have but three choices to make in the face of this history and a strong claim by France, another country which has been an important building block and an important piece of the history of our country, to perpetual fishing rights within the zone we now claim and have claimed since 1977 as the sovereign fishing domain of Canada primarily.
Of course we are talking about an area in dispute whose boundaries have been interpreted in two different ways-one
January 28, 1987

by Canada to encompass only a 12-mile territorial sea around the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and a separate claim by the other sovereign nation of France to boundaries extending some 180 miles south of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and into the mouth of the St. Lawrence estuary.
In that intervening zone, by all principles of international law, the usual undertaking between governments when there is a dispute-and many of these disputes have arisen since the time the Law of the Sea was adopted in the early 1980s-is to agree to avoid physical confrontation which can lead to war by trying to negotiate an acceptable compromise to reflect adequately the interests and aspirations of both nations.
We, as a nation, and all Canadian people, particularly those of Atlantic Canada and the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, feel a very special attachment to the fishery resource which has been part of their history since the first settlers arrived in Newfoundland in the 16th Century and when Jacques Cartier first sailed up the St. Lawrence River and established the French settlements which became Lower Canada.
I was alarmed to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggest that the time for negotiation has run out after 450 years of peace and harmony between our respective countries. Bearing fully in mind the aspirations and the entitlements of the fishermen and people of Atlantic Canada, why it is that the Leader of the NDP says,"Time has run out. We believe the Government of Canada should confront the French, chase them out of Canadian waters, irrespective of history and even, if necessary, confront them with force"? That is a ludicrous proposition coming from a leader of a Party which espouses peace and non-confrontation, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: Why did we do it with Spain?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I would like to explain why this is a ludicrous suggestion. I hope Hon. Members over there will give me as much opportunity to respond, and listen in silence, as I have given them.
We have for the first time in the history of our country reached a point where France has initialled an agreement which does little more than agree to negotiate two parallel agreements between now and the end of 1987, one dealing with the unresolved boundary issue, and a second to establish joint fishing arrangements during that three to four-year period when the compulsory third party arbitration process is allowed to take effect.
I think I heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party say that we should find a third party arbitrator. That has been and must be the objective of the Government of Canada in seeking a permanent and lasting resolution to this problem.
I want to say at the very beginning that I and all of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and particularly my colleagues from Newfoundland,
understand that to the people of that very beautiful part of Canada there is a feeling about the cod stocks, the groundfish resources of the Grand Banks. It is very close to the hearts of Newfoundlanders and very close to the soul of their province. I want to make it clear before I go into the detail of the agreement that in no way will this Government compromise or diminish the importance of that resource on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland to the continued future and growing prosperity of all of the people in that province whose history is so deeply interwoven with that resource.
We have a problem, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, you.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If Hon. Members want to be catty, that is their prerogative. I am trying to be reasonable and informative.
This problem was reinforced in 1972 when the Liberal Government entered into a treaty with France, because there had been some disputation in the 1960s over this issue. That treaty, in Article 2, recognizes the right of French nationals to fish in these waters, that is, waters which we now claim to be Canadian within the 200-mile economic zone. While the French agree that those fishing practices will be subject to possible measures for the conservation of resources, they at the same time insisted and continue to insist in all of the bilateral discussions that have been under way that they have a perpetual right to fish, not only in the waters in the disputed area of St. Pierre and Miquelon but in all of the waters which Canada claims to be there for the benefit and in recognition of the sovereignty of the country and our people who depend on that resource.
Since that treaty was signed in 1972, and I must add, that was a time when Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party were very accustomed to supporting their friends in the Liberal Party, they helped to reinforce this agreement to saddle Canada with a perpetual commitment-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Don't be catty now.


Jack Wendele Shields: That is the truth coming out.


Thomas Edward Siddon: These Hon. Members did not help to resolve the problem either in 1972 or in 1984 when these same Members of the NDP aided and abetted the Liberal Government of the day under Prime Minister Trudeau. At that time the Liberal Government, through an exchange of diplomatic notes with France in June, 1984, agreed that Canada would turn a blind eye to any fishing practices by French national vessels in the disputed area south of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In other words, the international agreement concerned, by an exchange of diplomatic notes-and Members of Liberal Party opposite were in Government at the time-


George Baker: What were the diplomatic notes?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is why the Liberals did not move a motion today.

January 28, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) has applied today for an emergency debate. The Chair has ruled in favour of that application. I would ask Hon. Members to contain themselves enough so that the debate can in fact continue. The Hon. Minister.


Thomas Edward Siddon: As I was saying, Members of the Government at that time in June, 1984 agreed that French national vessels could be allowed to fish unimpeded in the disputed zone-


George Baker: What do you mean unimpeded?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I could read the language of the agreement.


George Baker: Yes, read the language.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The language of the agreement, confirmed by an exchange of diplomatic notes, is as follows:
Each party in the disputed zone will abstain from regulating fishing vessels flying the flag of the other party in the disputed zone.


George Baker: From boarding.


Thomas Edward Siddon: As a consequence of the inability of previous governments to deal with this problem, we are today faced with a decision taken by the Le Bretagne arbitration. This was another consequence of the dispute settlement provisions of the treaty of 1972. It now allows large factory freezer trawlers, up to the numbers designated in the 1972 treaty, to fish in that disputed zone and be immune from the Canadian regulatory regime. In other words, from France's perspective, that is France's territorial waters and we have no right to enforce or administer fishing quotas in that region.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why act like the Liberals?


Thomas Edward Siddon: In that disputed zone, which in fisheries jargon is referred to as 3PS, Canada under the protocols of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has established quotas for the present year of 41,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod, and we have generously, for some years, granted to the French national vessels, particularly the vessels of St. Pierre and Miquelon, a quota of 6,400 tonnes for this year. That is not something new. That has been established practice for several years. In return, France believes that that entire quota of
41,000	tonnes is essentially a French quota and has been persistently overfishing that quota. We know from records which have been confirmed that in 1986, France overfished that quota by an amount in excess of 20,000 tonnes of codfish. That overfishing in this disputed zone represents lost income and lost opportunity to the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada amounting to over $40 million of landed value to the fishermen.
The point is that as long as the disputed zone exists and Canada is not able to enforce and manage the fishery in that zone, there will be a blatant abuse of the resource to the detriment of Atlantic Canada and, particularly, the fishermen
of southern Newfoundland. Therefore, the Government has three choices. We have been well aware of the particular problems of these three options. We can ignore the situation as it has been ignored for many years. We can face the French in confrontation as the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has astonishingly suggested or we can try to negotiate a solution which once and for all will eliminate the massive overfishing by France in an area which Canada believes to be its own.
The problem has become particularly complicated this year because, under the provisions of the 1972 treaty, the French national vessels, the so-called metropolitan fleet, were allowed to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 15 years. Last year they took a quota of 17,000 tonnes. That treaty provision has expired. We have essentially booted those French vessels out of the Gulf and they want somewhere to go. They do not want to go home to France so they have concentrated their fishing pressure on this disputed zone at great risk to the stocks in that area. That is why it is extremely critical that Canada, at this juncture, decide either to negotiate a lasting solution to this problem or to confront these vessels originating from France, even with military force as the Hon. Leader of the NDP has, I believe, so irresponsibly suggested. I think that would be a premature step. Therefore, I want to explain why it is we feel we have taken a major step forward. Then I will talk about the so-called tradeoffs or the price to which the mover of this motion has referred.
We have secured a signed agreement from France, not to take a certain number of fish from Canadian waters or to establish a specific boundary to resolve this problem once and for all, but to negotiate two agreements by December 31,
1987.	The first agreement would be to develop the legal terms of reference, or compromis as it is called in diplomatic jargon, under which this issue would be referred to the compulsory third-party dispute settlement provisions under international law. We would celebrate the fact that France has finally come to accept that this important matter must be referred to international dispute settlement procedures.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Coupled with the agreement to negotiate terms of reference, France has also agreed to negotiate by December 31, 1987 a set of interim fishing arrangements for the period between 1988 and 1991 during which this dispute settlement process will unfold.
In that context, we have not promised to give any Fish quotas away, and it will certainly be an objective of this Government in the negotiation of those interim fishing arrangements for a four-year period to ensure that the French overfishing in the disputed zone is curtailed and curtailed drastically.
Second, it is our objective to ensure that those fishing arrangements and whatever quotas are allocated to France are decided in the context of discussions with the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, with the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and with the industry generally.
January 28, 1987

I might say that we feel it important to recognize that not one fish has been placed on the bargaining table. We have offered to talk about the possibility of a very modest allocation in the area which is so important and precious to Newfoundland, referred to as the northern cod area or 2J+3KL. I can assure the House that the French have great designs on very large allocations of cod in that alternate location and that the Government will resist any such claim on their part.
We are talking about solving the problem of overfishing to the extent of tens of thousands of tonnes per year. We must put before the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada the question, what is the price they are willing to pay to have the matter resolved? Our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that any price which is too high for Newfoundland and Labrador is too high for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think, therefore, it is important that our friends and neighbours in France give witness to this debate and the discussions that have been taking place in Canada over the last two or three days. It is important that they realize that the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, will not stand for some other significant tradeoff in order to resolve this boundary dispute for all the reasons the Hon. Leader of the NDP and my other colleagues have presented in this discussion.
I will take a moment or so to comment on the remaining matter, which is this supposed allocation of 15,600 tonnes of new fish to get this deal. That misinterpretation and the exaggeration and mischievousness with which it has been used is typical of the disruptive tactics of the Opposition which so often prevent Canada from moving in an orderly way toward a desirable goal. In the year 1987, 15,600 tonnes of Atlantic fish resources will indeed be fished by France under arrangements that have been fully negotiated with all the Atlantic provinces and with the industry, and which are in full accord with our 1987 groundfish plan and our international commitments to France.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Enough. Enough is enough.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Of that portion, 8,000 tonnes-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're way over your time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has asked for an emergency debate on a matter which the Speaker thinks is very important. As a consequence, I granted the application. We have listened to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and, strictly speaking, his time has expired. The Minister has asked to be allowed to speak for a few more minutes. It would seem to me to be reasonable if there is consent. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too long, but I think it is important that I conclude this information in its entirety. I have a list here of some 15,600 tonnes of allocations which the present Opposition have been bandying about as a giveaway. In fact, the allocations are contained within the 1987 groundfish plan, are fully supported by industry and are fully supported by the provinces. These allocations include the 6,400 tonnes granted to France in the disputed area, part of the Canadian generosity, as France has always been granted that consideration. As well, there are 1,545 tonnes under the long-term agreement which we have with the European Economic Community and even 2,400 tonnes of squid which they have never managed to catch.
There is no giveaway here. There is one exception, and that is that in the very far northern area of 2GH, with full knowledge of all the industry advisers and the Province of Newfoundland, an additional 3,000 tonnes of surplus cod which was never caught by Canadian fishermen or foreign vessels has been made available for 1987 only. That fish will probably not be caught at all because France did not even go into those northern waters last year. I believe it is far better that they go way up north off the shores of Greenland than to fish our stocks off the Grand Banks or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is the only price that has been paid for this year. It is a non-existent price to bring this matter, through the negotiation of these two parallel agreements, to the point where we can resolve the boundary dispute once and for all.
It is important that governments have the courage, from time to time, to negotiate difficult issues of this nature. Leadership demands the courage to negotiate. Opposition amounts to an abdication of that kind of leadership. This deal will be very good for all Atlantic Canadians or we will not proceed as the negotiations unfold. I can assure all Members of the House that the provinces, the industry and the fishermen will be fully involved in all discussions between now and the end of December, 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this will only take a couple of moments. I do not need 20 minutes to explain why this particular announcement by the federal Government cannot be accepted by Canadian fishermen. It cannot be accepted by anyone who knows anything at all about the issue. It cannot be accepted because the Government has taken fishing quotas from Canadians. We have now discovered that behind the scenes, in secret, the Government has given those quotas to foreign fleets.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Nonsense. Be reasonable.


George Baker: The Hon. Minister is telling me to be reasonable. He should speak to fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland who cannot even get enough fish to feed their families or 10 unemployment insurance stamps for the year-

January 28, 1987
tell them to be reasonable. The Government has licensed 10 factory freezer trawlers from the French metropolitan fleet for the south coast. He has licensed another factory freezer trawler from St. Pierre and Miquelon. He has licensed five wet fish trawlers from St. Pierre and Miquelon to fish on the south coast of Newfoundland. He says they have assigned them a quota of 6,400 metric tonnes. Last year, according to the Minister's figures, those particular boats took 17,000 tonnes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Minister has told us tonight that they took 26,000 tonnes on the south coast of Newfoundland. Therefore, they took 43,000 tonnes.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Quit exaggerating.


George Baker: The entire quota for the south coast of Newfoundland is 41,000 tonnes. The Minister has given the French fleet enough capacity in Canadian licences to overfish the total allowable catch for the entire south coast of Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


George Baker: As though that were not bad enough, in this agreement with the French the Government has given a quota of what we call northern codstock, 2J+3KL. That is cod fish along the east coast of Newfoundland, the northeast coast of Newfoundland, and off the Labrador coast.
This year the Canadian vessels have had their quotas reduced. The fishermen on the northeast and east coasts of Newfoundland and on the Labrador coast have been told that the amount of fishing to take place there this year must be reduced because the Canadian Government biologists say that the stocks are down.
When the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland he stood in the Newfoundland legislature and said that the fish stock in 2J+3KL should never be touched beyond the needs of the people who live in the immediate area. He explained that fish migrate. In the winter time they are offshore and they come inshore in the summer time when fishermen can catch them. The federal Government had reduced the quota for that entire area. The fishermen and the companies did not like it, but they swallowed it because that is what the biologists said.
Now the federal Government has turned around and the Minister asks why Newfoundlanders, the fishermen, the workers on the offshore boats, and the fish plant owners are so angry. After having been told that their quota must be reduced, the federal Government has given a quota in that very same area to a foreign nation. One can understand why Newfoundlanders are angry.
As though that were not enough, three weeks ago the federal Government informed boat owners in Newfoundland that they were not allowed to go into the area which covers the entire south coast of Newfoundland and extends out 200 miles. Newfoundland boats are not allowed down there this year. Longliner operators were told that they cannot go back to 3PS this year. They were informed of that three weeks ago.
Imagine Newfoundlanders not being allowed to go back to the south coast of Newfoundland.
We have now learned, of course, that the Government has issued all of the factory freezer trawler licences which the French metropolitan fleet wants for the south coast of Newfoundland where the Newfoundlanders are not allowed to go. I am sure you would say to yourself, Mr. Speaker, that that is terrible.
In addition to that, in the great wisdom of the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) the Government has told all Canadian fishermen that for the first time in their lives in 1987 they are not allowed to fish on the northern part of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
We have the northeast coast of Newfoundland having a quota cut-back for Newfoundland; we have the south coast of Newfoundland where they are no longer allowed to go; now the Government of Canada says they are not allowed to put their boats into the northern part of the Grand Banks. It is incredible. There are no offshore boats allowed either, including from Nova Scotia from where they came before. In 1987, for the first time, National Sea Products, Fishery Products International and every other company cannot go to the nose of the Grand Banks. The Minister says that there is an over-reaction in Newfoundland to these announcements. It is not the French who are down on the nose of the Grand Banks. It is the Americans, and now the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Koreans.
Recently I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Deputy Minister why these nations are allowed there when Newfoundland boats are not. The Minister said: "We made the proposal to NAFO, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, that all nations should now leave the nose of the Grand Banks for 1987 for conservation reasons". I asked: "Why is the American fleet down there now?" The Minister said: "They are not members of NAFO". I asked why the Spanish and the Portuguese are fishing there, since they are members of NAFO. The Minister said: "They are members of NAFO but they are also members of the EEC, which is a member of NAFO, but the rules of NAFO state that if you object to a motion from another country you do not have to follow that motion". I asked: "Is there any nation other than Canada that is not allowed to go to the nose of the Grand Banks?" He said: "I do not know of any". The Minister then asks why Newfoundlanders are over-reacting to his announcement.
I suggest that not only Newfoundland will over-react as a result of this announcement today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He talked about the level of the cod allocation for St. Pierre and Miquelon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is along your coastline in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It is off Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is interesting that the Secretary of State talks about legalities when we know from the La Bretagne decision

that if one is from France, one need only register the boat in St. Pierre and Miquelon and it is a St. Pierre and Miquelon boat. The Secretary of State stated in his announcement that the level of cod allocation is an exception as it is greater than what Canada's legal obligations require under the 1972 agreement which, by the way, ran out last May. He went on to say:
This exception has been made in order to facilitate resolution of the boundary dispute.
The Government is giving away this fish when Quebecers have been cut back in the Gulf this year, and New Brunswick-ers, Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders have been cut back. Yet the Minister says that in order to facilitate the resolution of a boundary dispute he has given some to St. Pierre and Miquelon.
I enjoyed listening to the Member for St. John's West in Newfoundland this morning because he was speaking his mind. I am sure he will do so in the House today and deal with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The point is that the Government is saying that a few years ago the Liberals gave it away and created the problem. The Minister was referring to 1983 and 1984 when there was no overfishing by the French. The fish plants in France opened in 1985. While the document containing the official figures is marked "confidential" by the Department of External Affairs, one can see from these exact figures that the French fleet started overfishing in 1985 and 1986, fishing four times over their quota on the south coast of Newfoundland. Their quota was 6,400 tonnes and the Minister admitted tonight that the French took 20,000 tonnes more than 6,400 tonnes. In other words, they took as much as the Canadian fleet last year. The total allowable catch for the entire south coast of Newfoundland and to the east of Nova Scotia was surpassed by 6,000 tonnes.
The truth can be seen in the first page of the press release today, which I will put on the record to show what a flippant and flip-flop kind of government it is. The press release states:
The two countries have agreed to a meeting of Canadian and French scientists as soon as possible-
That sounds rather impressive. It goes on:
-to undertake a joint assessment of the state of the cod stock off the south coast of Newfoundland-
And then states:
-now being overfished by French vessels: and joint projections of what will happen to the stock if the current overfishing continues.
They will appoint scientists to determine the state of the stock when the Minister says that it is drastically overfished. The only thing that should happen to this agreement is that it be put in the ash can of history where it belongs. The Government should do away with this agreement because it will not be tolerated in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Quebec.
Today, fish companies are barely surviving. According to the recent unemployment insurance report, it is suggested that
perhaps Fishermen in Atlantic Canada should not receive unemployment insurance because it actually amounts to more than what the average fisherman earns from fishing. It suggests that perhaps another way should be found to support fishermen. That suggests to me and everyone in the Official Opposition that fishermen are not catching enough fish.
It is unacceptable for the Government to pass those fish stocks over to other nations, not only the French, but the Americans as well, without objection. Yet the Government wonders why petitions are beginning to come from Newfoundland and there are suggetions that people will come to Ottawa to tell the Government exactly what they think.
In conclusion, I want to refer to a phone call that I received this morning. It was from a gentleman who asked me if it was true that he will not receive his unemployment insurance cheque on Friday. I asked him if he was a logger who worked at Abitibi-Price. When he replied that he was, I told him that he was correct that he would not get his unemployment insurance cheque on Friday. He indicated that he had heard that the federal Government would deduct all of the vacation pay he received the first week in January but that he received it last year and it did not affect his unemployment insurance. He closed the door, then told me that last week he gave $300 from that cheque to his son who is in university. He will have to ask him how much he has left because his family will need it since they cannot get welfare as a result of the 90-day rule. It is an example of the type of phone calls we receive from our primary producers in Newfoundland.
Some 219 loggers got hit on Friday. Unemployment insurance benefits were removed for a month because of some mistake by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Fishermen are being discriminated against by government policy. When you contact the Government and ask it to do something about it, it just turns the other way and says what a magnificent deal it has made with some foreign country.
Newfoundlanders are not going to accept this. The fishermen are not going to accept this. We say this House of Commons should not accept this.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a word of appreciation to my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), for initiating this debate and to the Speaker for granting it.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is leaving now. He is going early.


James Douglas Manly: It is a very important issue. We wanted to bring it before the House, and we look forward to hearing what some of the government Members are going to say, particularly those from Newfoundland and other Atlantic provinces.
There is a great deal of outrage in Atlantic Canada over the agreement signed with France. The outrage is fully justified because this deal represents a betrayal in four different ways. First, it is a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty. Second, it is a

January 28, 1987

betrayal of federal-provincial relations. Third, it is a betrayal of the Atlantic fishing industry. Finally, and most important, it is a betrayal of the fishermen themselves, their families and their communities.
I want to speak just a bit about each of those. First, sovereignty. Ten years ago, in January, 1977, Canada established a 200-mile exclusive economic zone and began to patrol and enforce it. Establishing that zone took international negotiations, and a measure of determination and gumption on Canada's part. About 12 or 13 miles off the south shore of Newfoundland we have the two small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are sure of that?


