1987-11-20

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont) moved:: That this House condemn the Government for its inept management of Canada's fisheries in Atlantic Canada and its lack of political will to assert Canada's rights in the Canada-France dispute and for its willingness to allow Americans to exploit its weaknesses in order to gain control over processing in the fishing industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present this motion to the House pursuant to Standing Order 82(12).
This Government has been a major disappointment to our fishermen, especially, of course, inshore fishermen. Since 1984, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has ignored the needs of our fishermen. Time and time again this Government has tried to pinch every last dollar from our fisheries programs.
Let us review this Government's record. The budget estimates give us the big picture. In 1984-85 the Department's budget was about $690 million. In the first full year under this Government, 1985-86 the budget was slashed to $620 million. In 1986-87 it was cut even further to $550 million. This, of course, is roughly the budget for the current year.
Using the 1984-85 budget as a yard stick, this Government has accumulated nearly $350 million worth of cut-backs in this Department alone. Obviously, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) does not have any fishermen in his riding. In his November 1984 Economic Statement, the Minister of Finance announced that the Government would, among other things, privatize the Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan. Had this been carried out, many fishermen in our outlying communities would not have been able to insure their boats. Little wonder our fishermen were outraged and the Government had to change its mind. Indeed, the plan was kept, but the Government has now increased the premiums so high that fishermen can get cheaper rates from private companies. The Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan is now of little benefit to our fishermen.
In February 1986 the current Minister slashed the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program which was introduced in 1942. This program helped fishermen to purchase new vessels or upgrade the quality of those they already had. The program recognized that fishermen sometimes had problems setting aside enough savings for a large investment. The Minister, of course, may argue that the provincial loan boards already provide enough assistance for fishermen, but it should not be forgotten that provincial approvals often hinge on federal assistance.
By cancelling this program, the federal Government also caved in to the United States International Trade Commission. In its tariff ruling against our fish exports, the commission ruled that the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program provided a subsidy to our fishermen and was therefore countervailable. The Minister even admitted that the American ruling was an important factor in his decision to cut this program. We know that the American commission was under heavy pressure by a New England fish lobby to kick our fishing industry out of their market. But to have our own Fisheries Minister swallow this American argument hook, line and sinker is absolutely ridiculous.
The real reason for the American protectionism is the fact that our fish stocks are in better shape than theirs. The American belief in a free-for-all fishery has led to the depletion of their stocks.
The Government seems to have two ways to deal with programs for our fishermen, either eliminate them altogether, such as was done with the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program, or weaken them enough to make them practically worthless, such as was done with the Fishing Vessel Insurance Program.
Yesterday, we discussed the Government's record on the Small Craft Harbours Program. We can hardly mention the subject of fisheries without noting the tuna incident of 1985 and Dr. Art May, the former Deputy Minister of Fisheries, who became the fall guy for that controversy. Dr. May, a great Newfoundlander, was one of the key players in establishing Canada's fisheries management system, generally recognized now as the best in the world. He is a world class scientist who was able to talk to our fishermen. It is little wonder the morale of the Department has sunk so low.
Then there was the bail-out of Bayshore Tuna when the Minister rejected the advice of his own Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Advisory Committee and gave a quota of 401 tuna to Bayshore Tuna which then sold it to Japanese vessels. Bayshore Tuna received middleman profits for doing absolutely nothing. We

November 20, 1987
Supply
learned later that the lawyer for Bayshore Tuna was Mr. John Grant, a director of the Progressive Conservative Party's national executive and a Tory appointee on the Canadian Development Investment Corporation.
Then, to make matters worse, in January of this year we had the Canada-France agreement on quotas and boundaries. In order to get France to sit down to discuss the possibility of sending the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary dispute to international arbitration, Canada agreed to give France future considerations for quotas of northern cod. The deal was hatched in the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Even the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) may not have been consulted before the deal was signed. Of course, the Province of Newfoundland was completely ignored in the final negotiation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the regional Minister for Newfoundland was ignored. But the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans rose in the House to try to defend the indefensible. He could not.
The Minister of Transport, after forcing the Prime Minister to sign his letter of ultimatum, then became the federal Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador. Then the first thing the Minister of Transport did was make a video featuring himself, including a cameo appearance by the other Minister of Fisheries. The Province of Newfoundland was covered with pamphlets.