James Douglas Manly: That is according to everything I have read. I have never been there.


J. Michael Forrestall: Who wrote your speech for you?


James Douglas Manly: You can check and see that the notes are written by hand.


John Carnell Crosbie: Go back to sleep.


James Douglas Manly: By my own hand. I do my own research on these things, thank you very much. I do not need to have a government flack prepare my speeches for me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may continue.


James Douglas Manly: Those islands have passed back and forth between Great Britain and France. Finally, with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, they passed into French ownership. They are one of France's last remaining colonies. They are being treated as a colony and the people of those two islands are not very happy about it.
However, with the establishment of Canada's 200-mile EEZ, France decided it was going to use these islands to establish certain claims. They claimed an area as large as the Province of Nova Scotia. They have attempted to back up their claim with some force. In August of 1983 the French sent a gunboat into that area to establish their claim. They were involved in seismic exploration and of course in blatant overfishing of that entire area. No one in Canada recognizes the claim France has made and no one in the international scene, apart from France, would recognize it has any real validity. Yet what has Canada done? We sent diplomatic notes of protest. The gunboat incident was kind of smoothed over.


John Carnell Crosbie: Should we send a gunboat? What would you do?


James Douglas Manly: France had indicated it was prepared to push the issue.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would you send a submarine or aircraft carrier or what?


James Douglas Manly: Overfishing was a constant practice.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is your answer?


James Douglas Manly: The Conservative critic at the time was very concerned about the question of overfishing. He pointed out that the French had taken two and a half times their quota. He suggested that perhaps the Government should deduct what they had overfished in the past two years from their quota, in succeeding years. That was in 1983. Since then the Tories have come to power and instead of two and a half times the quota they have been allowed to go up to eight times the quota and the Government does nothing about it.
Last June the Minister decided he had to do something, so he issued a warning. He said there were not going to be any more allocations unless foreign nations followed good conservation practices. He said that means good behaviour, not only inside the Canadian zone but also in the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization management area outside the zone. He said we are sending a very clear message to foreign nations. In return for a licence to fish in our waters and permission to use our ports they must co-operate with our conservation efforts and observe the fishing limits that we and NAFO have established. He said he was sending a very clear message. The very clear message given by this agreement is that Canada's interests can be ignored with impunity. That is what France has done and I expect other nations who want to establish their rights in this area will do the same.
Under this agreement the French will continue to overfish. There are absolutely no guarantees that the agreement is going to put an end to overfishing. We licensed nine factory freezer trawlers when it is obvious that one could have taken the total allocation. Why license nine when we knew there was going to be overfishing?


John Edward Broadbent: They asked for nine.


James Douglas Manly: We are lucky they did not ask for 20.
What did we get in this deal with the French? We got a vague commitment to submit this to some future arbitration. I think it is very clear from everything said this evening, including what the Minister said, that this is a fundamental betrayal of Canadian sovereignty.
Then we have the betrayal of federal-provincial relations. That is an area into which the Government came with so much hope and so much promise. For a time it even appeared as though the Government was going to deliver better federal-provincial relations. There appeared to be a better climate, a new and better era of consultation. That seems to have gone out the window in the last few months in a number of cases and this is perhaps one of the more blatant ones. When the going got tough, the federal Government jettisoned any consultation with the provincial Government.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not so.


January 28, 1987


James Douglas Manly: The Newfoundland Government was involved in the consultations in an attempt to reach a solution to the problem. That Government was aware of the French overfishing and the danger it represented to the stocks. It knew something had to be done and was involved in the consultation. But it did not agree with the approach the federal Government was prepared to take.
As my Leader pointed out, Premier Peckford sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in December indicating very clearly that his Government did not want the federal Government to allocate additional areas and additional stocks off the coast of Newfoundland in an attempt to reach an agreement on this. They said that very clearly. Because they took that strong position, the federal Government decided it could only reach an agreement with France by jettisoning the Newfoundland consultation process.
The other Atlantic provinces were also cut out. No wonder we have Tory premiers breaking party ranks. We know there is a fair degree of loyalty to party in Canada. It is not easy for premiers of a party to disagree publicly with their federal counterparts. However, in this case they had no option. In spite of what the Prime Minister said once, these people had no option if they were going to be loyal to their own people and provinces.
We have the Premier of Nova Scotia saying that this deal the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr.Siddon) thinks is so good is going to cost the Atlantic Provinces some $200 million. Obviously the whole federal-provincial relationship has been betrayed and those five provinces in particular have been betrayed. Third, this is a betrayal of the Atlantic fishery. Premier Peckford has spoken about the importance of the Atlantic fishery to Newfoundland. I would like to read from a paper he presented last year:
On Newfoundland's eastern continental shelf, one of the world's richest marine resources thrives in cold Atlantic waters. The Northern Cod stock is confined to a long, narrow geographic area, extending 1,000 miles along the north and east coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. For four centuries it has been the basis of settlement and continued development of the greater part of our province. Today it remains our economy's most important resource and the foundation of our fishing industry.
With Newfoundland's entry into Confederation in 1949, and since the 1977 extension of our 200-mile fishing zone. Northern Cod is now a Canadian resource. We would like all Canadians to understand the importance of Northern Cod to the fishing industry and the national economy.
Unfortunately, this Government does not understand the importance of Northern Cod and the fishing industry to Newfoundland or to the national economy. The growth of factory freezer trawlers meant that in the 1950s more and more foreign vessels were coming in and taking a resource which was primarily Newfoundland's up to that time. Therefore, there was a drop in the catch of Newfoundland fishermen from 160,000 tonnes in 1959 to only 34,000 tonnes by 1974. With the establishment of the 200-mile limit there was a gradual rebuilding of those stocks. The 200-mile limit did not include the northern tail of the Grand Banks and there was
foreign Fishing in those areas which was still depleting the stocks.
Tom Rideout, the provincial Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of the House on November 4, 1985. He spoke of some of the dangers to the fishery resource of Newfoundland at that time. He pinpointed the danger which would come if we licensed factory freezer trawlers from Canada. Four days later on November 8, the then Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Erik Nielsen, announced he was licensing three factory freezer trawlers from Canada. That was done in spite of the fact that it was setting a precedent which the French would be sure to follow. Tom Rideout pointed out:
The treaty between Canada and France specifically says the present vessels operating in Canadian waters-even though some of them have factory freezer capability-that capability will not be utilized; they must continue to fish and operate on an equal footing with Canadian vessels.
Once, however, we licensed the factory freezer trawlers of our own to operate in that area, France was free to move in and do as it wanted. Therefore, we set a very bad precedent.
In September the Minister announced a special research project on Northern Cod. The report on the study of cod stocks was tabled in December. On that basis it makes it very hard to understand why the Minister feels it is necessary that the two countries agree to a meeting of Canadian and French scientists as soon as possible to undertake a joint assessment of the state of cod stock off the South Coast of Newfoundland. Where have our Department of Fisheries scientists been all this time? Do we not have that kind of adequate assessment? Why is that part of an announcement? It sounds as though it might be the one positive thing in this announcement, but in fact it should not have been necessary at all if our Department was doing its job.
The Fisheries Council of Canada is very much aware of the danger to our cod stocks from French overfishing and yet, like the provinces, it has insisted that this problem should not be solved by granting extra concessions in Canadian waters to the French fleet. Again, the Government chose to ignore what the fisheries representatives were saying. It ignored what the union was saying and what the provinces which were involved were saying. There is a betrayal, therefore, of the Atlantic fishing industry.
There is a betrayal of the fishermen themselves, of their families and communities. On December 29, less than a month ago, the Department of Fisheries announced cut-backs in the stocks which Canadian fishermen could take in Atlantic Canada. These are cut-backs our fishermen would not be able to take. Yet last week it was announced the French fleet was going to be able to take an additional 15,000 tonnes.
Newfoundland depends upon the fishery. The fishery is perhaps the most vital resource of that province and the wealth of the fishery belongs to the people of Newfoundland. The Government has a responsibility to look after that wealth. When Newfoundland came into Confederation, it brought that wealth to Canada. The federal Government has a trust and

January 28, 1987
responsibility to the people of Newfoundland for that resource. What have we done with it? We bargained it away. We frittered it away. We turned our back whenever there has been any kind of assault upon it, Newfoundland brought that resource into Canada and into Confederation and we have let it slip away.
One of the most amazing things I heard today was from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who said this decision was a unanimous decision by Cabinet. If it was unanimous, we have to ask where the people were who would speak up for Newfoundland? Who was speaking up for the Atlantic fishery? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is perhaps a bit unhappy about that statement, but it was made in this House and we will listen very closely to see what the Minister of Transport has to say about it. I suspect he missed the boat.
We want to emphasize the importance of law in solving problems. We all want to see this matter resolved in some international tribunal. But how do we get France to come to the table? The Minister believes the best way to kill a cat is to choke it with cream. He tried to bribe France.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You would rather shoot them.


James Douglas Manly: I do not think we need to shoot people but surely we can demand that other nations show us a little respect. We have done absolutely nothing since this Government has been in power to make other nations respect us; not the United States, not France, nor any other nation.
In conclusion, I would simply like to read some words of Douglas Johnston from his book entitled Canada and the New International Law of the Sea:
Canada is governed from the centre. The ocean is, literally, peripheral to the perceptions and concerns of Government. Most Canadian decision makers, indeed most Canadians, may view the ocean as a regional matter in the affairs of the state. Yet ocean policy is no less national in significance than agriculture or manufacturing.
Sadly, there is no guaranatee that Canadians are ready to give the ocean a high priority on the national agenda. Our sentiments turn inward to the national centre.
The ocean should have high priority, and if it is going to have that high priority, it has to have some leadership from the Government. We have not received that from the Minister, nor from the Government. The people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada have had enough of this Government. They want to see some leadership. They want to see their resource protected and some future for themselves and for their families.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important topic to be discussed. Rather than deal with the half-truths and the specious comments that have been made to date, I want first to set the background. We are prisoners of our past.
What is the past that now governs what actions we can or cannot take in the matter of France, St. Pierre and Miquelon
and their claims of a 200-mile economic zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon territorial boundaries and the right-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is it really a unanimous cabinet choice?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to be interrupted, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind. I am speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On January 1, 1977, a 200-mile economic zone was declared by Canada, and accepted by most of the international community.
On March 27, 1972, a treaty was entered into between Canada and France to govern fishing relations between Canada and France in the waters of Canada. France has historic rights that date back to 1763, I think it is, and the Treaty of Paris. There was a Liberal administration in office at that time. As a matter of fact, when this treaty was entered into the Secretary of State for External Affairs was the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. Believe me, it is this treaty that is at the nub of the problem that Canada has today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It was only at the end of 1986 that, finally, the French metropolitan fleet no longer had the right to send trawlers into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, our own internal waters, to catch fish under the terms of that treaty. France, today, or St. Pierre and Miquelon, still have the right to send in 10 trawlers to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
As a result of the ending of the rights of the metropolitan fleet of France, some 17,000 tonnes of fish will come back to Canada this year, fish which can be caught by our own Fishermen. This treaty says nothing about quotas. It sets no quotas. But if Canada and France do not agree on the amount of fish to be caught under the treaty, then the French have the right to go to compulsory arbitration if they disagree with the amount allotted by Canada. That is their right under this treaty.
In addition, under the terms of this treaty the metropolitan fleet of France has unquantified rights-unquantified rights- in the Canadian 200-mile zone, in perpetuity, to take fish. If Canada does not allot France a quota then it has the right to go to compulsory arbitration under the terms of this 1972 treaty to have a quota assigned to it. This is a treaty which has no termination date. It is a treaty which was entered into by the Liberal administration of the Government of Canada in 1972, a treaty that will bind us forever, unless the two parties can agree together to terminate it. Under Article 10 of the treaty there is a dispute settlement procedure.
In addition to the agreement of 1972 which governs our situation, there is a long-term agreement with the European Economic Community entered into when? It was entered into in 1982, again under a Liberal administration of the Government of Canada. This agreement is in effect from 1982 until 1987. Under the terms of it the Liberal Government gave a quota to the European Economic Community of 9,500 tonnes
January 28, 1987

of 2J+3KL cod, cod which, today, is sacred to the Elon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Watch your blood pressure, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Of the 9,500 tonnes, the EEC has allocated 7,200 tonnes to Germany, 1,545 tonnes to France and approximately 800 tonnes to England. Luckily for us, that treaty expires at the end of 1987. So let us put those facts in context. That is another Liberal treaty.
Finally, the last treaty I want to mention is an agreement or exchange of notes signed on June 20 and June 28, 1984, when Senator De Bane was Minister of Fisheries and Senator MacEachen-they have both gone to their rewards-was the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That was an exchange of notes in which Canada and France agreed that in this disputed area, known as 3PS, neither country would harass the ships of the other because this was a disputed zone. That is why today when France says it wants nine vessels licensed to fish in this disputed zone, 3PS, we license them.
Why do we license them? Because we want to establish, when this matter goes to arbitration, that it has been accepting licences from us over these intervening years and therefore appears to be submitting to the fact that we have some control or authority over these waters. That is why they get licensed.
In any event, under this exchange of notes we cannot prevent France from fishing in this area. France cannot prevent us from fishing in this area. We have the right to say what the quotas should be in this area. The quota set is 42,000 tonnes for this whole area. We have assigned 6,400 tonnes to France, which is really for St. Pierre and Miquelon, and 35,600 tonnes is available in that quota for Canadians. This is a quota which our scientists say can safely be caught in zone 3PS, the disputed zone.
But the French ignored and are ignoring now the quota. They will not accept the 6,400 tonnes. We cannot force them to accept it. If two sovereign states have a disagreement, they can either reach an agreement between themselves and resolve the disagreement or they can agree between themselves to go to arbitration and have a third party adjudicate the difference of opinion or the dispute and settle it that way. There is only one other way, a third way. That third way is that they go to war with one another. They can attempt to use armed force. One attempts to force the settlement he wants on the other.
There are three possible ways. I was dumbfounded tonight to hear the Leader of the NDP try to grandstand in this House by suggesting that recourse should be had to the third method, the use of force. He suggested that we had chased the Spanish trawler just a few months ago. He presumably meant by that that we should chase out the French trawlers. He suggested that we should use force.
Well, the difference is monumental between the two situations. Clearly, the Spanish trawler was in the Canadian 200-mile economic zone with no right, no claim of right to be there. It was violating international law. But in zone 3PS
international law does not recognize as yet either French rights or our rights. So we have no right to chase the French vessels out. We will only have that right if we can get to arbitration, if the French will go to arbitration with us and an impartial third party sets the boundaries, decides what economic zone St. Pierre and Miquelon are entitled to as two small islands within the perimeter of continental Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. If that occurs and an impartial third party sets the economic zone and the territorial limits of St. Pierre and Miquelon, then of course we could take action and we would have international law to back us up.
Is anyone in the House seriously suggesting-does the Newfoundland Government seriously suggest-that we should use armed force to settle this matter with France? No, they do not. Our adhesion to the United Nations would prevent us from doing so. No civilized state uses force against another civilized state in the present world today to settle these disputes. So we must have an agreement.
What stage are we at now? Up to the present time the Government of Newfoundland has been fully consulted in this matter. So has the industry and the union involved. There is a group of industry advisers, four from the union and the industry and one from the Government of Newfoundland, a group of five, that has been advising the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which has been consulted all through the piece, with the exception of last week. I for one am not au fait with, nor do I agree with, and I think the Government should apologize for, the lack of including these representatives in the discussions that went on in Paris last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It was unacceptable, as far as I am concerned. But that is a procedural matter.


James Douglas Manly: It is more than a procedural matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am making my view on that clear in the name of proper federal-provincial relations, and in following what has been done to date, these representatives should have been fully involved last week. That was an error. That is the position.
We are trying to get France, a nation of some 40 million or 50 million people, to go to arbitration on the question of St. Pierre and Miquelon. They feel no immediate compulsion to go to arbitration; it is not a pressing matter to them. It is a pressing matter to who? The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the fishermen of the maritime provinces it is a pressing matter. That is why we are anxious to get France to arbitration. But France knows that there is more compulsion on us to do this. They do not care about the fish resource off St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are prepared to sacrifice their own few thousand people in St. Pierre and Miquelon. They do

January 28, 1987
not give a good continental about the people and the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
We are doing this for the fishermen and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and trying to get this issue settled so we can stop this tragic overfishing in 3PS. A whole series of negotiations broke down in Ottawa in the week ending Friday, January 16. However, they started again last week. By the way, there was consultation. The Government of Newfoundland was informed that this meeting was going ahead, and what types of things might be agreed at the meeting, and they did not agree with it. They have the right to be consulted. They have the right to encourage. They have the right to discourage. They have the right to warn. But we are the Government of Canada that has the responsibility for the external relations of Canada, and we do not intend to abdicate our responsibility as a national Government. So, Mr. Speaker, they did warn. They did not agree with this particular process.
What agreement was reached? All that was reached was an agreement to negotiate. There is no agreement that France will even get a tadpole from 2J+3KL. What was agreed in Paris on Friday and Saturday was that France would engage in negotiations which would start before March 15 for the purpose of concluding an agreement to submit to compulsory third party settlement of the dispute of the maritime claims of the two countries off the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon in Canada. In return, Canada would engage in negotiations to determine the annual fishing quotas for French vessels in Canadian waters for the period 1988-1991 inclusive while this arbitration is going on, and that those quotas will include cod quotas in NAFO Divisions 2J+3KL. In other words, we are prepared to discuss and engage in negotiations about that. There has been no agreement to do anything in 2J+3KL. There is nothing but an agreement to enter into negotiations.
The proof of that is in Premier Peckford's press release of January 27 where he points out that this is the case, that there is not a binding agreement to go to arbitration. While he is right there, he should not forget the other side of the coin. There is no binding agreement for us to give one codfish, or piece of one codfish in 2J+3KL to France. That is the exact position.
Supposing that we do reach an agreement with France some time between March and the end of the year, it will be an agreement that I will be able to defend in every hamlet and cove of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be an agreement that I will not be afraid to go and defend in every hamlet and cove in Newfoundland and Labrador. For 20 years I have upheld the rights of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I do not intend to cease now. I do not need lessons from anyone in that direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Premier of Newfoundland stated that he was displeased with the statement that I made yesterday on this matter. He says my statement that there is no agreement as to what these annual Fishing quotas should be, that there is
no agreement to give France any quota in 2J+3KL, is contrary to the agreement. I say that it is not contrary to the agreement. That is exactly in accord with the agreement. When the Premier says that he is displeased with me, I say that I conduct myself according to my conscience. Whether Premiers are displeased with me, or Prime Ministers are displeased with me, or opposition Members are displeased with me, I care not a twit, as long as I know that I am behaving in a proper fashion. I am prepared to go back to my own people and ask them whether they are pleased or displeased any time, against anyone, under any circumstance.
I have not too much time left, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is making an outcry, and I am sympathetic with their outcry. The more they outcry the more likely it is that the firmer the people will be who are negotiating for us in this matter. I do not want an agreement that is not a good agreement for Canada. It is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to show how they value the Northern Cod. It is our fishing industry, it is our life in Newfoundland the same as the wheat fields are the life of Saskatchewan, or oil and gas might be the life of Alberta. That is why the Government of Newfoundland and the industry and union representatives should never have been left out of this last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is good for the people of Newfoundland to show their concerns. But I tell the people of Newfoundland now, Mr. Speaker, their interests have and will be observed. There is no agreement damaging to them. I ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and the Leader of the Liberal Party to suggest to us how else they would go about resolving this question. It is all well and good to hear their rhetoric and what they would do, and the terrible things that we are doing when they left us, particularly the Official Opposition, the captive of these three international agreements.
Now the Member for Gander-Twillingate, and the others, have the audacity and the gall to stand up and decry what we are doing in our efforts to solve this situation to help the fishermen and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When this matter is concluded, and it is far from concluded, the agreement we reach, if there is an agreement reached, will be one that we can defend in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in every part of Canada, and I and my cohorts here in Newfoundland pledge that, and we will see that any agreement reached is in the interests of our fishermen in our province.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to participate in this debate. I have to say at the outset that I am also saddened this evening. The importance to Newfoundlanders of the matter that is being discussed this evening is as important as the last great decision that was taken which affected our province.
January 28, 1987