On March 5 the Minister of Transport told CBC Radio that his propaganda project would only cost $40,000. However, the newspaper reported that the video and pamphlets cost the Canadian taxpayers about $200,000. We know the Minister of Transport does not like his present job and that he would rather be in Finance, but he has ruined his chances with his splurge on these videos. He came in five times over budget. This is typical of Tory hyprocrisy. It cuts back on fishermen and spends freely on videos. To add insult to injury, the other Minister of Fisheries had to pick up half the cost of the Minister of Transport's publicity campaign.
It is hard to know who in the Conservative Government is standing up for the interests of our fishermen. Is it the Prime Minister's Office, External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Transport? Who in Cabinet is standing up for the interests of the fishermen? I do not believe we do not have anyone standing up for them.
I now want to turn to free trade in the fishery. The Prime Minister has hailed this trade deal as a cure for regional disparity. I would ask Hon. Members to remember that this is the same Prime Minister who, in 1984, said that he was not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland. The people of Atlantic Canada know differently. This Government has a poor record in keeping its promises.
The people of Prince Edward Island were very concerned about the federal Government's intention to sign a free trade deal with the United States. Their fears are now well justified. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) went to Prince Edward Island several weeks ago where she had a disastrous road trip. She insulted the United Church of Canada and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. On a radio show she declared, "It is not an appropriate thing for
the church to do. There is a lot of danger in a church group lining up with the Opposition Parties on economic issues". Just because some groups make independent appraisals of free trade that may coincide with that of the Opposition Parties against free trade, it does not say that they are lining up. They have the right to make their decisions on their own and should not be criticized for that. There is a great deal of danger, of course, as the Minister said, in these church groups lining up with Opposition Parties on economic issues. The Minister for International Trade does not like the message so she tries to shoot the messenger. I can tell her that it will not work in Prince Edward Island.
The Prime Minister and his Ministers have said that a free trade deal will guarantee secure access for our fish in the American market. The U.S. market is our most important market, especially for our producers in Atlantic Canada. They have been extremely worried with the growing protectionism among American industries. The threat of countervail action is a very real concern, especially for our fishing industry which has fought two countervail actions in the past three years.
In January of 1985, the American Department of Commerce slapped a 24 per cent duty on our export of dried salt codfish. The then Acting Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, was asked if the Government was going to protect our access to that market. As reported at page 1823 of Hansard for January 30, 1985, in response to a question asked by myself, the Minister said:
At the appropriate time, if and when it becomes necessary for influence to
be exerted, the Prime Minister, because of his relationship with the President
of the United States, will be able to be very effective.
Not only did this duty remain in place but, as my colleagues have pointed out, many times since then there have been many more American countervail actions. The list even includes our fresh groundfish exports and a duty of 5.8 per cent was laid on them in March of 1986. There is no doubt that the Americans consider the seasonal UI benefits for fishermen as an unfair subsidy. Under current American trade law, which was also in place for the groundfish case, the UI benefits were not defined as an unfair subsidy to our fishermen because they were available to the general public, subject to certain criteria.
Against this experience it is hardly surprising that our fishing industry wanted protection from those countervail actions. They are very expensive, time consuming and disruptive.
Has the free trade deal kept the Prime Minister's promise of secured access? Will our fishing industry be protected from future harassment? The answer is no. Even Simon Reisman has now admitted that the free trade deal does not protect us from American countervail actions.
To make matters worse, the free trade deal does not protect our fishing industry from the provisions of the omnibus trade Bill presently before the U.S. Congress. We know that the Prime Minister calls the binational review panel a great achievement. But the panel can only decide if trade laws have been fairly applied. But what if the trade law is unfair to begin with?
November 20, 1987

Let us look at one provision of the U.S. trade bill which defines an unfair subsidy. It defines it as "any advantage that would not exist but for government action". Under this definition our UI program could be interpreted as an unfair subsidy. The American fishing lobby could even launch more actions against our export. This legislation could be approved before the trade agreement takes effect on January 1, 1989.
The Minister for International Trade must have forgotten comments she made about this Bill during the free trade debate on March 16 of this year when she said, as reported at page 4178 of Hansard:
There are hundreds of protectionist Bills awaiting action in the Congress. That mood should convince even the most skeptical Canadians that our trading relationship with the Americans is under attack. The new trade Bill would resume that attack if we are unsuccessful in our trade negotiations.