That decision was taken in 1948 and 1949 when we decided to join Confederation.
During the course of the Confederation debate one evening in a rowdy chamber much like this one, a very famous, highly honoured Newfoundlander named Gordon Bradley, who was chairman of the commission that discussed Newfoundland's entry into Confederation, or possible joining with the United States, rose and said to Hon. Members who were assembled and were making a great deal of noise: "I remind Members that the eyes and the ears of the people of Newfoundland are upon us this evening." He went on to say: "They are watching us. They are weighing our every word. I warn Members that sometimes we try their patience much too far".
I want to say to the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that this evening the eyes and ears of the people of Newfoundland were on him. They were watching him. They have been weighing his words. They wanted to know tonight, once and for all, whether or not the Hon. Member for St. John's West was Newfoundland's cabinet representative in Ottawa or Ottawa's apologist in Newfoundland. After this evening we know that the Member is Ottawa's apologist in Newfoundland. The Member cannot make up for in volume, like a wounded bear brawling and bawling, what he lacks in substance in participating in the debate tonight.
I should like to refer the House to a story which appeared in the Times Transcript on December 6 past. It reads:
Three Atlantic fishermen's organizations told the federal Government in Ottawa Friday not to give in to threats made by France to cancel intergovernmental agreements if the fishing dispute surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon is not settled to France's satisfaction.
Gilles Theriault, executive-director of the Maritime Fisherman's Union, reminded Fisheries Minister Thomas Siddon that French cabinet minister Bernard Pons warned publicly that if the fishing dispute is not settled to their satisfaction, it could force the French Government to revise certain economic, cultural and co-operation agreements that exist between the two governments.
They warned that if the agreement was not settled to France's satisfaction, the French could potentially cancel the visit of French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac.
That is what was at stake in this dispute, whether or not the Prime Minister's chance to host the Francophone summit in Quebec City this September, the first time ever in our history, would be put at risk because the Government of Canada stood up for the interests of Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians. That is what was at risk, and the Government of Canada ran with its tail between its legs.
I said that I was sad this evening. In all the years I have watched the Hon. Member for St. John's West in politics, 1 have not always agreed with him. However, I have always admired that he was prepared to stand and be counted. I want to know on what road the Hon. Member for St. John's West travelled since early this morning when he was on VOCM's open line show in Newfoundland and when he made his speech in the House tonight. The Hon. Member has undergone some kind of dramatic conversion.
This morning, speaking in Newfoundland and talking about the agreement which he defended tonight, the Hon. Member told the people of Newfoundland in respect of the lack of consultation given to the Government of Newfoundland, the union, and the other Atlantic provinces: "I can't see any legitimate defence of the fact that they were not present at this particular meeting, so I can well understand why they should be annoyed and upset with that". That was the Hon. Member speaking this morning in Newfoundland. What else did he say-


J. Michael Forrestall: What did he say tonight?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Member should be quiet, should listen and learn. What else did he say this morning? He said: "Let's just say that those responsible for this are certainly insensitive to the importance of the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador". That is quite a different song than the one the Hon. Member for St. John's West sang in the House tonight.
What else did the Member say about this deal? Speaking on behalf of himself and his two Conservative colleagues from Newfoundland, what did he say about this deal this morning in Newfoundland in front of a different audience than the audience he addressed tonight in the House of Commons? What did he say? He said: "As you know, if we are to have as one of our objectives better and improved federal-provincial relations, which has been one of the hallmarks so far, this is hardly the way to go about it. So to say that the Newfoundland caucus, for example, is upset would be putting it very mildly".
I want to know what kind of placebo, what kind of salutory pill, or what kind of depressant was slipped to the Hon. Member for St. John's West between nine o'clock this morning in Newfoundland when he was outraged in defence of Newfoundlanders and tonight when he appeared in the House like a wounded bear braying in volume, attempting to make up for in volume what he lacks in integrity and backbone to defend the people of Newfoundland. That is what I want to know, and that is what Newfoundlanders want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the Hon. Member is making a forceful speech on a matter of great importance to the Hon. Member and also, I think Hon. Members would know, of great importance to the Minister who has just spoken. I would caution the Hon. Member not to go too far in impugning the integrity, motivation, or honour of another Hon. Member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would much rather be standing tonight in the House and joining with my fellow Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and with Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada to ensure that, as we were elected to do, we were representing the interests of our people and seeing a wrong put right. I would rather be standing as one in the pursuit of that goal. I would much rather not be standing here to try to dissemble this patently weak and disappointing defence of a sell-out which was mounted by a

January 28, 1987
colleague of mine from Newfoundland. I would much rather not be doing that this evening. The interests of my region would be served if Members from Atlantic Canada were here and were being heard. That is why we were sent to Ottawa.
In understanding why we were sold down the river, I want to refer to some correspondence which was exchanged between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) this past summer when Canada's negotiating position was being ironed out. A letter was written to the Prime Minister by the Minister of Fisheries on June 24, 1986, in which the Minister of Fisheries put forward Canada's negotiating position, outlined all the things at stake, and concluded by saying:
I want to assure you that my goal throughout will be to manage our fisheries discussions with the French in a manner that does not jeopardize the cordial relationship between Canada and France-
What did the Prime Minister say about that? What did the Prime Minister say about the livelihood of Newfoundland and the blood which beats through the heart that is Newfoundland? He responded on August 19, 1986 by writing:
I agree that in dealing with this sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one hand the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and on the other our bilateral relations with France.


J. Michael Forrestall: What is wrong with that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: What is wrong with that is that the Prime Minister has said that the fishery in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and northern Quebec is nothing but a bargaining chip to be used in setting cordial relations to facilitate cocktail parties between Prime Ministers of respective nations. That is not good enough in Newfoundland; that is what is wrong with that.


J. Michael Forrestall: There is imputation of motive-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What we have seen tonight is a Member, a cabinet representative, stand here-


J. Michael Forrestall: Very serious charges-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has been given the floor by the Speaker. During the debate most Hon. Members have listened, not always with great comfort, to what has been said by Members on both sides of the debate but have extended the courtesies which are usual in this Chamber. I would ask that all Hon. Members have regard for that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for restoring order to the House. A Member would not have to speak so loudly if he did not have to speak over the sounds emanating, as unintelligent as they are, from the other side of the Chamber.
What has happened tonight? We have had an attempt by the Government of Canada, through the Hon. Member for St. John's West, to placate or to issue a placebo to the people of Newfoundland. He stood in his place and on the one hand
issued a gentle slap to the wrist of the Minister of Fisheries, saying that he does not entirely agree that the Minister of Fisheries should have gone to France and dealt with our livelihood without consulting the Premier of Newfoundland. Then, to be sure that he was being properly balanced, as the letter said, "on the other" the Hon. Member for St. John's West went on to tell the Premier of Newfoundland that the Government of Canada has the right to make international agreements. It is not the jurisdiction of the Premier of Newfoundland, and he is not going to be bossed around by the Premier of Newfoundland. I am not in the habit of defending the Premier of Newfoundland because I don't find that attractive. But it is not only the Premier of Newfoundland who finds what has happened distasteful; it is the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, who is the Premier of the province of the Hon. Member across the way, the Conservative Premier who today said that this agreement will cost the Atlantic economy $200 million. That is what the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party in Nova Scotia has said, and walking away from the statement will not make it go away, Mr. Speaker.
It is also the Government of Prince Edward Island that finds this deal distasteful. The Government of New Brunswick, and the fishermen's unions in all of the Atlantic Provinces find this deal, distasteful. For once, the Premier of Newfoundland, rather than being a voice in the wind, a lonely child putting forward a diatribe that is subscribed to by nobody, finds himself singing in chorus, in tune, with every other Premier and leader in Atlantic Canada. Surely then the Premier of Newfoundland deserves, as Premier, some consideration for the views he has put forth.
This has been a sad day for Parliament and a sad day for Newfoundland when one of our most prominent, one of our better known Members, one of our citizens, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), when confronted with the choice that all of us face from time to time of standing up and being counted for Newfoundland, of being Newfoundland's voice in these hallowed halls, of being the apologist for Ottawa and Newfoundland, has chosen the latter course. That is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. It will not help the cause of those of us who want to see this deal abrogated.
Today in Question Period I rose in my place and said that the deal should be declared null and void, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) should be fired because, failing that, the Government would put the Member for St. John's West in the impossible position of having no other recourse or option but to resign his seat in protest. I did not propose it. I suggested that he not be a victim, victim of the decisions of his Government. But tonight he has taken the knife in his hand and has exercised it on himself. It is not his commitment that is questioned by me, by Premier Peckford, by the Opposition Leader in Newfoundland, Leo Barry, or by Premier Buchanan. If he finds the breastplate of honour that he talked about tonight in this House tarnished, it is a wound
January 28, 1987

that is self-inflicted by his performance this evening in this Chamber.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) quoted from two letters. Would he be willing to table those letters in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member will make the letters available to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), but there is no provision whereby a private Member can file a document in the House.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this emergency debate.
There are quite a few rumours going around about the agreement signed in Paris on Saturday, January 24, which is aimed at bringing Canada and France closer to the settlement of a boundary dispute and a dispute concerning fishing activities.
I would like to go back to the causes of the disputes, but first I want to say a few words about this agreement, under which both parties are committed to negotiating two new treaties and to setting dates for the start and finish of negotiations. This is an important point that may have been overlooked in all the commotion that followed the release of the news.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that the French have not been offered any quotas of Canadian fish that were not first approved by the industry and provincial representatives at meetings held in Ottawa the week before we left for Paris.
The quotas on which agreement was reached were those established with the industry and the provinces, namely, 3,500 tons of cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and 3,000 tons of excess cod in NAFO division 2GH off the northernmost part of the Labrador coast. The 3,500 tons of cod in the Gulf represent average landings by Saint-Pierre et Miquelon fishing boats over the last six years in the Gulf. This approach represents the status quo, a solution Canada has been constantly suggesting to France, with the approval of the provinces and the industry. The 3,000 tonnes of 2GH cod off the coast of Labrador, far to the north, are surplus to Canada's needs and according to Government, industry and provincial advisers, constitute a reasonable offer for 1987 to break the deadlock.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Paris agreement was to break a deadlock that was threatening to become a serious obstacle to settlement of the boundary dispute between Canada and France with respect to territory off the south coast of Newfoundland. A settlement is absolutely necessary to establish Canada's control over cod stocks in the region and to stop over-fishing by French vessels. We have broken the deadlock, and the door is now open to negotiations on the two
treaties I mentioned earlier, and a negotiated settlement of the boundary dispute and the question of French quotas in Canadian waters for the next four years.
The inclusion of a clause stipulating that quotas to be negotiated with France for the period from 1988 to 1991 would include cod quotas from divisions 2J+3KL of NAFO, in other words, the areas off the east cost and the north coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, has created considerable confusion.
I think we should first understand what the agreement means. Mr. Speaker, this agreement means first of all that the Canadian Government agrees with what France has been repeating for a year, which is that it will not accept the proposed quotas for 1988 to 1991. Consequently, the boundary dispute will not be referred to an international tribunal until the proposed quotas have been changed to include codstock from NAFO divisions 2J+3KL.
As I said before, the French have been insisting on this for a long time. Up to now, we have been able to evade the issue while trying to persuade France to accept 1988-91 quotas that would not include cod stock from divisions 2J+3KL. We now realize, and we admitted as much to the French, that they want to retain their position, and as a result, if we wish to settle this boundary dispute, we will have to grant them cod quotas from divisions 2J+3KL.
We should also realize what is not provided in the agreement. Under the Paris Agreement, the Canadian Government is not bound to offer or to agree to offer the French a given quantity of cod from divisions 2J+3KL, if we do not first agree on quotas for 1988-91. French demands may be too excessive for us to be able to agree on quotas for the period from 1988 to 1991. Consequently, referral of the dispute to an international judicial tribunal would merely postpone a settlement, which is not something we desire.
It is also possible that the question is not referred to an international tribunal for some time. Everything, I repeat, everything is negotiable. Nothing has been concluded with respect to the period from 1988 to 1991. Any quotas that may be offered to France within the framework of an agreement for the period in question will be subject to in-depth consultation with the industry and the provincial governments at all stages of negotiations.
That is the Paris Agreement in a nutshell. The Agreement contains a number of auxiliary provisions, including the following: Pursuant to the agreement, until 1987 vessels from St. Pierre and Miquelon will be allowed to continue fishing in areas immediately surrounding the Gulf of St. Lawrence where they have been operating for several years, contrary to the 1972 agreement under which Canada's fishing activities are restricted to a zone which lies within the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This is a kind of status quo position taken by the Canadian Government.

January 28, 1987
Finally, the agreement provides that scientists of both countries will meet soon to assess cod stocks south of Newfoundland and the impact continued overfishing by the French might have on these stocks. Hopefully this joint study will produce concrete evidence likely to prompt the French Government to review its overfishing policy and reduce its fishing activities to prevent total stock depletion.
Mr. Speaker, I know that people are very disappointed and that many criticisms are being voiced because nothing has been done under the terms of the agreement to prevent France from overfishing on such a wide scale in waters south of Newfoundland. It is indeed a serious problem. There is no doubt that French fishermen catch about 26,000 tonnes of cod a year-at least 20,000 tonnes over the 6,400-tonne quota which Canada allotted to them in this zone and which amounts to a fair share of the stock traditionally earmarked for France.
Unfortunately, the Government of Canada can do nothing for the time being to reduce this overfishing. We cannot exercise coercion, even if the area is ours, because France claims that a sizeable portion of this zone belongs to its territory. Furthermore, our mutual agreement to refrain from enforcing the rules is the usual approach taken by countries in such situations to avoid any military confrontation that might endanger the fishing fleet at sea.
Since coercion cannot be used, we have done our best to convince the French that their activities off the south coast of Newfoundland are unreasonable ant that their overfishing represents a threat to the livelihood of both Newfoundland and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon fishermen who depend on the same stock. These arguments met with no success. The French refused out of hand to reduce their fishing in this area. We know that their own compatriots, the fishermen from Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, have asked for a reduction in fishing by the French fleet and that the French Government has ignored their appeals.
We have not offered and will not offer them the fish they want in sensitive areas like 2J+3KL, to persuade them to reduce overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland.
We cannot and will not be blackmailed. We shall continue to put pressure on France and demand that it reduce excessive fishing activity off the south coast of Newfoundland and bring its catches down to the fair quota of 6,400 tonnes set by Canada for France in that zone. We shall continue to support the efforts of the people of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon to persuade the French Government to take the requested action and we shall reiterate these requests during negotiations from 1988 to 1991 on French quotas in Canadian waters.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not cave on this issue, not in 1987 and not from 1988 to 1991, but we firmly believe that the only way to achieve a final settlement and ensure that a reasonable conservation system is set up for the zones off the south coast of Newfoundland is to settle the boundary dispute in that region. We believe that an international tribunal will confirm Canada's position on the location of the boundary and
establish that all major fishing areas come under Canadian jurisdiction and management. Such a ruling will make it possible to eliminate the problem of French overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, we must ask all those for whom fishing by the French in Canadian waters is a crucial issue to be patient and to give us their trust. The Government realizes how important the fisheries are to the people of Atlantic Canada, and we are fully aware that we owe nothing to France or to any country. Although we have certain obligations under agreements concluded with France, and we intend to observe those, the agreements concern fish quotas that are much lower than what France is demanding now. We are forced to make concessions that go beyond the obligations provided for in the agreements in order to be able to bring the boundary question before an international tribunal. Once that question has been resolved, the quotas granted France in Canadian waters will be strictly in accordance with our obligations under the 1972 agreement.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech I alluded to the history of this whole question. In fact, our present problem is only one phase, in fact the lastest phase in a long process that started about 400 years ago when Canada was colonized and the French fishing fleet started to work the Northwest Atlantic. During that time, the fisheries gave rise to a number of disputes. The problems arose and were resolved. Treaties were negotiated and later replaced by other agreements.
The latest phase goes back to the end of the sixties when the Government of Canada decided to close the Gulf of St. Lawrence to all foreign fishing fleets, including the French. It was this decision that led to the 1972 fisheries agreement between Canada and France. An important step was taken in 1986 when, in accordance with the agreement, the French metropolitan fishing fleet left the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, never to return.
Mr. Speaker, we must now deal with the repercussions of this decision, since the French, during the fifteen years they were allowed, failed to establish a development plan for their fleet after it left the Gulf. We must now deal with the fallout from this decision, settle the boundary dispute and determine once and for all what real rights France has under the 1972 Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, all this will take a few more years, but I am convinced that, thanks to the Paris Agreement, we are well on our way to resolving all these problems.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in this debate I am not promoting myself as an expert on the Newfoundland fishery. What I do want the people of Newfoundland to understand is that a person from central Canada, from a land-locked riding with no fishery at all, understands and is sensitive to the fact that they have one major resource. I do not bring to this debate the expertise of my hon. friends from
January 28, 1987

Gander-Twillingate or Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. They have much more knowledge, experience and understanding of the history and sensitivity of the people of Newfoundland to the fishery. However, what I do understand is common sense. I understand the sensitivity of the issue because my riding depends on one resource, nickel. I know how I would feel if the federal Government gave away that resource. How would I feel if nickel were given away to the U.S. or France or some other European power? I know how I would feel, so when I speak in this debate tonight it is from that perspective and understanding.
Tonight in Newfoundland there is great upset and anger.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Justified anger.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, justified anger. I at least recognize that these people understand the fishery. The fishermen are outraged. The Government of Newfoundland, which in a lot of ways is not my favourite kind of Government, God knows, it is a Tory Government, at least knows what is in the best interests of the fishery and Newfoundland. It was elected to look after those interests. It has the mandate. I recognize that the people who run the fishing industry in Newfoundland understand the industry and they are extremely upset at the Government.
What does this say to Canadians in the rest of the country? The signing of this interim agreement speaks volumes to Canadians. It says that the Government negotiated on this issue with the French in the same way it negotiated with the Americans on softwood lumber. In that particular instance the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said she was eyeball to eyeball with the Americans and they blinked three times. In this instance the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) was eyeball to eyeball with the French and I think he blinked four times. Four times! What did we get out of it? It is not for me to start enumerating what Canada and the French got out of it. The people who know most about the issue, the fishermen, the industry and the Government of Newfoundland, said "We got hosed on the deal".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I suppose we are pretty lucky we did not have the Minister for International Trade doing the negotiations from the beaches of Hawaii.


An Hon. Member:: He was there.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, he was right there in the same room with them. That is, after he put everyone else out of the room.
What does this interim agreement say to Newfoundlanders? It says that the Tory Government is saying to the people of Newfoundland, "We do not care two figs about you". After all, that is the same Government which paid Claude Forget $800 a day plus expenses to say that fishermen ought not to get UIC. That is the same sensitive Government. It is significant that Uncle John got on an open-line radio show after Claude Forget brought down his report and said: "Brothers
and sisters of Newfoundland, just stay calm, we will never put this into effect".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: John who?


John R. Rodriguez: The godfather of Newfoundland. He said, "We are not going to put this into effect". Look what happened today. They are even starting to put him on the payroll at radio station VOCM. They think he is on staff because he is in there all the time. There he was again today. What was he saying today? He was saying what an insensitive group of people his cabinet colleagues are. That is what he said, they are insensitive.


David Charles Dingwall: He meant to say incompetent.


John R. Rodriguez: It goes without saying that if you are insensitive and you are a Tory, you are also incompetent.
What took place today with this interim agreement? We gave fishing rights to France that they never had before. What did we get in return? We got the right to negotiate an agreement. That is what we got! This reminds me of a person in his house at night. He hears a burglar downstairs and goes down. The burglar is taking the cutlery. He says "Take the cutlery and here is the VCR, take that too. Take the TV. Take everything. Take it all".


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Then we will negotiate what you can keep.


John R. Rodriguez: Then let him go right out the door. That is the Tory version of negotiations.
They can laugh all they want but they missed a golden opportunity to climb back up in the polls. They could have had their own Falklands. They could have called out the fleet. They missed their chance again.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood up in this House today and said there was unanimity in Cabinet.


Marcel Prud'homme: He is not even here.