The Minister for International Trade obviously knew about all those protectionist bills that were in the U.S. Congress. I, like most Canadian fishermen and most Canadians, would have thought that this would have been one of the most important items to be addressed in the free trade negotiations. Those should have been negotiated before any trade deal was signed. When we know that something is taking effect in the United States that will harm our industry, whether it is fishing, agriculture, or anything else, and we are dealing with that country, obviously that would have been one of the things that should have been negotiated and covered under a trade deal. The Minister has flunked her own test.
Other Ministers should also swallow their words. On July 2 the Minister of Transport told the St. John's Board of Trade, as reported in the Evening Telegram of July 2, 1987:
Unless we get out from under the threat of countervail and other U.S. trade remedy laws and unless there is an effective dispute resolution mechanism to bind the Americans to their commitments, a free trade agreement with the United States would not be a good deal for Canada.
That was stated by the Minister of Transport.
As mentioned earlier, Simon Reisman has admitted that the threat of countervail and other American trade remedies is still around. What has the fishing industry said about this so-called dispute settlement mechanism?
When he was commenting on the free trade, Ron Bulmer, the President of the Fisheries Council of Canada stated on the CBC radio fishermen's broadcast program:
Our disappointment of course, is in the binding dispute mechanism. We had hoped that there would be some real progress in that area ... we're not going to save a dime, we're not going to prevent being hassled so we didn't get what we wanted in the binding dispute mechanism?
The Minister of Transport should now realize that this is a bad deal. Of course, the Minister will argue that the removal of tariffs on higher processed fish products will create thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. I wonder if the Minister seriously thinks that Fisheries Products International will close its plants in Massachusetts to expand its plants in Newfoundland. That, Mr. Speaker, seems very unlikely. The Prime
Supply
Minister is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians, and I believe that he will not succeed.
Inshore fishermen, particularly those in northeastern Newfoundland have had four poor seasons in a row. In some communities, catches have dropped by as much as 75 per cent. The fishery is the only source of income.
While the large companies with the large offshore trawlers have done extremely well, the inshore fishery has been a dismal failure. The Minister of Transport says that the price of fish has increased; the value of landings are up. He ignores the problems of the inshore fishery. Since 1984, in zone 2J3KL, the inshore catches have dropped from 96,000 tonnes to 71,000 tonnes. In 1987, the Government even cut the total allowable catch by 10,000 tonnes. But things have only become worse. The Government has set up a task force, but it must show a real commitment to the inshore fishery.
Another issue is foreign overfishing off Canada's East Coast. Since the imposition of the 200-mile limit in 1977, the foreign fishing effort in Canada's waters has been gradually replaced by our domestic vessels. For instance, the total allocations to foreigners of Canadian managed stocks have declined from approximately 600,000 tonnes in 1977 to
280,000	tonnes in 1985.
Those allocations are intended to prevent overfishing of transboundary stocks which straddle the 200-mile limit. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), composed of 12 countries including Canada, allocates those stocks to its member countries. However, the quotas set by NAFO depend entirely on voluntarily compliance of its member nations. Given the increasing value of fish products, those countries have been severely overfishing.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimate that NAFO members, excluding Canada, have caught twice the allowable catch, 68,690 tonnes, set by NAFO. I wish to point out that, for every 1,000 tonnes of groundfish overfishing by foreign vessels, it is estimated that more than $1 million worth of landings is lost to Canadian fishermen. Once processed, that amount of fish equates to full-time, year-round employment for approximately 100 plant workers on shore.
This problem is compounded by the fact that several countries, for example, the United States, Mexico, and South Korea, are fishing those transboundary stocks, but they are not members of NAFO. Of particular concern is transboundary stocks in the area known as the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, located just outside the 200-mile limit. This is very serious, because those stocks cross those boundaries, and while they are sometimes outside the 200-mile zone, they also come into the Canadian waters. Any overfishing outside the 200-mile zone is very serious, especially in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. The Minister knows this, and I know that he understands this fully and well.

November 20, 1987
Supply
In this case, 1 think that we have all tried to get those countries to manage the stocks outside the 200-mile zone within the FO.l. This has also fallen on deaf ears, and I think that action must be taken either through negotiation or by unilaterally declaring that the nose and tail of the Grand Banks should fall within Canada's management jurisdiction. This measure would have the unanimous support of the entire fishing industry.