John R. Rodriguez: After that speech he worked himself up so much he had to go out to the radio station. He has an appointment. Unanimity in Cabinet on this deal. That means all of those cabinet Ministers agreed with this interim agreement. They do not care about the people of Newfoundland. The one natural resource which those people brought into Confederation was the fishery. In one stroke of the pen the Government allowed the French fleet to fish more fish off the coast of Newfoundland than all the Canadian fishermen can fish.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Not true.


John R. Rodriguez: Get up and make a speech.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Not true.


John R. Rodriguez: You will get your chance to make a speech.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Deal with the facts.

January 28, 1987


John R. Rodriguez: That is what happened. I asked myself this question. I have been told that the Government of Newfoundland, the Premier of Newfoundland, the fishermen and the industry were all involved in the negotiations. The agreement with France, which was signed in 1972, came to an end in May, 1986. I wonder why the Premier of Newfoundland, the fishermen and the industry were suddenly cut out of the negotiations in December when it came down to the short strokes.
1 understand that the Government wanted to have something for the Premier of France to sign. It wanted to roll out the red carpet, have some champagne, and then have a photo opportunity for His Majesty, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). The Government wanted great pomp and ceremony, in Napoleonic style, for the signing of this agreement. Newfoundland had made it quite clear that the French fleet was not to have any access to the northern cod stocks. That position was made very clear to the Government. Therefore, the whole idea was to cut the trouble makers out and have a nice little cabal with the Department of External Affairs and the French negotiators. The Government had a nice little tete-a-tete, a little wine, a little music and, peut-etre, a little bit of amour. In the process the people of Newfoundland were shafted in spades.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: 1 would be embarrassed to be a Conservative.


J. Michael Forrestall: I would be ashamed to be one of you.


John R. Rodriguez: These are the same Tories who were so critical of federal-provincial relations during the Trudeau era. They were to begin a new era. We have seen the new era in the agreement that has been signed.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: It is not an agreement. Produce the agreement.


John R. Rodriguez: The Conservatives do not give two hoots about involving the leadership in Newfoundland in the fisheries. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, the leadership of Newfoundland does not count. The Tories have three seats in Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland will give them a lesson in the next federal election.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: You have never been on a boat. You wouldn't know a fish if you slipped on one.


J. Michael Forrestall: Stop playing politics.


John R. Rodriguez: They are all upset, Mr. Speaker. They ought to explain this to Newfoundlanders. As a result of this deal we got better relations with France. I heard the French negotiator on TV tonight. He was not upset at all. He loved the deal. He was asked whether he thought this would stop the overfishing by the French fleet. He said, "No, we have always considered
those waters French waters". Big deal, Mr. Speaker. Tough negotiations.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: There is no deal.


J. Michael Forrestall: If you don't know what you are talking about, you should sit down and shut up.


John R. Rodriguez: What has happened here, Mr. Speaker? Why did the Government eliminate the interested parties from the negotiations? As I have said before, it was the Prime Minister's desire to have a showpiece and a photo opportunity. I believe that a second reason is that the Conservative Party has lost touch with the grass roots of this nation. A headline in the Montreal Gazette says that Ottawa sold out the fishermen. However, the Government did not sell out the Newfoundland fishermen at all, it was a giveaway, just as the Government gave away the softwood lumber.
The Premier of Newfoundland is not a New Democrat or a Liberal. He is one of these Tories. In fact, he is so upset that he said: "Apparently when France rattles its sword, Canada bends its knees. It's a terrible situation and they did it behind our backs". We are once again on our knees to make a deal. The Government has all the flexibility of an octopus. It has a wishbone where its backbone should be. Instead of standing up for Canadian rights, the Government has surrendered. It did it on softwood lumber and has done it again with this interim agreement.
Richard Cashin, the head of the fishermen's union in Newfoundland, said that the Tories at the federal level have sold out the interests of the Newfoundland fishermen. If the Government had any self-respect left it would tear up that interim agreement, accord, or whatever they want to call it. That is the only way the Tory Government can attempt to get back into the good graces of the people of Newfoundland.


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks from both sides of the House this evening the only thing on which I have heard total agreement is that there is extensive overfishing by France off the south coast of Newfoundland, St. Pierre and Miquelon. That is the only thing that has been agreed upon by all Parties this evening.
I wonder how serious opposition Members are about wanting to protect the rights and interests of Candian fishermen to allow them to take more fish to feed the fish plants and give more work to the fish plant workers than they are presently getting. It seems to me that there is great fear on the part of Liberal Members that the Government might be successful in negotiating an agreement with the Government of France. Otherwise, they would be telling us to get on with the negotiations in an attempt to stop the overfishing that is happening off the south coast of Newfoundland. I could say the same thing about the NDP Party. They should also be encouraging the Government-
January 28, 1987


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the name of this Party is the New Democratic Party, not the NDP Party. I would suggest that Members of the House at least show that much respect.


Thomas Scott Fennell: He is not in his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member who just rose on a point of order knows that Hon. Members are not recognized unless they are in their seat.


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have offended my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. I remind them that this is the Progressive Conservative Party but I do not object when they refer to me as a Tory.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The same difference.


Morrissey Johnson: I did not heckle anyone when they were speaking this evening, because this is a very sensitive issue in Newfoundland. I believe it is far more sensitive than some Members realize.
The reason that this issue is emotional and that there is such an outcry from people in Newfoundland today is that they are afraid. They are afraid that the Government will do what past Governments have done and give away some of the fish stocks that are so vitally important to the people of Newfoundland.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Which is what you have done.


Morrissey Johnson: That is not what we have done. We have agreed to negotiate. If the Government cannot reach a settlement that is favourable to the people of Newfoundland and Canada, then there will be no agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Morrissey Johnson: I certainly will not agree to anything that I believe is not in the best interests of the province that I represent, and represent proudly, I might say. I want to assure Hon. Members here tonight that I am not a slave to my Party. I only have obligations to the people who placed their confidence in me when they elected me to come here and represent them. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the Chamber that I will not be satisfied if the agreement that is negotiated is not good for Newfoundland.
We must ask ourselves why Canada has the objective of referring the boundary dispute off the south coast of Newfoundland to an international judicial tribunal for settlement. The answer is easy. Intensive negotiations have been going on since the extension of jurisdiction by Canada and France in 1977. We all realize that St. Pierre and Miquelon are part of France just as Newfoundland is part of Canada. I will not suggest that the French do not have any rights. The fact is that the Government of France is not even concerned about the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon because it is sending its metropolitan fleet to raid the fishing grounds on which its own citizens who live on St. Pierre and Miquelon are vitally
dependent. If this Government's initiative can settle the agreement with France to the benefit of Newfoundland, it will also benefit the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Today I heard talk about gunboats, armed patrol boats and so on. During his speech, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) asked if we are supposed to declare war. We would not declare war because we are too sensible. What are the alternatives? What would members of the New Democratic Party do if they were negotiating on behalf of a union? Would they attempt to arrive at a settlement without talking? When there is a dispute between a company and a labour organization they must sit down and exchange views over the table to hopefully strike an agreement. I believe that is what the Government is attempting to achieve here.
Certainly I have concerns and worries that if this goes to arbitration we may not be as successful as we hope. However, what other recourse is there if we cannot reach an agreement through negotiation?
We are aware of the delays involved before a judgment is rendered when ordinary Canadians go to court. It would not be sensible to expect a settlement before four years if we considered taking this dispute before a world court. That is why the Government has entered into these negotiations.
Earlier, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) said that we have negotiated away 2J+3KL. That has not been negotiated away, according to what I have seen. We have only agreed to discuss the matter.
The industry and the Government of Newfoundland are aware what happened when the French delegation was in Newfoundland some time ago. I would be the first to express my dissatisfaction with the fact that toward the end of last week communications somehow broke down and the Newfoundland Government and the industry were not completely informed about the progress made by the delegation that went to France to begin negotiations at least. However, that fact cannot change. If I happen to say something in anger about a friend, no matter how many times I apologize the words are said and we do not have the ability to take them back.
The fact is that communication broke down during two or three days, which has resulted in an outcry from Newfoundland. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I would be disappointed in Newfoundlanders and in the Premier of the province if they were not outraged. I am outraged as well, and expressed as much to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). But that is the benefit in belonging to the Progressive Conservative Party. We are not enslaved. We can speak out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Morrissey Johnson: I can go to Newfoundland and say that I disagree with what my Party is doing in government. That is freedom and democracy. No one from my Party has ever told me since I came here not to speak up on an issue.

January 28, 1987
I could take more time to talk about the different zones involved in this issue. It has become so complicated that we can no longer simply refer to the East Coast, West Coast or Gulf of St. Lawrence, but must describe them by names and numbers. Perhaps that would have been unnecessary if our fishing grounds were not raped years and years ago. Fish stocks would still be abundant and available to everyone. The fact is we do not have enough fish to meet our own domestic demands. That is why I am concerned. It is not satisfactory to me to bargain away any of 2J+3KL fish to the French, but we have to ask ourselves if that is the only alternative to stop the overfishing on the St. Pierre Bank, or what is now called 3PS. And if industry and the provinces agree, then we might have to make a sacrifice-and if we have to make a sacrifice, no matter how small it is, it will be too much as far as I am concerned-so we can ensure the fish stocks on the St. Pierre Bank.
At one time the draggers from Burin could go out and the fishermen would not even have a chance to get their rubber clothes off before they were back with a load. That was at a time long gone, but the same thing cannot be said for today. But if we have to make some concessions, and if it is agreed to by the Government of Newfoundland and the Governments of the other Atlantic Provinces, and by the fishermen-in other words, if it is satisfactory to the people of Canada-then I believe it is wrong for the Opposition to do what it is doing. I realize that the Opposition has a role to play and that role is to attack the Government, but somewhere along the line our responsibilty to the people who elected us must come first. That is the reason I say that members of the Opposition should not condemn the Government for everything it tries to do. Opposition Members can say: "What you did was not good enough. We wish you had done better", but they should not condemn just for the sake of condemning. I do not think that is the role of a good opposition Member. But maybe I am wrong. I do not know. I have never been in opposition and I am not looking forward to it, either. Because of what I believe in I can go back and face the people in my riding with the same dignity with which I came here.
The French have taken the position that they will not agree to refer the boundary dispute to an international tribunal in the absence of an agreement on French quotas in Canadian waters for the period from 1988 to 1991, the period required for an international tribunal to determine the boundaries. I am sure that if we were the people seeking jurisdiction over an island belonging to Canada off the coast of France, we would take the same position. That does not mean that the agreement which was signed last week in France is binding on the Government to give fish to France in 2J+3KL. I think members of the Opposition owe it to the people of Newfoundland to enlighten them and tell them the Fish are not being given away, it is only up for negotiation in the hope of getting a better deal from the French on their overfishing on the St. Pierre Bank, better known as 3PS.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson). I must say there is no doubt in my mind that the Hon. Member, in his remarks this evening, was quite sincere. That Hon. Member has always demonstrated to this House and to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that he is quite sincere. However, the Hon. Member is on the government side. I was amused to hear him say he was never in the Opposition. Well, I can tell the Hon. Member, as nice a person as he is, that if the Government continues to make decisions like this, the decision it made on the softwood lumber and other decisions it has made since it became the Government, the Hon. Member will never be in the Opposition. He will never be back in Government. He will not be elected.
One must look at how this situation affects the livelihood of the people in Atlantic Canada, especially those people in the Province of Newfoundland. The fishery, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, is the lifeblood of the people of Newfoundland. That is what they brought to Canada at Confederation. Their past has been the fishery. For the Government and this Minister to make a deal such as this and to have issued licences for nine factory freezer trawlers in 3PS for the metropolitan fleet from France to Fish in Canadian waters, is totally intolerable.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is your treaty. Come on. Be honest.


George Roland Henderson: It is not our treaty at all.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, absolutely.


George Roland Henderson: The factory freezer trawlers were no part of our treaty and the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) knows that, if he wants to be fair. It has nothing to do with the treaty of the past Government.
I must tell the Minister that if he knew anything about the fishing industry at all, he would know the difference between a factory freezer trawler and a wet fish trawler. Exactly the same comparison would be between a Volkswagen and a bus.


George Baker: The Speaker knows.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, the Speaker knows full well.


George Baker: He can give lessons to the present Minister.


George Roland Henderson: There is no question about that. These are very large vessels. They are floating factories. For this Minister to register and licence nine of those vessels to come into Canadian waters just so the Minister, and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), could have some sort of cozy agreement later on with France on other issues, is disgraceful.
Let us look at this agreement, which everyone says is no agreement, and I agree it is not an agreement as such. It is possibly an agreement to negotiate. I do not even see where there is any stipulation by France, even after being given all these rights, that it has even to sit down and negotiate.
January 28, 1987

It was announced that Canada and France have agreed that the dispute be submitted for binding settlement by an international judicial tribunal subject to the negotiation of a treaty before the end of 1987. What is this negotiation of a treaty before the end of 1987? It is negotiation on the composition of the tribunal and its terms of reference. If they can get that settled, the negotiations will possibly start by March 15, 1987. Canada and France have also undertaken to negotiate before 1987 interim fisheries arrangements for French vessels in Canadian waters for the years 1988-91. It is not only this they are giving away, but they are starting to negotiate an agreement on something from 1988 to 1991, if they can get an agreement to negotiate. It is very confusing, extremely confusing. There is a paragraph at the very bottom of page 1 of this fancy news release from the Government of Canada and the two Ministers. They are the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). It states:
The two Ministers noted that solid scientific information is the first step toward resolving the overfishing problem.
I ask Hon. Members if they have ever heard anything as silly as that? They have already said that the French have been overfishing by something in the order of 20,000 tonnes. They have been overfishing the quota that was set by the scientists.
On page 2 of this document it states:
The rights of vessels from Metropolitan France to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence expired in May 1986 under the provisions of the 1972 Canada/France Fisheries Treaty.
This is the treaty that was signed by the Liberal Government. But it expired in 1986. So what are they talking about? Up until 1985 there had been no overfishing. We know the reason why there was no overfishing. It is because we used to board the vessels. We used to protect our fishery.
On this very subject I would like to quote a question to the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Mark MacGuigan, as reported in Hansard for March 23, 1982, at page 15719. This was a question asked by the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who is still a Member here, at least for the time being. He asked:
Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to ask the Minister what transpired between Canada and France while two French trawlers were hiding out in St. Pierre following orders from Canadian fisheries authorities to report to St. John's, Newfoundland, for alleged violations of our Canadian Fisheries Protection Act. Will the Minister table copies of the diplomatic exchange which took place between our two countries?
The Minister replied:
Madam Speaker, on Sunday, March 14, Canadian fisheries officers boarded two French fishing vessels in Canadian waters off the coast of Newfoundland and found that their log books had underreported their catches. The vessels initially refused to comply with orders to report to a Canadian port for inspection. Instead, they went to St. Pierre.
Following representations to the French authorities, the vessels proceeded to Flalifax where charges are in the process of being laid.
In other words, this was a Government which knew how to negotiate.


John Carnell Crosbie: You turkeys, you were the ones who got us into this problem.


George Roland Henderson: Do you know why it knew how to negotiate, Mr. Speaker? Because it negotiated from a position of strength. It was not a weak-kneed Government like this Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: You turkeys got us into this.


George Roland Henderson: Yet this Government says that we should give the nose of Grand Banks to the Americans. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), so eloquently spelled that out earlier this evening.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the first time that he has ever spoken up. Where was he in 1984? Where was he in 1972?


George Roland Henderson: The Government says give everything else to the French, or to the Americans. With respect to the softwood lumber it has said: "Give it to them. Give it to them". With respect to excise tax and codfish, I remember asking the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) when he was the acting Minister of Fisheries if he would intervene and have the Prime Minister intervene in the great Shamrock Summit so that the United States would start to listen and not impose a duty. Oh yes, they would do everything at that Shamrock Summit. He said: "You can depend on the Prime Minister". What happened? On salt cod an 18 per cent duty was levied. That is the type of nonsense that is going on with the Government. Those are the kinds of negotiations it is entering into. It is no wonder that any country can come in and take our fish because the Government will not stand up to them. It immediately puts up the white flag.
A little bit further on in the press release from which I have been reading it states:
The French will also receive in 1987 fishing allocations in Canadian waters outside the Gulf in accordance with obligations under the 1972 Canada/France Treaty and under a separate fisheries treaty between Canada and the European Economic Community.
That is the treaty which expired in May, 1986. The press release goes on:
These allocations are included in the 1987 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan and total approximately 15,600 tonnes of various species, the same as in 1986.
Let us take a look at what those species are. Let us take a look at what this quota entails. This is the quota that was given to the EEC and taken by the Germans up until last year. That is the same quota that was supposed to come back to our Canadian fisheries. In fact, it was supposed to come back to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. That is what was given to France. Of course, 6,400 tonnes of cod was also included in the zone 3PS which Canada has established as a French quota for this stock. Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear the likes of it?

January 28, 1987
The press release goes on:
The level of the cod allocation for St. Pierre and Miquelon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is an exception to the government's policy against non-surplus cod allocations to foreign fleets, as it is greater than what Canada's legal obligations require under the 1972 Canada-France treaty.
The treaty expired in May, 1986, but the Government still goes along with that and is even giving more. But it does not have to give anything.
The fishermen of the great islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are asking Canada to live up to its obligations and kick the metropolitan fleet out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


Gerry St. Germain: You guys allowed them in there.


George Roland Henderson: There is a Member who does not know anything about fish. He obviously does not know anything about Atlantic Canada or he would not be talking the way he is talking. The first large trawlers that were in the gulf were brought in under the former Government of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1979, with the support of the former Member for St. John's East, who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland.


George Baker: And we know what happened to that Government.


George Roland Henderson: We know what happened. He got his reward. Obviously, the French metropolitan fleet is getting its reward for its overfishing which it does in a careless and reckless way. Its reward is 20,000 tonnes more fish. That is unbelievable. This is all in the name of good bilateral relations.
It is easy to understand why the people of Newfoundland are frustrated. I can understand it very well. They have to sit on their wharves and watch their fish leave their waters on vessels flying foreign flags. I can understand why they would be frustrated, especially when, in many parts of northeastern Newfoundland, they cannot catch enough fish to give them 10 weeks for their unemployment stamps. This Government knows that. The Government knows that as a result of a great deal of prodding by the good Liberal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland who prodded the Government time and time again to put some sort of program in place for Newfoundlanders so that they could make up between six and ten weeks to get unemployment stamps to carry on through the winter. That is what this Government calls constructive internationalism. It is unbelievable.
The old bad days have returned. We are going back to the future of the wild west. Winston Churchill termed this sort of a situation a sheep in sheep's clothing. That describes the Minister exactly. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is so easy for the French to come over and pull the wool down over his eyes.
I sympathize with the Hon. Member for St. John's West because I know that he does not agree with this agreement, or with the fact that the Government did not consult with the
Province of Newfoundland in the last number of days. Obviously, they did not consult with him when this decision was made. If they had consulted with him, and he had expressed his feelings about this agreement as eloquently as he did tonight, the Government would have had one of two choices: for the Minister to be removed, or the Hon. Member for St. John's West. The Government would have had no other alternative to stay and support a policy like that.
I know that the Hon. Member for St. John's West knows the fishery, because he is a former Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland. I know he knows a bit about the fishery. I know that he knows Newfoundlanders. I cannot believe that he would come here and sing one song in Cabinet and sing another song back home. I know that the Minister would not do that. Therefore, this Government did not consult.
I remember very well when the Government took office that it discussed the consultative process and this great new relationship with the provinces which was going to be so good that no more would there be any divisions and differences in policy between the provincial and federal Governments and industry. Consultation with the Government is leading the people on and then telling them at the very end what they will do, and going about and doing it without any respect whatsoever for the consultative process.
I could go on for a while longer, but 1 have a number of colleagues who wish to speak on this resolution. I move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a):
That the House continue to sit after 12 o'clock midnight for the purpose of considering the adjournment motion now under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those Members who object will please rise in their places.
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being 25 Members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to be carried.
Motion (Mr. Henderson) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: I wish to register for Hansard that the reason there are not 25 Members to object is because there are not enough people present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Shall we resume the debate? On debate, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price).


Joseph Price: I rise tonight to speak with some regret, frustration, and considerable mixed feelings. I have some regret because of the turmoil that this particular issue has created in my province. This agreement, this issue, and the irresponsible comments of some people has raised apprehension in the minds of people in the Province of Newfoundland.
January 28, 1987

The issue before us tonight is a very difficult and complex issue. For a number of years, governments have tried to resolve this issue with no degree of success. Acting in good faith, the Government has made a bold attempt to resolve this issue in the best interests of Canadians, and in particular in the best interests of Newfoundlanders. That attempt has generated a great degree of apprehension and controversy within my province. I very much regret that.
When the people of Burin-St. George's elected me, they gave me a trust on their behalf to protect the livelihood of their fishery. The events of the past few days have been very difficult for me, and for those people who have put trust in me. They are asking the question why. This agreement struck between the Government of Canada and the Government of France is found to be unacceptable in certain respects by the people of the province, and in some respects it is unacceptable to me.
Before I get into any great detail on this item of controversy, I wish to remind the Flouse why the Government of Canada entered into these negotiations. We do indeed have a serious and deteriorating situation with respect to the French claims and subsequent overfishing in the area known as 3PS. Incidentally, this area lies directly south of my riding. It is an area which contains fish stocks that are very important to the fishing industry, particularly the inshore fishing industry of the riding of Burin-St. George's, and more particularly the area of Fortune Bay and the Burin Peninsula.
There have been ongoing negotiations since 1977 between the two jurisdictions of Canada and France. Those negotiations have been over the claims made by both countries as to which country owns the waters off the south coast of Newfoundland surrounding the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The negotiations have centred around where the boundary should lie. That has been going on since 1977 and we have come nine years into that process. We recognize at this point in our history that we have not been able to successfully negotiate a boundary settlement that is acceptable to the Province of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada, or the Government of France. The negotiated boundary is not possible. In these negotiations, the French have insisted on a very large area of jurisdiction for the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. That position is totally unacceptable to Canada. We are at the stage where we recognize that these negotiations will not be acceptable. The only way to resolve this dispute is by reference to an international judicial tribunal. The need for the determination of this boundary has become far more serious in recent years because of the overfishing effort conducted by the French in the area known as 3PS.
Taking advantage of the fact that we do not have a negotiated settlement, the French have engaged in a massive overfishing effort in this zone. We have heard all kinds of numbers being put forward. The Canadian Government acknowledges the French right to fish in that zone with a quota of some
6,400 metric tons of cod. Last year the French caught 26,000 tonnes of cod. This year they have made it known to various people in Canada that they intend to ignore the quota set for them and indeed will catch some 25,000 metric tons. In fact, I would suggest that the 25,000 metric tons which are being tossed around is a minimum and that it might be more like
40,000	metric tons before the year has ended. That is a totally unacceptable situation in which we find ourselves.
What is the solution? I would hope some members of the New Democratic Party were speaking in jest when they suggested that we send gunboats out there. What a position to advocate! It is one that is totally unacceptable to most rational Canadians.
The reality we must face is that we are into a situation where we have a very rich resource in an area known as 3PS or St. Pierre Bank, and it is rapidly being depleted by overfishing by a foreign country. Because it is an area of dispute, we have no control over this effort by the French Government.
How do we gain control over this very difficult and unacceptable situation? As I said, the only obvious solution to anyone who has studied the situation and has some knowledge of it is that we must obtain a ruling through the World Court. That presents another problem. The only way to accomplish that is if both parties to the dispute agree to make that reference. Canada has agreed in the interests of conservation, of Newfoundlanders, and of the long-term stability of the fishing industry of that province. However, the French have been very difficult on this issue. Essentially, if we want to call a spade a spade, they have been attempting to hold the Government to ransom.
This brings us to the events of the last few days. In its wisdom the Canadian Government decided to enter into negotiations on how we could resolve this boundary dispute by agreeing on a course of action. That course of action resulted in an agreement this past weekend which gives me some cause for concern. I am not disputing the objective of the agreement. I have no quarrel with what it attempts to do. It is attempting to do something which every Member of the House should be willing to support. However, I must ask a question about the agreement-are we putting ourselves in a position of paying too high a price to get this dispute before the courts? That is my basic concern.
I feel that the agreement provides the opportunity to pay too high a price. I am somewhat disappointed and probably disillusioned with the process by which this agreement came about over the weekend. Until some time last week 1 think the whole process was on track, but from my perspective the events of last weekend got out of hand and the subsequent criticism has taken away from what good this agreement might have been able to do.
While this issue affects other provinces, its primary focus is that of Newfoundland. I think it is a case of bad judgment on the part of the federal Government to not have had representatives of the Government of Newfoundland present during the
2830

January 28, 1987
negotiating process which occurred over last weekend. As I say, it is a case of bad judgment. As a result, we may have rushed into an agreement fraught with danger which could have serious implications for the province and for my constituents. I say "could"; I am not saying that it does. I feel that certain aspects of the agreement, had the Province of Newfoundland been represented, would not have been in it. People who live in the situation, as I have for many years and as have many Members from Newfoundland, would have been able to foresee possible complications which could arise with regard to the agreement.
I want to review very quickly the concessions in the agreement in respect of fish stocks. It says that the French are entitled to an additional 3,000 metric tons of cod in an area known as 2GH, which is in the far North. I do not think we would find anyone who would argue very strenuously against that concession. It is a surplus stock. Presently it is not being harvested by the fishing industry and as such it is not a difficult concession with which to live.
The agreement also stipulates that in the zones 4RS, 3PN, and 4VN the French fleet is entitled to some 3,500 metric tons of cod, and again there is no argument. It is an historical right, particularly for our neighbours who live just off our shores. Although the French Government does not recognize it, the agreement also says that they are entitled in the disputed area to a quota of some 6,400 metric tons. I think that is a fair allocation under the formulas.
There are two other aspects to the agreement. One is access to an area known as the Burgeo Bank. I have concerns about that one. They may turn out to be unfounded. I hope they do. However, for those who do not know, the gulf stocks migrate to the Burgeo Bank and we have just removed, because of the expiry of an agreement at the end of the past year, the French metropolitan fleet from the gulf. We did not renew the agreement. By allowing them access to the Burgeo Bank fishing area which is in the 3PS zone but not in the disputed area of 3PS, my concern is that we have again allowed the French metropolitan fleet access to some gulf stock, which as you, Mr. Speaker, should know and as all Members of this House should know is in serious decline. The biomass of the gulf fishery is declining at a very rapid pace. That fishery, unless the stocks stabilize and start to increase is in great trouble now, but that situation will be aggravated, which is a very serious concern on my part. Many inshore fishermen on the southwest coast of Newfoundland depend entirely on that stock for their livelihood.
The other area this agreement addresses is the area known as 2J+3KL, the northern cod stocks, which is the backbone of the Newfoundland fishery. This area has been in dispute in our provinces for some time. Now there is a possibility provided in the agreement that recognizes the right of access to that stock by the French. That is disconcerting, Mr. Speaker. The agreement does not specify the level of any quota that might
be awarded, and that gives me a ray of hope. I have made it known for the past two days that I am not prepared to accept a quota in 2J+3KL that will negatively impact on any fishermen or the Newfoundland fishing industry in general. That stock is the future of the deep sea fishing effort in my province. We will be watching, I say we as Newfoundlanders, the negotiations as they progress if, indeed, they do progress at all. We will not accept any allocation that is not acceptable to each and every Newfoundlander affected.
I do not see and I doubt if you will find a Canadian who can see any surplus fish in that zone in the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker. There will be none. In fact, we have reduced our domestic quota for 1987, not very significantly but there is a reduction. That indicates a stock with problems. I do not see how the Government or any Government can as a result of that accept the awarding of a quota to a foreign Government. I will not accept that on behalf of my constituents.
As I said earlier, the Government of Canada has acted in good faith. We have one basic objective, a real and admirable concern, and that is to resolve the dispute in 3PS. There is no easy solution to this problem, it has been ongoing for too long. We have to find a solution. Events of the next few months hopefully will give us that solution.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate at this hour of the night. Like my colleagues before me, particularly the Member who just spoke, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George (Mr. Price), I find the situation of great significance. The significance is not only for the people of Newfoundland, but 1 believe it extends beyond their boundaries. Indeed it is a Canadian problem affecting Canadians from coast to coast.
What do we have here, Mr. Speaker? What is at stake in this issue? Before one answers those questions one has to examine what has gone on in the past. We have seen the issue of a tariff regarding salt cod, an issue with the softwood lumber and, yes, more recently, an issue with the Christmas tree producers. Now we have this issue of fish. The people of Newfoundland, as evidenced by their Members of Parliament in this Chamber, by provioncial Members of the House of Assembly, and by commentators in that province, agree without qualification that that resource is akin, if you will, to the wheat of the prairie grain farmer, to the oil and gas in Alberta and, yes, to the language in the Province of Quebec. This issue is vitally important to the economic viability and the future of the Province of Newfoundland. No matter how you cut the cards, no matter who cuts the cards, the standard or the test that ought to be used should be an objective and reasonable test. In this instance, as we have seen in the three previous examples, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, and the people of Atlantic Canada have now again received the brunt of the central Government's policies as they relate to fisheries.
We have heard some statements by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The French have had treaty rights to Canadian territorial waters going back to 1904
January 28, 1987

through a convention between the United Kingdom and France. Subsequent to that there was an agreement in 1972. The purpose, or the raison d'etre, if you will, of that agreement was to phase out all the French fishing in the gulf. The Member for St. John's West-I do not think he did it intentionally, but perhaps he did it as a defence-did not talk about the provisions in that agreement with regard to reciprocal rights for Atlantic Canadians. He forgot to mention that but went on to talk about the concept of perpetuity. He did not quote the clause in which he substantiates his argument. He said that there is no definitive total allowable catch. On that point he is correct, Sir. But gross negligence is apparent when you listen to the Hon. Member for St. John's West. He refuses conveniently, I might add, to make mention of the fact that on October 9, 1980, there was an agreement between France and Canada with regard to the maximum allowable catch. He would allow the House to believe that there was a major omission in the 1972 agreement, and he is right. However, he should also be candid enough to tell Hon. Members and the people of Newfoundland that that omission was rectified in 1980.
That is one thing, but let us look at the duplicity of both the Hon. Member for St. John's West and, in particular, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). That is a very strong term to use on the floor of the House of Commons but 1 want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for St. John's West says one thing in Newfoundland and another thing in this Chamber. Talking about an obvious, flagrant misuse of documentation, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans produced information in a press release on January 27 which was in contradiction to the private and confidential documentation possessed by the Department of External Affairs. That is duplicity at its worst.
Perhaps the crime in all of this is what the Government promised in 1984. It promised consultation. How many times have we heard government Members say in the Chamber: "We will consult with the provinces, with the working men and women of Canada, with industry and with the various sectors of the economy in order to arrive at public policy in the best interests of all Canadians"?
Tonight Members from the government side have said unequivocally that they are upset because there was no consultation. The Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and others have also echoed that. However, the remedy they wish to invoke now for the people of Newfoundland and Canadians in general is an apology. They want to say: "We are sorry we did not consult with you. We are really sorry. What has gone on is terrible". That is not enough. Conservative Members of Parliament from Newfoundland have a responsibility. They have a majority in this Chamber. They ought to do the proper thing and demand forthwith that this agreement be called null and void and that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans resign.
Let us talk about the process of consultation. There was no consultation. The Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, the former employer of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) and his idol and mentor, said about the Minister of Fisheries and the Government's policies that they are incompetent. What better evidence do you need than to have a provincial Premier of Tory persuasion commenting like that with regard to this particular policy? Why did the Premier say what he did? He said it because there was no consultation, just as there was no consultation in the Province of Newfoundland as evidenced by the statements made by Premier Peckford on behalf of his people.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not only incompetent, he is insensitive to the vital importance of a resource in the Province of Newfoundland. For those two reasons, he should do the honourable thing and resign from this federal Cabinet forthwith. If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not prepared to do that, let us put this on the line. Let us see where members of the Conservative Party from Newfoundland really stand. Will they say that they will apologize or will they have the intestinal fortitude and guts to stand up for their people and say that they will cross the floor and resign from their Party if this agreement is not called null and void and if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not resign forthwith? We will wait for 72 hours to see what these Members opposite will do. I am afraid that they will follow the likes of the Hon. Member for St. John's West by going down to Newfoundland to cry and wail, only to come back to Ottawa to say that they pulled the wool over the eyes of the people again. That is a shame.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West spoke on the radio and for the benefit of Hon. Members, I wish to let the House know what he said. I have a transcript from the VOCM action line of Wednesday, January 28, 1987. The Minister of Transport said that those responsible for this are certainly insensitive to the importance of the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. This great paragon of Newfoundland concerns went one step further. He did not stop there. This great eloquent man, a paragon of Newfoundland interests, said that they were to have as one of their objectives better, improved federal relations, one of their hallmarks so far, but that this was hardly the way to go about it.
The Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, says one thing down there and something different here in Ottawa. Who is the puppet and who is pulling the strings? Is it the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? Is it the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who is pulling the strings? Shame on the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
Hon. Members opposite are in disagreement with one another. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso has said that there is no agreement. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's has said that there is an agreement. I wish they would make up their minds. Either there is an agreement or there is not. To have an agreement, there must

January 28, 1987
be an intention to sign an agreement. There must be consideration and there must be the signatures of the parties. Do we have that here? One member of the Tory Party says yes and another says no. How convenient for the Tories-excuse me, Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament of the Conservative Party of Canada-to try to be on both sides of the issue. It is typical of an incompetent, insensitive Government that does not deserve the trust of Canadians to run the administration of this country.
I would like to talk about something else in regard to this particular issue and it has to do with the Prime Minister, or Photo-Brian as he is known in my constituency. Why was this agreement made in secret? Did it have anything to do with the desire of the Prime Minister to have wonderful, glorious, picturesque photo opportunities at the upcoming first Francophone summit in Quebec City? Is that the rationale behind this agreement? If it is the rationale, I challenge the Hon. Member for St. John's West to have the intestinal fortitude to tell the Prime Minister that he is wrong and is not representing the best interests of Newfoundland. The Hon. Member for St. John's West has the habit of saying one thing in St. John's and another in Ottawa. That is typical.


John Carnell Crosbie: You do not tell the truth in either place.


David Charles Dingwall: It is typical gross negligence and gross incompetence by Members opposite.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issued a press release. You want to talk about someone not coming clean! Not with Members of Parliament on this side.


Felix Holtmann: We know you are clean.


John Carnell Crosbie: Your head is shiny.


David Charles Dingwall: Not with Members of Parliament on this side but with his own caucus. Do you hear them wailing and crying over there? They are 28 per cent or 29 per cent in the polls and they are gone. Gone. This will help your exit from political life.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are gone with the wind, Dingwall.


David Charles Dingwall: The French catch, as indicated in the press release for 1984, was 6,607 tonnes. However, what does the confidential document say to which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and obviously because he is a privy counsellor, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) were exposed? It says 11,221 tonnes. If that is not duplicity, if that is not double-talk, if that is not misleading members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I do not know what is. What was the figure used by the Minister in his press release for 1985? It was 6,010 tonnes as of May, 1985. In the secret document that Premier Peckford and Premier Buchanan have yet to see what does it say? This is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-


George Roland Henderson: Telling his own people.


David Charles Dingwall: -18,508 tonnes. It is very obvious that we are getting only one side of the story from the Minister. He is refusing to share with his caucus colleagues information germane to this discussion. That is gross incompetence and gross negligence. As I said earlier, it deserves as a bare minimum his resignation from Cabinet as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans forthwith.


Felix Holtmann: Sit down.


David Charles Dingwall: I will conclude by saying that the Premier of Newfoundland and the Premier of Nova Scotia agree that the Government's handling of this issue-


J. Michael Forrestall: That is right, the Conservatives agreed with Gerald Regan who agreed you were an incompetent MLA.


David Charles Dingwall: They both have concluded that this agreement is akin to gross incompetence.
It is one thing for Members opposite to say that, but quite another when provincial Premiers say it. I say to the people of Newfoundland that they have been let down by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Hon. Member for St. John's West has abdicated his responsibilities as their representative in the federal Cabinet, and I call upon Conservative Members of Parliament from the Province of Newfoundland to demand forthwith the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If not, let them sit as independents. Put your money where your mouth is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Felix Holtmann: From the Prairies.


John Carnell Crosbie: Glad to know you are still breathing, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be breathing long after my good friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).
In taking part in this debate, the First thing I want to do-


John Carnell Crosbie: Is sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -is extend my congratulations and respect to the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson). I thought he spoke from his heart as well as his head.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He made it plain that he was saying to his own Party and Government: This far and no further.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is why we are a great Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mike, would you get on the list and get up and make a speech?


J. Michael Forrestall: We are a great Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have made four speeches sitting on your ass. Now shut up.
January 28, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: You are talking through yours.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Get on the list and make a speech, Mike, I will be waiting to hear it.


J. Michael Forrestall: It will be a little bit better and more knowledgeable than the one you have to make.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The respect and regard I have for my colleagues in this place from all Parties I have not only for the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception but even for the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who also intimated that he is not completely happy and satisfied with this agreement. I respect and congratulate them for that.


J. Michael Forrestall: So do we.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When you are involved in negotiations, whether it is over a union-management table or a nation to nation table, whether it is international or domestic, you do not offer something in advance. You do not telegraph to your opposite number what you are prepared to give, what lengths you are prepared to go to get them to agree to negotiate or arbitrate. You just do not do that. That is dumb bargaining. I am not suggesting that the labour side or the management side or the government side have not done some dumb bargaining because they have. All that is required here is for the Government to say, "We bargained dumb"-and you do not have to use my words, you can put it in much more diplomatic and statesman-like language than I would use. You do not lay those things out ahead of time. All your opposite number has to do is to sit back and smile sweetly.
The President of France, a Socialist, must be smiling to himself on his way to Canada. The Premier of France, a Conservative, must be laughing all the way over to congratulate his fisheries Department.


J. Michael Forrestall: On what basis?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope I am wrong.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, I expect there will be a ceremony where the agreement which was initialled earlier will be formalized when the President of France gets here. I hope that does not happen. We tipped our hand in these negotiations by having already cut back the quotas of our own fishermen. We did that in consultation with the four Atlantic provinces as part of the management of our fisheries. Having cut back the quotas of our own fishermen, we should have asked France to voluntarily cut back on the amount of fish they are taking. Surely it would have been a proper bargaining position to ask France to cut back in the same proportion as we have cut back our own fellows until we reach an agreement.
The Minister of Transport has said that the Government is trying to get out of something that previous Liberal administrations got us into many years ago. We do not disagree with that. This is an NDP motion rather than a Liberal one. However, there is no excuse for a Conservative Government to practice the supine acquiescence started by the Liberals. There is no damned excuse for sitting back and blaming it on the Liberals. The people of Atlantic Canada believed that the Tories would be different and correct the past errors of omission and commission. The Government gave France the right to fish in a zone where they were never allowed to fish before, unless it was in the 1500s.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are playing politics with the lives of our fishermen. That's exactly what you are doing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you mean I am playing politics?


J. Michael Forrestall: You have no regard for them whatsoever.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For a hundred and some years Atlantic Canada has had nothing but Liberals and Tories, Liberals and Tories, and they have the highest unemployment and the poorest fishermen ever seen in the country. They keep thinking that maybe they will do better next time, but they continue to fail.


Felix Holtmann: You're going to make it wonderful over there, aren't you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We didn't do it to them. It was Liberals and Tories, Liberals and Tories.


Felix Holtmann: And you are going to make it wonderful.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Liberals and Tories dictated to those people ad nauseum.


Felix Holtmann: And you're going to make it wonderful?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we listen to the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not good enough for Tories to sit here blaming Liberals and Liberals to sit here blaming Tories.


Felix Holtmann: Where do you fit in?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have damn well had enough of that.


Felix Holtmann: Where do you fit in? You aren't even there.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We fit in very nicely, thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask Hon. Members to have the courtesy of listening to the Member for Regina West.


Felix Holtmann: Where do you wonderful people fit in?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are fitting in nicely, thank you.

January 28, 1987


Felix Holtmann: Explain that to the people of Canada. Where do you fit in?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not good enough to sit around blaming the other guys.


Felix Holtmann: We are waiting with bait on our breath.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My Leader, who moved this motion which was accepted by the Chair, proposed an alternative solution.


Felix Holtmann: Oh, wonderful.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman whose mouth is open now had his ears closed earlier this day.


Felix Holtmann: Give us your solution, your wonderful solution.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The agreement was designed to placate France rather than meet the needs of Atlantic Canada. The agreement gives away fish stocks to France where it has never fished before and is not entitled to in any remote manner. France did not even ask for rights in this area. Why would the Government give France those rights before an arbitrated settlement was reached? It is more dumb bargaining.