I know that you are signalling to me, Mr. Speaker, that 1 only have a minute left. I have many things that I would like to cover. One of the issues that is very important is the sealing problem in Atlantic Canada. 1 brought this up myself not too long ago with several members of the Canada-European Parliamentary Conference in Banff. France wants more fish, and the European Economic Community wants more fish. They are very ones that bowed to the pressures and curtailed the seal hunt. I know that the Minister and most of us on this side of the House agree that something must be done, but today 1 would have to call upon the Government to do something constructive, certainly with a grey seal cull.
The proliferation of grey seals has become one of the major problems in our Atlantic fishery. The increasing population has been confirmed by scientific surveys. The grey seals are consuming more fish and damaging more gear. They also cause widespread seatworm infestation in certain groundfish species. For fish processors, this entails substantial costs because of lower valued products and the additional outlays for more personnel and equipment. The entire fishing industry has called for control measures. For instance, an annual cull conducted during the breeding season in the major breeding sites, such as Sable Island.
We heard this when the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans went to Atlantic Canada. Many people came before us and expressed their total dismay at what was taking place. Yet, we are still waiting. I know that we have had the Malouf report, but there has been no great action on that. Given the international aspect, this issue must be handled carefully. A cull of the grey seals has unanimous support of the entire fishing industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I notice that the Member has not completed. Since it is the Hon. Member's motion, would the House be agreeable to giving him two more minutes to complete?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Roland Henderson: Of course, action on the East Coast would create an expectation to deal with the problem of harbour seals on the Pacific coast. With respect to the latter, the Minister has delayed any decision pending further research. He has decided that wider public support would be necessary before any action is taken.
1 know that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I did not get an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that are very inflammatory today and a great problem to our fishing
industry, certainly on the protectionist side and the Canada-France agreement. I know that other Members will be commenting on that later today.
In closing, I believe that more action and thought has to go into our fishery. It is one of the most important industries to Atlantic Canada and to British Columbia. We certainly need all the support that we can receive. We need clear direction from the Minister and from the Government. I find that this direction is not taking place.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Speaker, in his concluding comments the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) was asking for direction. During the course of his speech he heaped quite a bit of praise on the former Deputy Minister, Dr. Art May.
I recall hearing Dr. Art May some months ago noting on national television that the Government could no longer treat the inshore fishery as a social fishery, that the future of the traditional inshore fishery was gone, and that there was simply no way that we could continue supporting it. Obviously his solution might have been what was brought forth in 1983, that is, going the way of large offshore companies.
Does the Hon. Member support Dr. Art May's opinion of the future of the inshore fishery and, if so, would it also be the opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to comment on the Hon. Member's question. 1 did not hear the remarks of Dr. May as quoted by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau). However, Dr. May has certainly been one of the leading scientists when it comes to putting fisheries management tools in place. As I said in my speech, Canada is recognized as having one of the best managed fisheries probably in the world.
Having said that, I would be pleased to outline the position of the Liberal Party on the inshore fishery. The inshore fishery, with proper management, is certainly a very profitable fishery. If it is maintained, and if management principles are maintained, we all know that it is cheaper cost-wise to allow fish to swim close to shore to be caught near shore than it is to go long distances in vessels to catch them.
It is a matter of allowing the stocks to rebuild. This was one area of fisheries management in which the former Government, under Dr. May's advice, had been very strict. 1 am sure there are certain areas that we have to support in the inshore fishery.
I mentioned the northwestern coast of Newfoundland and fishing zone 2J3KL where stocks have not recovered to the point where they are economically feasible to catch and fishermen are not getting their fair share of the inshore fishcatches. I personally believe that these stocks should be allowed to rebuild and that there should not be any future allocations to the offshore until the inshore is fully protected.
November 20, 1987


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member because I know that he is one of the greatest experts we have in the House on at least saltwater fishing matters. When it comes to freshwater fishing, he is a little off base, but I will stay away from that today.
Looking not at immediate fishing problems but 50 years ahead, what does the Hon. Member foresee as the make-up of our fishing industry then? Does he think that the inshore fishery will have disappeared by that time one way or another, or does he think it will still be with us? Will we still be hunting fish at all? Will not fish farming and aquaculture have taken over by then as a much more efficient and effective way of acquiring fish?
What policies should we be pursuing as Canadians, not necessarily for today, tomorrow, or five years down the road, but for 50 years down the road?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for posing his question because it is very important.
I do not have a crystal ball; I guess none of us in the House have a crystal ball to project 50 years down the road. However, I maintain that we will still have an inshore fishery provided that we manage it properly. We cannot allow larger and larger vessel allocations to the offshore at the expense of the inshore.