Felix Holtmann: What a wonderful group of people.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I can tell my hon. friend that a number of us have been on both sides of the bargaining table.
They say that fish is good brain food.


Gerry St. Germain: You haven't eaten any.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have listened to my hon. friend opposite and I now know how the good Lord knows where to send the fish. I wonder when he last ate any. When is the last time the Minister of Transport ate any of that good brain food? More important, when is the last time the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) ate any?


Felix Holtmann: He ate some good fish in Manitoba. I can vouch for that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans represents part of the Fraser Valley and South Delta where they have Pacific salmon. If he wanted to be a generous Canadian statesman and negotiator, why did he not offer Pacific salmon instead of Atlantic cod to the French? Can you imagine what would have happened to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he had told the French that they could have Pacific salmon if they did not mess around in the territory in dispute. The Minister from British Columbia would have been run out of town on a rail and it would have been too good for him. However, he can be generous with the northern cod off Newfoundland. If he were negotiating with the Americans and Japanese for Pacific salmon, would he be equally as generous? I hope my Conservative friends opposite will ask him that.


Felix Holtmann: So far not too many people have trusted you guys.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know much, if anything, about fish, other than the ones we have in Last Mountain Lake.


Felix Holtmann: Then sit down. Sit down if you don't know anything about fish.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On the other hand, my colleague opposite would not know a bushel of wheat if it hit him in the face and I am sure that he would get up and make a speech on it.


Felix Holtmann: I am sorry, but I know as much about wheat as you do. Here you are talking about fish. Good for you, you're talking about fish.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, is there a rule that if a Member is going to talk he should be in his own seat?


Felix Holtmann: There is no rule.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am wondering whether you are sure as to who has the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: All Hon. Members in the chamber this evening know that the Hon. Member has a great deal of experience in this place. He no doubt asks a rhetorical question but I understand perfectly why it is being asked. The answer, which I had to deal with earlier this evening, is that a Member not in his seat is not entitled to have the floor.
Sometimes it is very difficult to persuade Hon. Members that when they are in someone else's seat they ought also to recognize the fact that they ought not to take the floor in repartee, if I can put it that way, across the aisle. The Hon. Member is absolutely right. If someone is trying to seek the floor from a seat other than that which is their allotted seat in the chamber, of course the Chair cannot recognize the Member. I would advise the Hon. Member who, of course, is a very experienced Member, that perhaps he could continue his debate more effectively if he did not recognize that other Hon. Member either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to my friends opposite that I listened carefully to speeches of my colleagues opposite, without interruption. I like to be heckled because it means that in fact they are listening. However, in this instance, they are not listening.
We are aware that it is very difficult to govern this country, with 10 provinces and two territories. Perhaps the worst scenario for any party in power is that many of the provinces are governed by the same party. We appreciate that it can be a difficult situation. However, no matter what the disagreements or misunderstandings with the provinces, the fundamental principle to be held by the national Government and this chamber is that the enhancement and preservation of our


January 28, 1987

sovereignty and independence is inviolate and indivisible. Members on all sides of the House unanimously agree with that principle, even if we may disagree about how to uphold it.
In this case, our disagreement concerns the conduct of international negotiations. While we may disagree on how they are conducted, we do not disagree with their purpose. Our motion simply states that the Government has made a mistake. It should not bargain away the well-being of its own people and the integrity of its own territory in negotiations with other nations.
Perhaps if we were at war or were under extreme pressure such negotiations may be acceptable, but we are dealing with a power that has been friendly for years and allowing it to encroach upon our national integrity and nationhood by providing it with extra quantities of our resources that belong to Canadians. That is why my leader moved this motion, your acceptance of which we appreciate, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker has ruled that this matter is serious enough that the House should take it into consideration and the Government should recognize its importance. The intent of the motion is to suggest that the Government has bargained mistakenly and should reconsider what it has done. Surely the Government should have learned something from its experience with our neighbour to the south during the past 18 months. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those free trade negotiations in the future, but the issue here is the principle of our integrity and sovereignty which all Canadians support.
We are not attempting to criticize any Hon. Member in the Government, but we sincerely felt compelled in the name of sovereignty to move this motion so that the Government would reconsider the issue. After listening to the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and the Hon. Minister of Transport, I believe they share that concern. It will be to the Government's credit if it reassesses its action and decides that it was mistaken.
Before the Government proceeds further with this agreement, which has only been initialled, it should listen not only to some of its own members, but to the fishermen and their unions, and the fish plant owners and operators and some premiers. I do not suggest for a moment, however, that the premiers are 100 per cent correct. Surely there is sufficient ground to reconsider reopening negotiations with France.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that those of us who come from constituencies with fishermen who earn their livelihood from the ocean understand what we are facing here tonight.
Let me also say a few words about Newfoundland members of our Party and their concern, dedication and devotion toward their province. I speak of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who so eloquently put forward the case of Newfoundlanders as it really is. He did not preach fear or use scare tactics, but represented the people of Newfoundland and Canada as he has done so well for so many years.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price) rose in this House tonight to speak to the plight of those Newfoundlanders who live along the southern part of Newfoundland and who are so impacted by any adjustments made to the Newfoundland fishery. He is concerned, and has a right to be, and he spoke well in this House. He represented Newfoundland proudly.
The Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) also rose in the House to represent his riding. I was present at a meeting today when he spoke of the ocean and of fishing and of the people of Newfoundland. He is a captain by profession, a man who has lived on the ocean from which he has sought his livelihood.


Mr. Speaker:: A skipper.


Gerry St. Germain: A skipper, as you point out, Mr. Speaker. He is a man who understands every problem related to fisheries which affect Newfoundland and other parts of this country. As the Hon. Member pointed out, there is not a family in Newfoundland which has not lost a son, a father or a friend to the ocean. Yet they continue to eke out their existence from the ocean.
Those who spoke before me are very well qualified. They put forward the case of Newfoundland better than anyone could. As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, they did not rise in this House to preach fear, scare tactics or to malicously attack. They are not fearmongers. They are very, very concerned Members of Parliament from Newfoundland.
The New Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, moved the motion for debate. Its Leader rose in this House and advocated armed insurrection against a friendly nation. He said we may have to resort to a military resolution. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) called it a friendly power. I do not believe that Canadians, regardless of whether they are from British Columbia, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, or wherever, would advocate the use of arms. That is the type of rhetoric we have heard here tonight. It is insincerity. It is not that which Canadians want. We are looking at a situation in which our Government has faced the fact that the quotas and very livelihood of some Newfoundland people has been reduced because of overfishing in the oceans which surround them. That is unacceptable. There has to be a resolve. There has to be a method of controlling the fisheries so that we as Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders-we as Canadians-can have first right to the fisheries and do not have to cut back our quotas or allocations. That is the reason it is so important we try to establish some form of agreement with the country of France in dealing with this very important issue.

January 28, 1987
Let us visualize what will happen if we do nothing and the overfishing continues. As someone from British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and one who was so involved with the salmon enhancement program on the West Coast, you will know that if a fishery is overfished, the livelihood of Canadians is placed in jeopardy. It is no different on the West Coast than it is on the East Coast. This is the dilemma the people of the East Coast of Canada are facing. This is the reason our Government is attempting to seek a resolve to this situation.
There is no doubt that there is concern in the minds of people on the East Coast tonight. That has been brought on to a large extent by the fear tactics which have been preached here tonight. However, it has been clearly enunciated by Hon. Members that they know of the concerns of Newfoundlanders and those concerns will be attended to immediately and efficiently as those Hon. Members who represent Newfoundland have always done on all issues which come before the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member for Regina West suggested that consultations should take place. I believe there is no government which has consulted more sincerely than the present Government of Canada. That has been a hallmark of this Government and it will continue to be a hallmark. I can think of a multitude of agreements arrived at that the previous administration could never even come close to reaching. For instance, there were the ERDA agreements with the provinces and the Atlantic Accord, which was a favourable agreement for the Province of Newfoundland. But here again we have the rhetoric, the screaming and yelling that no consultation has taken place. Our Government did consult in this case and it will continue to consult with Premier Peckford and the industry. There will be no final decision without the input of the industry and Government of Newfoundland.
I appreciate having had the opportunity to enter into this debate. As I pointed out, it is only those of us who live in and represent fishing communities who can truly relate to the lifestyle of the fishermen. I would just like to reinforce what was said here tonight by the Hon. Members from Newfoundland in their representations, and to tell the people of Newfoundland they have been well represented. None of their fishery is in jeopardy. There will be no agreement unless the agreement is favourable for the people of Newfoundland and for all the people on the East Coast of Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) would not want to leave an erroneous impression with the House that our Leader has been advocating violence, or that anyone in the New Democratic Party had done so.


John Carnell Crosbie: You did.


James Douglas Manly: That is not what we have been saying in this debate at all.


Gerry St. Germain: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) is absolutely correct. The Hon. Member is engaging in debate. However, sometimes the Chair does not know until the debate has commenced exactly what is the purpose of the comment.


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this evening and to add a few comments on the debate and the speeches we have heard.
I would like to give a short summary of the three options that Canadians were given this evening.

First, there was the do-nothing option. This was the option proposed by the Liberal Party. That is what it has been doing for years. France continues to overfish cod stocks off the south coast of Newfoundland, costing the fishermen of Newfoundland something in the order of $40 million per year. Doing this would condemn the south coast fishery to extinction. The French have shown no sign of good management intentions, none whatsoever. Thus, the Liberal option to continue with the 1972 agreement to grant fishing rights was just not acceptable. The 1972 agreement granted the fishing fleet of France fishing rights in perpetuity, which is what we have to live with today. The June, 1984 pre-election Liberal agreement to abstain from regulating each other's fishing efforts was a means by which both countries could turn their backs on what the other was doing. This was not the way to go either. Obviously, the Liberal option is simply not an acceptable choice.
Let us now consider the NDP option. I will not call it the "NDP Party" because the members of that Party become so sensitive and hot when we say that. So I will say it is the NDP option. That option is to send in the gunboats Rambo-style. Their option is a call to war. It was Rambo Broadbent, the Leader of the NDP, who recommended that. It is irresponsible. It is good in that he will hit the national news with it. Rambo Broadbent says: "Let's go to war with France". He will hit the national news for sure with a statement like that. But it is irresponsible to come up with such an option. It is something which we simply cannot accept.
The Leader of the NDP brought up the Spanish trawler confrontation, a completely invalid point. The Spanish were fishing in undisputed Canadian waters. At that time we showed the Spanish how we could get rid of them if they were overfishing in waters which were undisputed. The difference between that case and this case is that France claims the waters off the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Sovereignty over waters that are not internationally recognized to be our own cannot be enforced. Confrontation makes no sense when the possibility of a negotiated settlement exists.
We are not living in the Falklands. Nor are we in Argentina. We cannot send in the gunboats, no matter how attractive it

January 28, 1987

may appear to Rambo Broadbent. I apologize to the sole member of the NDP who is in the House if I have offended his Leader.
The third option is negotiation, something which appears almost foreign to the NDP way of thinking tonight. It is the only reasonable option. It is the only courageous option, an option which the Liberals were afraid to take or even consider. Getting the French to agree to go to international third party arbitration is a major achievement. I might even say that it is a major breakthrough. It is an historic event. This gives us a chance to undo the harm caused by the 1972 agreement and the unholy pre-election 1984 agreement. Negotiations will involve give and take. We should be prepared to pay a small price in order to get the French into arbitration. If we fail, then we will never have full sovereignty over our waters. If we fail to stop the French from overfishing it will continue. The future of the south coast of Newfoundland depends on our coming up with a negotiated settlement.
In the process the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the industry have been consulted at every stage. Our Government's first and foremost commitment and obligation is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If as a result of our discussions over the past few months with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the fishing industry it is determined that the cost is too great, then there will be no agreement, and we in Nova Scotia will join with our Newfoundland colleagues in saying that there will be no agreement. It is as simple as that. Both the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the industry will continue to be involved in ongoing and continuous negotiations.
I would now like to say a few words about misinformation. I listened tonight to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who attacked the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Where were those two Members when the 1972 and 1984 agreements were entered into? Where were they then with their fine rhetoric? In fact, where are they now? I do not even see them in the House after they moved a motion to continue the debate all evening. They are not even here to listen. They had the help of their socialist Rambos, the NDP gunboat diplomacy led by Rambo Broad-bent, the Colonel Gaddafi of the NDP. Where are they now? Where were they when the Government was giving fish stocks in perpetuity and signing agreements which turned their backs on overfishing?
I listened tonight to the Hon. Member for Bonavista- Conception-Trinity (Mr. Johnson) and the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price). I was proud to listen to their speeches. They are good and fine representatives from Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald J. Comeau: They want to see this issue resolved. They pulled no punches tonight. They knew where they were coming
from. They were speaking on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland.
With respect to Georges Bank, we sent that problem to third party arbitration. Let me say to Hon. Members that this was a fine agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached by gunboat diplomacy, it sometimes pays to go to negotiation.
I would now like to talk about misinformation. The Leader of the NDP made a fine speech. It was probably written by one of his assistants in order to make the national news. His speech was full of misinformation, as usual. He mentioned the issue of having 15,000 extra tonnes of quota, which is simply not true.
I wish he were here to listen to what I am saying now. However, he left just after making his speech. His research assistant who wrote his speech did not do his homework. The
15,000	tonnes was a figure mentioned in the 1987 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. All I ask the Leader of the NDP to do is to have his assistant read the plan. It is very simple. It is not a big project, if he can find the time.
I will say this. Rambo Broadbent never lets the facts affect what he has to say. He said what he wanted to say in spite of the facts.
When the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) ran out of things to say he started making up things. He quoted from what he called a secret document. If he were in the House right now I would ask him to table that secret document. If he has one, then he should table it. He should put his paper where his mouth is.
While we are on the subject of Rambos, the President of National Sea raised the rhetoric today to the point of racism. I would like to quote what he said as reported in an article which I read in The Chronicle-Herald today. He said: "I hope the Government gets a lot of votes in Quebec for being so nice to France". Mr. Speaker, you are from Quebec.

and Quebecers had nothing to do with it. The President of National Sea had no business dragging Quebec voters into this affair.
I wish to apologize on behalf of Nova Scotians, because this was not coming from a Nova Scotian. This is a transplanted Bay Street lawyer who came down to Nova Scotia and who thinks he is speaking on behalf of Nova Scotia. He will pay the price for this type of thing, because he is not speaking on behalf of Nova Scotia. This is not acceptable to the people of Nova Scotia. On behalf of all Nova Scotians I apologize to all Francophones of Canada. Again I say that it was not coming from a Nova Scotian, but a transplanted Bay Street lawyer, a friend of Senator Michael Kirby.


John Carnell Crosbie: Machiavelli.

January 28, 1987


Gerald J. Comeau: The Machiavelli of Liberal politics, the next campaign chairman for the Liberal Party with Gordon Cummings-


J. Michael Forrestall: The next Rainmaker.


Gerald J. Comeau: The next Rainmaker, of course.
In conclusion, and I will not take too much of the House's time, I would suggest that the fearmongers who stood up tonight and tried to spread fear in the heart of Atlantic Canadians should be ashamed of themselves. I wish to paraphrase my friend, the Hon. Member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, that as an Atlantic Canadian I am not afraid to speak on behalf of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. If I think that the Government is doing something wrong for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, I am not afraid to stand up and say so publicly. If these members of the Liberal Party from Atlantic Canada were here tonight listening to this, I would challenge them as well. I am not afraid to speak on behalf of Atlantic Canada. I will continue to do so. Like my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, I have not been told what to say. I am saying what I believe in.
I wish I had the gift of words of my friend who spoke tonight straight from the heart, and that I were able to deliver the type of speech that he gave. But I recommend to Rambo Broadbent, who was not here to listen to the Hon. Member from Newfoundland and the speech that he gave, that he read that speech and learn something about Atlantic Canada, what it means to be an Atlantic Canadian, and what it means to speak on behalf of our people in Atlantic Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting evening, but I am sure we occasionally wonder why we do this to ourselves and we drag the point on often beyond where it makes sense. Unfortunately, today we have been dealing with a very serious problem through the mechanism of an emergency debate. There is no doubt that at some point a serious problem can always be examined from 500 different directions. Somebody has to grab the thing by the face and begin the process of solving it. It appears that this is what the Government did this week. There really had to be some type of movement toward a solution of the dilemma at St. Pierre and Miquelon.
The Conservative Government has undertaken that task and, for better or worse, we will hopefully move forward to a satisfactory solution for Canadians, or at least an interim solution that will lead us to some form of decent and equitable arrangement where Canadians are not deprived of resources which truly are theirs, and which we all in the House feel belong to Canada.
The issue with St. Pierre and Miquelon extends back to the last vestiges of the colonial process of France. If my history serves me, at the end of the Napoleonic wars France's colonies were stripped and she was left with two small pieces in Canada to exploit our fisheries in St. Pierre and Miquelon. It is
unfortunate that we in this generation have inherited that problem which simply will not go away.
We heard the Conservatives blast the Liberals in the House tonight for beginning the process of trying to make some agreements with France. France has fought very hard to maintain its economic stake in the gulf fishery, and to extract the wealth from it. At the time when Canada pushed the 200 mile limit forward there was a need to begin the process of making agreements with foreign nations that fished our Atlantic coast. That process began; the initial agreements were certainly unacceptable. What happened was that is over a long period of time the process has moved forward of trying to limit more and more the incursions by those foreign fleets into areas we claimed. That has been coming about.
As the Liberal Government passed away in 1984, the task of resolving one of the toughest problems in the Atlantic area fell upon the Conservative Government. There were some interesting aspects of it. I happened to be looking over some previous speeches made in this place a year ago about the problem with the factory freezer trawler. At the time, France had very large factory freezer fleet intentions in the area. When we came to the point of moving forward, I would suggest without adequate consultation although others would argue that there was adequate consultation, I found, when reading some old speeches in here, that we had harmed ourselves by moving forward quickly with the factory freezer trawler effort on our part. We had set a precedent where France was entitled to go ahead and do it. Our attempts to seek an arbitrated effort not to have France do it seemed ridiculous after we had approved that technology. Since Canada could use it in our areas, therefore, France reasoned, why should they not be able to? The problem of setting precedents by moving too quickly caused us some problem.
It has been some time now that I have moved into other areas as fisheries critic, but it seemed to me that some time ago Premier Peckford was very concerned about having more access into the northern cod stocks. On numerous occasions he spoke to the Government about the possibility of a mid-shore fleet, a fleet that would be able to move in and begin to harvest that resource and use more of to work for the people of Newfoundland.
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves tonight more than slightly ahead of ourselves and having to seize a very nasty problem and move forward with it, without having dealt with the requests of Newfoundland to move in and harvest those stocks, so that Newfoundland might not feel so completely deprived by this agreement. Had several things moved forward, maybe with a little more caution on the factory freezer trawler issue, maybe with assistance in developing that mid-shore fleet and access to the northern cod stocks, at this time when we find ourselves in need of national consensus to deal with a nation like France, a tough, hard bargainer in any forum, had we taken those types of procedures earlier, we may not have been faced with the potential for a serious split in national consensus that we do need.
January 28, 1987

To clarify the record, I have known my Leader in this Party for many years. Of all the people that I know who would never recommend an armed intervention in this type of situation, the Member of Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is the individual. Whether we debate it, or whether it was misunderstood, it is simply not correct to say that.
We have a very difficult situation. In the debate tonight and at other times when looking at some of the ways in which this House operates, one does get a little embarrassed. I must admit that there are times when even I am embarrassed at my own behaviour. We tend to get carried away.
On a serious issue like this, there is a basic need for unity in approach against other nations. There is really a need to attend a process. For Canadians to be effective in the world, there has to be scrupulous attention paid to the process of making sure that consultation has taken place, that the concerns and fears of other people have been examined and dealt with to the greatest degree possible, so that we can all move forward together.
I am certain it is difficult for the Government at this particular point in time to have Premiers in the Atlantic provinces expressing serious concerns on a major initiative which really needs support and unity to deal effectively with them. This will now take its course. The Government has bit the bullet and moved on. For better or for worse, the moving finger having writ moves on.
However, we are faced with many other issues. Recently we in the House debated the free trade problem. There is not consensus in the country on that issue. There will not be unity in facing the United States. There were some serious problems with the softwood lumber deal. In a speech which I made in the House my expression of concern was more that the Premier of British Columbia had undercut a national effort which had gone on for quite a long time. I guess there is a time when there is some need for consensus in an approach to solve an extremely difficult problem. There is a need, on the part of the Government, to go through the process of consultation to ensure that there is a field on which the maximum consensus achievable can be attained. On the part of the Opposition, I think there comes a point, when the country faces another nation in a very difficult situation which is critical for Canada, where we must look at facing it together to the best degree possible.
There are other such areas in British Columbia; this is certainly not the last one to go. I and many people in British Columbia have serious concerns about the Canada-U.S. salmon interception treaty. Most people on the West Coast remember very seriously that the document was pushed forward quickly and without adequate consultation, we feel, in order to be signed at a meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States in Quebec City. There are those people who would argue that it was not done hastily. So be it. However, in the minds of many
people it was. What was the motivation which pulled that agreement forward? It seemed to be more the Shamrock Summit than certainly the needs and concerns of the people who would live under its terms.
There is another issue. The St. Pierre and Miquelon dispute is not the last time we will have troubles with our neighbours. I draw to the attention of the House a serious problem with the A-B line bordering the northern part of British Columbia and Alaska. The Americans have claimed an equidistant operation. The old A-B line is not acceptable to them. They would move it out further. It would give them enormous access to Canadian fishery resources. The Americans have issued oil and gas leases on the other side of the A-B line. Canadians, fishermen who live in my constituency, have been arrested by armed American vessels on the other side of the line. They have fished on Canadian charts which show that to be Canadian waters.


J. Michael Forrestall: Does that have anything to do with the motion before the House?


Raymond John Skelly: That process has begun. The Hon. Member brings me back to the topic at hand. However, I would stress with him that there will be an enormous battle in the House once again unless the process is followed. It is of extreme concern to Canadians what happens in that northwestern corner where the A-B line sits. It is a gate which controls some of the richest fishery resources of Canada. If we do not do it properly, we stand the risk of losing them.
I would urge that the mistakes which have been made-and I use the term "mistakes"-be carefully examined and hopefully not repeated.
I think we have had an extremely vigorous debate tonight. I think the Speaker chose wisely by rating this problem serious enough for an emergency debate in the House. I think there has been a full debate on it. Hopefully the agreements which are put forward with France can be ones in which Canadians have a stake and on which Canadians work together. Hopefully the Government will move forward and try to assist Newfoundland with its very justified concerns. There have been concerns expressed about factory freezer trawlers and about the ability of Newfoundlanders to share in the wealth in those northern stocks. Hopefully they would be listened to and, even though late, there would be an opportunity to move in quickly, not only to bring Premier Peckford on side in seeking a solution, but to deal with the issue of trying to provide for Newfoundland fair and effective access to those resources, so that Canadians living in Newfoundland can be beneficiaries of our resources.
There is much to be done. Hopefully the Government will move forward from here in a positive direction, so that Canadians can back it, to whatever degree possible, in its endeavours to obtain a decent agreement with France.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join with my colleagues

January 28, 1987
from Atlantic Canada and from other parts of this great country to speak on a topic of tremendous interest and importance to the fishing industry and fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
The Canada-France boundary and fisheries agreement which we are debating tonight is really not an agreement. In first year law I was taught that an agreement to agree is not an agreement; it is merely a statement of intention. The Minister made very clear that there was no agreement. He simply said that there was an intention to proceed with a program which should lead to settlement of the dispute over the maritime boundary off the south coast of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon and to provide fishing quotas for France for 1988 to 1991 while the boundary is being determined.
The question many Canadians are asking themselves these days is: How is it that France is in our waters? How is it that France has any access to so-called Canadian fish? All Canadians must realize that until 10 years ago these fish were international fish and there was no such thing as a 200-mile economic zone. International law had not evolved to the point where a country such as Canada could declare a 200-mile economic zone, that being 200 miles from the coastline of our country or to the edge of the continental shelf.
Over the last 25 years we have reached the point in international law where coastal states have recognized jurisdiction over certain resources, marine and under the sea bed adjacent to the land. Those rights which Canada has accrue to other coastal states. Whether or not we like it, St. Pierre and Miquelon are part of France and when we speak about them we speak about France. Attached to that land mass are similar rights accorded to France under international law. Of course it is known by Members of the House that France cannot go 200 miles from St. Pierre and Miquelon without intersecting an area which falls within 200 miles of Canada. There we have the disputed zone.
Where will the line be drawn? The international court of justice has a series of rules, some of which are complicated equidistant rules and others which reflect the continental shelf, the land mass, et cetera. Ultimately these boundaries can only be decided in such a forum. Such was the case in the Georges Bank issue which was settled between Canada and the United States.
It was with a view to settling this dispute and exercising some control over the fishing effort of France that Canada has been attempting to strike an accord with France. We want an accord with France because to this point France has exercised no control over its fishing efforts in the disputed zone. France's fishing effort represented a threat to the continued health and viability of the entire Atlantic fishery off Newfoundland. It is with this motivation that Canada moved to negotiate or attempt to reach some kind of accord. From where else does France get its right to fish other than from international law?
There are three principal historical documents on which the French base their fishing rights. First is a 1972 treaty between Canada and France. Second is a 1982 agreement between Canada and the European Economic Community and third is a 1984 exchange of notes between Canada and France of June, 1984. For the interest of all Canadians, these three agreements were entered into by the former Liberal Government. It is, therefore, the ultimate hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition Liberal Party over the last two days to say that it accepts no responsibility for the fishing effort that France has expanded into Canadian economic zones.
The Liberal Party is not being consistent. It is clear that the Liberal Party is not putting the facts before the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. It is clear that the Liberal Party views this dispute or uncertainty as an opportuntity to gain votes, the votes of people who are concerned about their continued economic viability. Fishermen in this country and in Atlantic Canada who expend a great deal of effort and incur great risk to put food on the table deserve more and better. The treatment they receive from the Liberal Party is shameful.
Just what is it that Canada has agreed to do, Mr. Speaker? Canada has agreed to talk. Nothing else. There is no giveaway of cod or any other fish to France. In fact, the record should show that there is more than a 50 per cent reduction in the cod allocation to France for 1987 over 1986. In 1986, French vessels caught 21,000 tonnes of cod. In 1987, that figure will drop to 8,000 tonnes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lawrence I. O'Neil: The Opposition accuses us of going easy on France. It is quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. We hear a lot about a treaty expiring in December 1986. What expired was only the right of French vessels to fish in the gulf region. The treaty itself, signed by the Liberal Party, is a perpetual treaty, a perpetual obligation on the people of Canada and the fishermen of Atlantic Canada to share their fishing resource with a foreign country. We reject that. We also heard earlier in tonight's debate from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who selectively quoted statistics and compared apples and oranges. The contrast put before the people of Canada and Members of the House is not valid. It was misleading. It did not reflect the reality in which we find ourselves.
What about France's jurisdictional rights? What were the options? We heard from earlier speakers that Canada had three options, having decided that it wanted to resolve this problem. It could have reached a voluntary accord with France. Our Government tried and, like other Governments, it was unsuccessful. We then decided to pursue the objective of an arbitrated settlement, a third party settlement. What we are talking about tonight is whether or not a mechanism that has been agreed upon will result in a third party settlement.
January 28, 1987

Most alarming was to hear from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that we should have put our war boats in the water and that we should have used military force to deal with this issue. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the Canadian way. I suggest that that is not a route to be followed by any leader of a civilized nation. There are easier, better and more effective ways of solving a problem. There are more mature ways in the international community to resolve a problem than to pursue such aggression. The need for determination of the boundary, as I said, has become serious because of French overfishing in the area.
France has been taking advantage of the fact that the boundary has not been settled. In these circumstances, Canada cannot enforce Canadian fishing regulations in the large area France claims off the south coast of Newfoundland. The French fleets have expanded their fishery in this area to an enormous extent. While the customary share for France of a total allowable catch for cod in the area off the south coast of Newfoundland was 6,400 tonnes in 1986 and is again in 1987, in fact the French fleet caught approximately 26,000 tonnes of cod and had planned to take approximately 25,000 tonnes in 1987. This rate of overfishing produces a total catch of about
60,000	tonnes as compared with a total allowable catch established by Canada of 41,000 tonnes.
This represents a serious risk to the cod stock off the south coast of Newfoundland which is rapidly becoming depleted. The French have taken a position that they will not agree to refer the boundary dispute to an international tribunal in the absence of another agreement. Again, that underlies the whole point that there is no agreement to debate. There is simply a concensus as to a mechanism for resolving a very difficult international problem, and the resolution of this problem has eluded Liberal Governments that have preceded us.
As a Nova Scotian Member of Parliament, I feel that I must respond and I must comment on a press release which was telexed to me from Gordon E. Cummings, President and Chief Executive Officer of National Sea Products Limited.


J. Michael Forrestall: He is not a Nova Scotian.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: He is not a Nova Scotian but a resident. He is from Bay Street and is an active member of the Liberal Party. The press release reflects concern about the fishing industry and much concern about the political industry. The telex is really without basis in fact. It criticizes the Government and suggests that the Government of Canada has taken fish from Nova Scotia fishermen. This is clearly not true. The suggestion being put forward is that Nova Scotian jobs will be lost. This is not true, Mr. Speaker. If anything is true, this whole issue indicates the drive with which the Government of Canada is attempting to secure employment for the fishermen of Canada and the fishing processors.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He should be asked to resign.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I would like to join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) in expressing
my deep regret upon reading in the provincial newspaper of Nova Scotia that this same Mr. Cummings viewed this communication with the Government of France as an attempt to gain votes in Quebec. What is being said and articulated and I believe what is being revealed is bigotry. Why bring the people of Quebec into this debate as we negotiate with the Government of France? I have the honour to represent an area that has thousands of people who speak the French language. Why were the thousands of Acadians not singled out? This is a reference that I find most objectionable and offensive. It is an attempt to introduce, if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker, a red herring.
When people cannot deal with the facts in a debate, they try to put up straw men. This reference in The Chronicle Herald forces me to conclude that this particular gentleman is unprepared to deal with the facts, that he does not know what the facts are and that those facts do not support the conclusion that he wants to reach in any case.
There may be some legitimate complaints that can be raised about the lack of communication in the last week but let those complaints be complaints about the lack of communication, not an attack on the merits of a worth-while initiative. Let those complaints be recognized for what they are. They are simply a criticism indicating that perhaps there was not sufficient consultation and communication.
I do not believe that it is correct for anyone to suggest that all of this has been a tremendous surprise. Negotiations have been ongoing for months in this entire issue. It was inevitable that a point would be reached as it was on the weekend. The issues and options did not change that much and a choice was made. It was a choice that was on the table for some time.
As I prepare to close, I as other Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada want to state my commitment to ensuring that the fishing industry, the backbone of the economy of Atlantic Canada, will continue to be well and aggressively represented by Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. We will ensure that Members of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative caucus speak with an independent voice and are not trained seals. We were not the ones who sat in this Chamber in 1972, 1982 and 1984 when the federal Government of the day executed agreements with the Government of France and the European Economic Community, agreements that signed away the fishing resource that properly belonged to the people of Atlantic Canada. That is the issue to which the Liberal Opposition must respond but they refuse to address it. In the days that follow, that is the issue that Liberal Members will be forced to address by the people of Atlantic Canada who are listening tonight and hearing the facts. They will want to hear an explanation of the activities of the Liberal Government in those years. They will applaud the efforts of this Government and the Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada to put behind us those mistakes and to secure for all time and for all Canadians the

January 28, 1987
right to harvest and manage the fishing resource of Canada for the betterment of all Canadians.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that Members of the House should have a careless disregard for the truth as they speak and present their cases to a national television audience, they hope, and certainly to all Atlantic fishermen in the area. I do not believe that a Party should suggest that a debate go beyond midnight and then evacuate the House. I think that is a fair statement to make and I hope someone in the fishing community of Atlantic Canada is aware that that is what has happened. It is a farcical motion to move if one is not prepared to support it. Obviously the Liberal Party was not prepared to support its suggestion for an all-night debate. Where are they?
I listened to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) and I must say that in all the speeches I have heard in the House since I came here in 1972, I have never heard a more careless disregard for facts as I did while he presented his case to Canada and the Canadian fishing industry. I wish to address that.
The Hon. Member mentioned surveillance. It was a Liberal Government that made a deal with France that in the disputed area, we would not have surveillance over their boats for the amount of catch they took and they in turn would not have surveillance over ours. That was the Liberal deal with France. The difference was that the Canadian boats that fished within that territory landed at Canadian points and were subject to Canadian quotas. They could not catch beyond that limit. There was no such condition imposed upon the French fleet. They could catch to their heart's content and we had no rights or privileges to surveillance, examination or to board them because we surrendered those rights under a Liberal Government.
If the fishery policy of the former Government was so good, why was the Minister not re-elected to the House of Commons? He was defeated in a fishing community. Following the political map throughout the Gaspe, the Gulf, down the East Coast of New Brunswick, into Nova Scotia and over to Newfoundland, how did it happen that the Liberals lost so many seats to the Conservative Party. If the Liberal policy was so good, why did this happen? Not one former Liberal Fisheries Minister now sits in this House. Two of them had to seek haven in the other place and the third was defeated. One cannot speak very well for one's Party when that is the history of its Ministers.
Hon. Members spoke about surveillance. The Fisheries Committee, including the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and later the Hon. Member for Egmont, heard Conservative Members emphasize surveillance meeting after meeting. When we pointed out that the herring quota within our own waters had probably been exceeded threefold because of a lack of surveillance, we were mocked. The fact is that those on the coast of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. or the Gulf knew that the quota of herring was
being caught threefold and surveillance was not part of the program.
A member of the crew of one of the boats that was supposed to be on surveillance duty in the North Atlantic came before members of our committee and said: "I have been afloat all summer in a fisheries boat which is supposed to be surveilling the catch of the foreign fleets. We have never seen a foreign boat pull its gear from the water so that we could examine what was in that catch. We have never seen a foreign boat come to the mother ship and unload its catch. We have never been permitted to go into a hold of a Russian factory ship to see what was in it". That is the surveillance to which the Hon. Member for Egmont referred. That was a mockery of surveillance.
When surveillance was discussed in committees, I can remember the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) saying repeatedly that within our 200-mile limit, it looked like a city at sea because there were so many lights from the factory boats and their suppliers. Yet, as we were told, we never saw a boat haul in its gear or unload onto the factory ship and we never got into the hold of a boat. The Hon. Member for Egmont says we were doing the surveillance. Then, on top of that, they abandoned surveillance in the disputed territory except for Canadian boats.
The Hon. Member also mentioned the duty on fish. I believe the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate and the Hon. Member for Egmont were on that committee. We had to deal with a very difficult situation in our trade with the U.S. It was pointed out repeatedly that if we established a government-supported company in the fish processing industry we would unavoidably be subject to duty by the U.S. There was no way we could get the Liberal Government of the day to do anything but establish a subsidized company. Yes, duty was applied and the Hon. Member for Egmont says that is all the fault of this Government. That is just another one of the deceptive statements made in this House and we and the people of Canada deserve an apology.
I am sure that viewers did not get a different impression of the statement of the Hon. Member for Egmont than I did. He said the nose and tail of the bank were surrendered by this Government. The facts are that in the negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference and in the establishment of the 200-mile limit, Canada dropped its right to the ownership of the resource in the coastal waters and under the sea bed. That treaty was approved by coastal states about 30 years ago. The only nation which supported Canada on the 200-mile limit issue was India. They were mad at us because they have a 600-mile coastal shelf and they could not afford, they felt, to surrender any of their rights in that shelf in view of the Coastal Nations Treaty. However, we put it on the table and that is where the Fishing privileges on the nose and tail of the bank went down the tube before we even negotiated anything.
January 28, 1987

We were told by the Liberal Minister of Fisheries that NAFO will look after that. That is the same group that was precluded from the coast of North America, from Florida north, by virtue of the 200-mile limit. The only waters available to an international fishing fleet without regulation are on the nose and tail of the bank. That was surrendered without a fight as we so generously put them on the table to the detriment of the fishing industry. NAFO will not do the surveillance or designate anyone with authority to do the surveillance. It is fished indiscriminately and our efforts to maintain stocks at a reasonable level just cannot be maintained as long as that very fruitful area is left without surveillance and fished indiscriminately. We also gave permits to fish within our 200-mile limits to Cuba. That country already had its own 200-mile limit and in no way needed more fishing territory.
That is the history of the Liberal Party. It was received with great disfavour by the voters who pretty well cleaned the Liberals out in the Gaspe, the east coast of New Brunswick, and a few in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. That is the reception their policy got and they are trying to say that they looked after the fishermen. The voters did not think so then and they will not think so later. From the abandonment of our fish, to the abandonment of the seal hunt, right straight through to the nose and tail of the bank, the Liberal policy failed and the voters told them so. Any pretense that France has not given up many of its rights or that the treaties are still not in place is just that, a pretense. The only treaty the Hon. Member for Egmont mentioned which is not in force is that part which allowed the metropolitan fleet into the gulf area. That expired in 1986. The rest of the treaty is still in place. They will still fish without surveillance by virtue of a Liberal treaty.
It is a sad day when an issue cannot be debated on its merits and on its truth and when the people of Canada cannot rely on the statements of those who would incite, excite and mislead them. It is a deplorable situation that the Party which did so much of that in this debate has vacated the House to the last man. The Party that moved the motion now has one Member in the House. That is the seriousness with which this debate has been taken. I hope Canadians will note that. Canadians have been misled by their speeches. That is the reputation those two Parties put together for themselves.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate very briefly in this emergency debate for really just one reason. I want to give an overview of how I, as a Member from Atlantic Canada, see this issue. Let me begin by saying that Atlantic Canada has a very proud and ancient history. It did not start in 1867 with Confederation. It started centuries before that and very much involved the Atlantic fishery. It very much involved fishermen from France, Spain and Portugal who travelled here at great risk to fish the waters of the North Atlantic. We in Atlantic Canada know the contribution Europeans have made to the Atlantic Fishery. We know the history of Atlantic Canada on land and in the ocean.
We know the Province of Newfoundland, which is so affected by the issue of stocks in the Atlantic Fishery, was founded by those who braved the Atlantic waters in search of Fish they needed to feed their people. We know the history and recognize the facts.
Today, in 1987, the fishery is one of the richest resources in the world. In a world starved for protein we now recognize, once and hopefully for all time, the importance of the fish resources of Atlantic Canada. I hope every Canadian from the East Coast to the West Coast recognizes its value just as we recognize the value of the oil resources of Alberta and the grain resources of the prairie provinces. It is in this connection that we must move to protect this resource and preserve it for all Canadians. In order to protect that resource we must recognize the history of all the nations which were involved in the Atlantic fishery, which history extends back 500 years or more. I am sure all Canadians remember the voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1492 which led to the discovery of North America, the voyages of Jacques Cartier and all the other explorers, and the proud history of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. This is all part of our heritage and we understand that very clearly in Atlantic Canada.
The historic event which gives rise to the difFiculty which we face on the floor of the House of Commons today is the establishment of the 200-mile economic zone. The establishment of that zone is the most important incident which we have to deal with in this context. All those centuries were compressed to result in the imposition of the 200-mile zone. Therefore, those who say that there was a simple solution, that something very simple could have been done to right the problems of 500 or 600 years, are not dealing with reality.
Only 30 years ago the Soviets, for example, plundered the fishery of Atlantic Canada. Many nations took whatever fish stocks they could by whatever methods they could employ. There was absolutely no control on the fish stocks off the Atlantic coast. Only when the economic zone was established in 1972 were we able to get any control over the situation.
It has taken a long process of evolution to get us to this point. As well as recognizing the history, we must recognize what was involved in the dramatic event of the establishment of the 200-mile economic zone. When it was established we all knew that nothing would change overnight. We gained control of the zone through a long process.
The subject of this emergency debate is the participation of France in the Atlantic Fishery. We very recently had the same problem with Spain which Fished in Atlantic Canada for centuries. Spain is now excluded from the zone through actions of the Government of Canada in order to protect that Fish resource for Canadians. We have turned away the followers of Christopher Columbus who Fished in Atlantic waters for centuries. We required those fishermen to adhere to agreements established through the European Economic Community.