It is interesting that the Hon. Member raised aquaculture, a very important subject. Our committee travelled to Norway and to Scotland, and I think the whole committee would agree that there have been some tremendous advancements in fish farming in Norway and in Scotland, on the Shetland Islands. This is not only in salmon and trout, the salmonid species, but also in cod fish and halibut. Those advances are taking place; there is no question about that.
I believe that we should certainly look at aquaculture in a positive way. I think we can benefit because the consumption of fish for the last number of years has been on the increase. People have been looking more to fish as a better source of protein than they used to do. I believe that aquaculture and the commercial fishery can work hand in hand. I still believe that in the long term, nature will provide a cheaper resource, if properly managed, than fish farming. However, the caveat is always there, that we have strict management controls and strict enforcement. We cannot allow the rape of our fish stocks that has gone on for many years by foreigners. We cannot catch fish twice; any fisherman will tell us that. If we can instill in the minds of our fish managers and of the general public, including fishermen themselves, that it is very important to manage our fish stocks, we will always have an inshore fishery-I certainly believe that we will always have an offshore fishery. That can work in conjunction and in harmony with fish farming as well.
It is a little different in Norway. The Atlantic salmon stocks, the wild stocks in Norway, have been seriously depleted out
Supply
and virtually wiped out. It just does not have a wild Atlantic salmon fishery any more, so it does not have any problem with its technology affecting the natural stocks. This must be a concern when we pursue aquaculture, especially on the West Coast where we have a very lucrative natural fishery. When we start to farm fish in enclosed areas, we must be very careful that we do not develop some disease which would affect the natural stocks. However, I still believe that with proper management both in wild stocks and in aquaculture we can work in harmony and develop a tremendous fishing industry in the country. We must make up our minds to do it and to do it ourselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a very short question, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) spoke briefly about the free trade deal. He also talked about the fish resources or the stocks we have. We know that in Atlantic Canada some stocks are controlled by companies in that they have quotas.
What provisions are there in the trade deal to prevent foreign interests or American interests from acquiring Canadian companies and thereby acquiring a certain control of our fish stocks? Is there any protection against that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) on a short answer.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as I see the free trade agreement, we can have foreign investment of up to $50 million which will be really uncontrolled or unregulated. There is no question that under the free trade deal at least 48 per cent or 49 per cent of the shares of National Sea Products or Fisheries Products International could be purchased by foreign investors. Probably all the shares could be purchased.
If the Minister is to speak to my motion today, hopefully he will address the subject of whether or not enterprise allocations-because it is actually government policy or it has been in the past as there is no legislation of which I am aware- must remain majority controlled in Canadian hands. I believe that is correct. That would mean that at least 51 per cent would have to remain under that allocation. I can see other problems created with free trade as far as our processing industry is concerned in the buying of and losing control over our Canadian processing industry.
As far as protection through free trade as far as the omnibus trade bills now before Congress is concerned, we have no protection. The dispute settlement mechanism, as I mentioned, can only apply to existing or future Canadian or American laws. Obviously under the free trade deal we are bound by GATT decisions, as I understand it.

November 20, 1987
Supply
In closing, let me quote from an article quoting what Mr. Bruce Buchanan said.
According to B.C. fisheries council chairman, Bruce Buchanan, the free
trade deal limits Canada's options to fight the lifting of restrictions by GATT.
He said the agreement forbids Canada from refusing to follow a GATT
ruling.
He is looking at that on page 4 of the free trade agreement document which says that all existing quantitative restrictions will be eliminated immediately or by an agreed timetable. Both parties have agreed they will not maintain or introduce import or export restrictions except in accordance with GATT or as modified by the agreement.
Under that, we have no protection against any American trade law. We are not exempt from anything. We have the same problems now as we had before the trade deal, but with further restrictions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon).


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to have an opportunity to respond to this motion today. This week is the second anniversary of my appointment, which I consider to be a great privilege, as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada.
I am extremely proud of my record in the two years as Minister of Fisheries and the record of the Government since the Speaker of the House in his former capacity first became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in September 1984. We are proud of the leadership which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the focus and importance he has attached to many issues relating to the fishery which have brought untold and unequalled prosperity, at any time in Canada's history, to all sectors of our Canadian fishery-Atlantic, Pacific, in the north and in the freshwater areas as well.