January 28, 1987
It is misleading to suggest that it has been a simple process or that there are simple solutions to this problem which has evolved over the centuries. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Atlantic Canada, to suggest that there is a simple solution, a specific action which can be taken to right the problems which accumulated throughout centuries in relation to the Atlantic Canada fishery. Anyone who has dealt with this issue over any period of time knows that it is a long and difficult process to obtain for Canada complete control of the 200-mile economic zone in Atlantic Canada. That is the ultimate goal. However, people should not be so anxious. It has taken 500 years to get to this point. We cannot overcome those centuries of activity in a decade or two.
When the Liberal Party was in power in Canada it made, at best, slow progress toward attaining total control of the economic zone. We are taking new steps in the process to gain the ultimate goal of total control. In that connection we must recognize that various European countries, particularly Spain, Portugal and France, have fished in Atlantic waters. That must be overcome over a period of time. Some of the specific problems have been dealt with, but the right of France to fish in Atlantic waters has not been overcome.
Particular difficulty arises from the presence of St. Pierre and Miquelon in what would otherwise be our national waters. Everyone involved in the Atlantic fishery knows of the existence of St. Pierre and Miquelon and of the traditional rights of the French to fish in Atlantic waters. The problem is what to do about it. How can the problem be resolved? How can we put in place a mechanism to deal with the problem? We are trying to eliminate the mischief of the rights of four nations to fish in Atlantic waters. In relation to France, that is only one part of the problem.
Those who would make more of it than only an evolution of the problem which has existed for centuries, which has been particularly prominent in the last four or five decades, are not being fair with the people of Canada. They know that there is and has been a problem and that it must be resolved. The question is how to do that. I defy anybody in this House or in Atlantic Canada to deny that there is a problem with regard to foreign intervention in the Atlantic fishery.
The Government of Canada has proceeded on the course of resolution of the problem. To disagree with the specifics of how the Government of Canada has attempted to resolve the problem is only to quarrel with relatively minor details. One must agree that the problem must be resolved in a manner which solicits the concurrence of the international community. It cannot be resolved by unilateral action.
That raises the matter of gunboats. We know that that kind of unilateral action has never in the history of the world resolved any problem. It is very clear, based on the history of Atlantic Canada and its fishery, that there is a problem with respect to foreign participation in the Atlantic fishery. There is a very specific problem with regard to the participation of France in the Atlantic fishery which, in turn, is related to the
existence of St. Pierre and Miquelon as a French territory. Everyone recognizes that that is a problem in connection with the traditional fishing activity of France in Atlantic Canada over the centuries.
That problem must be resolved and it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise. The question is: how does one resolve it? I have yet to hear anyone suggest in the House a way to resolve the problem. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) would be amenable to any suggestion from any Member of the House who could tell the Minister how to resolve the problem in a manner that did not involve any concessions on the Atlantic fish stock. No one has made that suggestion, apart from blowing them out of the water. Anyone who has taken that kind of approach has been sunk himself. We know that this is not a solution.
The Government of Canada, following the precedents of international negotiations in the last decade or more, has arrived at what it believes, through the Minister of Fisheries, is a step toward a resolution of the problem. Let the person who has a better solution to the problem come forward and resolve it in another way. However, they must be prepared to take the risk of failure of the solution. That is a risk that falls to us as members of the Government, supporting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We recognize that we must take the risk of the failure of the solution that has been proposed. That is the lot of those who govern. However, it is not the lot of those in opposition to take the risk of failure of the solutions that they may propose as alternatives. In short, it means nothing for someone in opposition to say that we should take another course of action than that which we propose. They take no responsibility.
The Minister and the Government have recognized that there is a problem with respect to the Atlantic fishery in relation to the participation of the French in that Fishery. A solution has been proposed and the Government of Canada is prepared to take the risk of the failure of that solution. What more can one ask of the Government? I rise in support of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has at least proposed a solution to a problem that has existed for more than 500 years and has been present in Atlantic Canada since the very foundation of this country in 1867. It has come to prominence in the decade or more since the establishment of the economic zone.
The case, simply stated, is that there is a problem and the Government of Canada has proposed a solution. It has done so in good faith, to the best of its ability, and the Government is prepared to take the risk of failure of that solution.
Let me conclude by simply dealing with those who would argue that this is not a good solution. I repeat emphatically that no one has proposed another solution. Those of us who were elected by the people of Atlantic Canada have an important duty to represent the best interests of Atlantic Canada and make certain that the interests of the people of
January 28, 1987

Atlantic Canada are protected in this Parliament and in the Government. That is why I take grave and great exception to the remarks of an individual who, in this case, heads National Sea Products, an important fishing company in Atlantic Canada. I am referring to Gordon Cummings and the remarks he made that have been referred to by my colleagues, the Hon. Member or South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). Those remarks are to the effect that the Government of Canada has sold out Atlantic Canada. We in Atlantic Canada have supported the Atlantic fishery, and our colleagues in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have supported Nova Scotia in the establishment of a factory freezer trawler and other initiatives designed to enhance the Atlantic fishery particularly for the benefit of Nova Scotia. For anyone in the position of a director president of a private enterprise company that has drawn on the resources of the Government and people of Canada to say that there is a sellout of the East Coast fishery is contemptible in the worst degree. We will not stand for that.
If Mr. Cummings wants to stand before the people of Nova Scotia and seek election to this House of Commons where he can represent the views of Atlantic Canada, let him do so. However, if he is going to stand up and say that we are selling out Atlantic Canada, he will have to answer for it. I can tell Mr. Cummings that when he comes to Ottawa to seek assistance for his company, we are only going to consider the interests of the people of Nova Scotia, the employees of the company and those who are employed in the Atlantic fishery. We will not take that kind of nonsense from a business executive who denies the interest of Atlantic Canada and the people of Atlantic Canada in favour of the profits of his particular company. We are here to protect Atlantic Canada and we will protect it for all the people, but mostly from the Gordon Cummings.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, if my distinguished friend from the great City of Montreal does not want to participate-


Marcel Prud'homme: I did not say that. You continue, I will listen.


J. Michael Forrestall: My intention was only to thank the staff and express appreciation for all their efforts. I also want to express appreciation for this motion having come forward this evening. I suggest to the House and my hon. friends from both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party that perhaps they have now learned a very fundamental lesson about our distinguished Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who talked about parliamentary reform and the rights of back-benchers to make their mark. This has been a free and open debate and I think it has been very enlightening.
I wish only to commend the House for the level of debate and commend those who participated for their thoughtfulness and very deep concern about the issue that is before us. Above
all, I want to thank the staff who have been here with us so patiently for these almost six hours.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, of course, I will join with my friend who just spoke in thanking all of the staff and yourself for your patience.

In fact, my main reason for taking part in this debate is that I would like to make a few comments on some of the speeches given in the House this evening.
I must say, Sir, that having been here since eight o'clock, like those who are still in the House, it is very enlightening for an urban Member of Parliament to get acquainted with a very important issue. I do not want to be facetious, but I will say I was impressed with the speech of the last speaker, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), which I listened to on the television in the lobby. I am sorry there were not more Hon. Members in the House because it is a very important issue. We could have learned a lot.


J. Michael Forrestall: You were the only Liberal in the House for four hours.


Marcel Prud'homme: If my friend wants to be-


J. Michael Forrestall: You were the only Liberal in the House for four hours.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, if the Hon. Member wants to be disagreeable, as usual, he knows perfectly well that I can be even more so-

And a lot more than he, I can assure the Hon. Member. I am making comments now and I do not think he should be desagreable, as we say in French. I have shown courtesy to every Hon. Member tonight. I have listened because I am interested. He cannot blame me for being interested in learning about a very important subject. I was present-


J. Michael Forrestall: You were not present.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I wish either the gentleman would leave the room or behave, as I know he always does.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will come back and challenge you on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have been in the House of Commons-


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to comments or otherwise of Hon. Members in the Chamber, my distinguished friend has not been here. He has not been in this Chamber. There has not been a member of the Liberal Party in this Chamber for the last three or four hours.

January 28, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must rule that this is not a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will certainly raise a question of privilege. If my hon. friend reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see most likely that I was recorded all night as saying: "Mike, Mike". I was addressing myself to him, asking him to shut up, as I do now. All night I have been here and all night I have listened to every speech, so much so that I will quote from every single one. I intended to say only a few words, but I will now take my 20 minutes and if the Hon. Member keeps interrupting, he will get more.
I was impressed by the speech of the Hon. Member for Halifax West from whom I learned a lot. It gave me great pleasure to listen to the exceptional speech tonight of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). He was so good that even the Leader of the New Democratic Party came to shake his hand and congratulate him. Everyone who listened to that Hon. Member, and to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), and others, was extremely impressed. The Hon. Member for Carleton- Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said we were not present. Well, I must have ears which can hear outside of the House because I listened to his complete speech when he said we were not present. The same applies to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) who said we Liberals participated in the debate tonight strictly for votes. I did not know that Mr. Peckford and Mr. Buchanan were Liberal, unless they switched allegiance today.


An Hon. Member:: They were not even in debate tonight.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member for Carleton- Charlotte said the Liberals were eliminated and our lack of interest in the fisheries eliminated us. It seems that he is not aware of the results of the last election. We were eliminated almost all across the country, not only in the Maritimes. But it will be interesting for the Hon. Member to know that the place we had the most success was in the Atlantic Provinces. Seven Members were elected. That represents 22 per cent of the Members there. Of the 250 Members left in Canada, we only took 13 per cent, so we did rather well, especially in Newfoundland which is the subject of the debate tonight. Three Members of the Liberal Party were elected out of seven.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso keeps talking. I must say to the Hon. Member who interrupted me earlier-and I have seen so many Hon. Members in and out that we are used to a one-term Member, and I hope that this would not apply to him-that if he keeps being disagreeable, as he seems to be tonight, he may be a one-term Member. Therefore, I do not think we should pay much attention to what he is saying.
The real reason I want to participate has nothing to do, really, with what has been said tonight. I wanted to listen
because for so many years I have listened, and this is a part of Canada which is of great interest to me.
I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that someone is going to get it, and it is not going to be me, if those Hon. Members keep interrupting. I have listened politely for 23 years to arguments. We may disagree but at least we listen to each other.
What is my main motivation?

You know I am a Francophone, a French-Canadian, that my heritage is French and that every time we have a debate in which one of our two mother countries is involved, whether it be Great Britain which gave me its political institutions-

You may laugh at that if you like.

But my political institutions come from Great Britain, respect them and I think they are probably among the best political institutions in the world. That is what Great Britain means to me. France gave me my cultural blood, what I am today. That is why when we have a debate where either both or one of our mother countries is involved, a debate that might arouse feelings among some people, feelings we would rather not see aroused, we must be very sensitive and realize what the debate is really about. 1 was delighted to hear one or two Members say that it was not engraved in stone. It was a consensus, not an agreement.
I have been listening very closely, and there is one thing I learned from the debate this evening, and I say this for the benefit of my friends at the French Embassy who will certainly be reading the proceedings. Anyone who knows anything about international politics realizes that this evening's debate will be followed very carefully and read by Ottawa's Department of External Affairs and by the French Embassy to find out what the mood was in Parliament during a debate involving this country and France. I hope they understand it would not have been in the best interests of either Canada or France if either country were to feel it had come out the winner.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that the problem has been going on for some time. It is very difficult to find a solution. I agree. I learned something from his speech. I am one of those who after 23 years, naively perhaps, still listen to the speeches of these Members because we come from all regions of Canada and we can learn something by listening to others. I did learn something this evening.
I am glad to say in French that I did learn a lot from my colleagues from the Atlantic Provinces. But I know as well that if one of the two sides-Canada or Canadians, and the French-were to gain a lot from these negotiations, one or the other will inevitably become quite frustrated. Experience has taught us that all boundary problems are always potentially very dangerous and very explosive because this kind of difficulties can indeed have dire consequences. We know that. There are in excess of 100 boundary problems in the world, Mr. Speaker,
January 28, 1987

in Latin America and in a number of other countries which every time run the risk of witnessing individuals tearing at each other. That is the last thing we want to see happening between Canada and France, obviously.
So this evening I heard something I knew already, but still I listened to all the speeches, I repeat, all the speeches of my colleagues, and we do have a major problem on our hands. It is unbelievable, simply unbelievable.
It just cannot be that a group of people can be so unhappy. I am talking now about the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces, especially those in Newfoundland. There must be something wrong somewhere. That is why I wish to attract the attention of the House and the attention of the Government to this issue. The Government must be extremely careful.
Yes, it is true that in 1984 Canadians had enough of the Liberal Party. We were severely rejected. But that is democracy.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you talk about fish?


Marcel Prud'homme: Canadians made their choice but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "I want to offer you a program on this and that. I want to have a new era in federal-provincial consultations". We were told in 1984 that the Liberals were arrogant. We were told that the Government always wanted to have its way. There may be some truth in that. At any rate, Canadians saw fit to reject the Liberals. But the Prime Minister was elected on something that he keeps repeating. Everyone knows that the Right Hon. Prime Minister is a friend of mine. I would not attack him. But I do remember one thing because I had to face that election. As a matter of fact, it was my best in 23 years, but that is on en passant. It was my easiest election. It seems that that was not the case for some of my colleagues.
The Prime Minister talked about a new era of federal-provincial consultations. So I ask myself: Why is it today that the Premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are so unhappy? No one can deny us asking that question. How is it that the fishermen of Atlantic Canada seem to be so concerned and so unhappy? Why are we here tonight? Why is it that Members opposite had a chance to participate in this debate? It is because I asked that the debate be allowed to continue. That is why the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is still in his place. We would have sent him home at 12 o'clock if I had not asked for this extension. I asked for it because I wanted to listen to all of the Members from Atlantic Canada, not only those Members from the New Democratic Party who asked for this debate. I wanted to know where each Member from Atlantic Canada stands on this issue. I wanted to learn what there was to learn for the best interests of the Maritimes. So Members opposite participated. Why should we cut the debate off at midnight when Members opposite may want to put their views to the public?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is my right. Would you kindly ask the Hon. Member to settle down? Indeed, I am about to conclude-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor. I am sure Hon. Members will listen to him since he has approximately 10 minutes remaining.


Marcel Prud'homme: Truman said something along the lines of: "If you cannot stand my speech, it may not be the best I have made, you have the option to go home". So I suggest that perhaps, Mike-


J. Michael Forrestall: I have been here all night.


Marcel Prud'homme: I know. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has interrupted everyone tonight.


J. Michael Forrestall: Except for those who were speaking.


Marcel Prud'homme: And the Hon. Member is still doing it. I am trying to find the riding of the Hon. Member on the seating plan. I know him so well by his first name which is Mike. He is a friend of mine. He does not change, he is always the same. I ask him in the name of our long friendship to be calm for a few more minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I greatly admire your patience with the Government's provocation tactics. Of course they aren't used to being on the Government side and since it won't be long before they are back on the Opposition benches, we can't really blame them for taking advantage of some of the trappings of power, and heaven knows some are doing more than their fair share in that area nowadays. Mr. Speaker, I think the subject of this debate is far more serious than we think.

Politics is like that. We know when it is a serious debate and when it is a frivolous debate.
I wish to conclude my remarks by thanking all the Members who participated tonight. I want them to know that I have learned a great deal. I am very delighted and happy to have listened to them all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: I wish to emphasize the fact that it is not because some of us come from Montreal or western Canada that we have no interest in what is going on in other parts of Canada. I did not come here as a Quebecer. I came here as a Canadian from the Province of Quebec to participate and learn what is going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 28, 1987


Marcel Prud'homme: I will never neglect the affairs of Quebec, as Members opposite do not want to neglect the affairs of the Atlantic provinces. I thank them for enlightening us.
It seems to me that the malaise is much more profound- [Translation]
The feeling of unease is far more profound than Members have been willing to admit this evening. And if the effect of this debate was to make the Government think twice to avoid any future problems,

That is the exact reason why I participate. If there are Canadians from one part of the country who are absolutely unhappy, we know only too well where that will lead. It will lead to confrontation and people coming here to demonstrate on the Hill. I am not predicting the future. It seems obvious to me that that is what will happen. My father always told me when I had an important decision to make to think twice, and then think three times. He said that if no one says a word that means that I would be all right but that if people started quarrelling and if people said: "It cannot be. It cannot be", then there must be a problem. And as the Hon. Member from Halifax says, there is a time when one has to take a decision. I remind Hon. Members that this is not the end of the debate.
I would like for Members from the Atlantic provinces to remember that they were elected under a clear platform of consultation with the provinces. Two Premiers who are not Liberals seem to be extremely unhappy at this time. That is why I asked myself what is going on. Two Conservative Premiers are attacking a Conservative Government. That is quite unusual. It was enough to cause me to reflect. I will not apologize for participating in the debate tonight.
If Mr. Bourassa were to attack the Liberal Government in Ottawa, I would want to know what was going on. We are supposed to at least understand each other. But it seems that there is a great misunderstanding. I want the Government to be extremely careful in this case. No one needs this industry more than the people of the Atlantic provinces need it, in particular the people of Newfoundland. One does not need to come from Newfoundland to understand what the people there are going through.
When there is unemployment in Quebec, I know that there will always be more in the Atlantic provinces. I know that when not everyone is too rich in Quebec that in other parts of Canada there are some who are poorer. I do not want people in one part of Canada to say that the federal Government does not listen. I do not want them to say: "You should see what they do to us. They listen to us even less". That is not good federalism. That is not good understanding. That is not what the Government which was elected by Canadians was chosen to do. They were chosen on a platform of co-operation, listening, and new avenues in Canada. It was supposed to be great, a love-in. It seems the love-in has been broken today, and I want to know why. I thank Hon. Members for their attention. I thank the staff for having stayed so long.


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in the House at this time and to speak after the Hon. Members for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Those two Members have close to 50 years experience between them in this Chamber. Because of that, they have great knowledge about the institution and the important place it has in the lives of Canadians and of the East Coast fishery. This has been an important debate for the House.
I am pleased to acknowledge that 14 Members on the Government side of the House have participated in the debate, which indicates that this issue is very important to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. We have welcomed the debate. In fact, there are Members who may wish to speak after I am finished. I am not sure that will be the case. I notice that there were only 10 speakers from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. I will not chastise them for that. It is honourable that they were concerned about the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Sometimes I wonder how far their sincerity carried, because there have been a couple of speeches from Members opposite in which I do not think they mentioned fish in 20 minutes of dialogue. We will forgive them for that.
This debate has been important to Atlantic Canada. It has been important to members of our Party. It has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that members of the government Party can stand in the House and speak their own minds. They are not told to follow the Party line. If Members on this side of the House have questions, they are welcome to put those questions and challenge policy directions, and to provide direction on behalf of their constituents, their fishermen who are involved directly in the industry, and make sure that we get the best deal for Atlantic Canada.
It could also be for the inland fishery or the West Coast fishery. I mention that because it is perhaps a departure from what the House has seen over the last 25 years when members of the governing Party would follow the direction and policy laid down by the leader and the Cabinet of the day. That was a shame, because the Members were not given the opportunity to speak their own minds, to stand up for their constituents, and to influence government policy in the way Members have done here tonight. The House will function best if that opportunity continues.
In this debate, members of the Conservative Party have put the interests of Canadian fishermen first. They have said that other countries have fished within our territorial waters, and perhaps before they were established as our territorial waters, for hundreds of years. Yet the Government has taken it upon itself to conclude agreements which will establish for all time to come that that resource must first belong to the fishermen of Canada.
The Government has laid out a plan of action that will enable us and our fishermen to benefit from that resource for

January 28, 1987

years to come. Within the next year, the next five years, more and more benefits will flow to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada from our fishing resource and from within the 200 mile limit of the shores of Atlantic Canada. The Government has not been backward in approaching that objective in a deliberate way. There can be differences of opinion in how we achieve that objective. But there can be no question that this Party and this Government has as its objective obtaining the best possible opportunity in the next year, in the next five years, in the next 25 years, and in the next 100 years for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
I would only say beware of the sceptics of this plan. There are people who have expressed scepticism from the opposite side. They have listened to the debate and I think that they will conclude, as other Canadians will, that based on the remarks of Members on the government side, that we are proceeding on a course which will offer the best long term opportunities for fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to close by thanking the staff, yourself, and all of those who have participated in this debate until 2.15 this morning. It is 2.45 a.m. in Newfoundland and I am sure some of our supporters there are watching, and I am sure that they will be very pleased with the strong stand that the government Members have taken. With that, I would conclude the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I am satisfied that the debate is ended. I therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
This House stands adjourned until later this day at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.15 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 29, 1987