This is why I find it somewhat peculiar that the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) would sponsor such a motion as the one before us, which is totally offbase and totally exaggerated in its implication. In fact, it is totally contrary to the record.
The record will show that in the past three year period the wealth of the fishery and the benefit to each and every fisherman and his family inshore, offshore has virtually doubled. While the Member has engaged in some nitpicking criticism, he has not focused on the central reality that Canadian fishermen in his province in Atlantic Canada and in all parts of Canada are far better off today, far more likely to be employed throughout the year. There will virtually be no fishermen on welfare in the winter of 1987 because of the policies of our Government, which the Member condemned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I intend to deal with the four elements of the motion briefly, but my colleagues will elaborate on each of
these questions relating to our management of the fisheries generally, relating to the inshore fishery, relating to the question of our negotiations with France and the great benefit they will bring to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, and relating to the question of free trade and all of the importance it represents for the future of our industry.
The landed value of our fishery has virtually doubled with the result that we will process in excess of $3 billion worth of fish products in 1987, which will bring, on a per capita basis, some $25,000 nominal value to every person engaged in the fishery, inshore, offshore, and plant workers alike. This is $25,000 of average income to all of those fishermen as a result of the new prosperity the Government has brought to the fishing industry.
I want to point out that of that $25,000 value per capita, a full 80 per cent of it depends on exports to the United States market, exports which have the potential to be enlarged and enhanced in Canada, all of which will lead to a stronger fishing industry in Canada's future.
I want to compliment my colleagues in the caucus because if we have succeeded in improving the management of the fishery in all of its sectors, it is because of the weekly input and guidance that I receive, which no previous Minister of Fisheries has ever received, from Members of Parliament elected from the fishing regions of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that on a national scale again this year Canada is the world's leader in terms of the export value of fish and fish products: commercial fishing amounts to almost 1.5 million metric tonnes worth $1.5 billion. Roughly 60 per cent of landings took place on the Atlantic coast.

We have a great story to tell. I would like to tell the Members of this House that I place a very high priority on the future of the inshore fishery. I have seen the myriad of coastal communities. I have had the privilege to fly and visit them by sea. I have stood on the wharfs touring the fish plants in all of our coastal regions of Canada. This is a social reality. It is the people of Canada engaged in fishing enterprises as they have been for centuries, and a sector of the industry, the inshore fishery, which we have made a significant commitment toward protecting, enhancing and ensuring year round stability in this sector.
I have seen first hand the problems faced by inshore fishermen. This year inshore fishermen will have higher overall incomes than ever before. This is the result of new resourcefulness, a spirit of enterprise and enthusiasm and the fact that we have relieved some of the burdens of bureaucratic overregulation and waste and put a new focus on good science, enhanced science and better enforcement. We have pared the fat out of the department which had grown far too inefficient
November 20, 1987

and unwieldy. I am proud of that because the benefits are being realized by the fishermen who should be the beneficiaries of good government.
I have taken a special interest in the problems of our inshore fishery, particularly the problem of decline in landings in the coastal areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially on the Avalon Peninsula. That is why a year ago I mounted a scientific assessment on an emergency basis of this problem. In the first three months of 1987 we placed observers on all offshore vessels and held the line on the quota increase. We increased our scientific knowledge and brought in regulations to eliminate the wasteful discarding of undersized fish by the offshore fleets.
When I learned earlier this summer that that was not enough, I established a special task force on the future of the Newfoundland inshore fishery, a task force headed up by Dr. Alverson and a group of eminent international scientists who just reported to me yesterday and produced information which I will be sharing shortly with the House and the country to help us better manage and enhance the inshore fishery for the benefit of Canadians.
We have taken numerous initiatives to help the inshore fishery. We have secured the transfer of uncaught fish from offshore to inshore. Over 12,500 tonnes in my first year as Minister in southwestern Nova Scotia were transferred to the inshore sector because that fish would otherwise have remained uncaught. Again this year with the co-operation of the offshore companies, 11 tonnes of fish are being transferred. We have taken steps to spread the fishery out by introducing trip limits and we are looking at future innovations to create some means of more effectively administering the larger inshore vessels, particularly in the Scotia-Fundy region, to ensure more equity. The smaller, true inshore fishermen, who do not have mobility and cannot afford a multimillion dollar enterprise, can have their fair share of this resource.
We have established a scallop plan for the Scotia-Fundy region which has brought untold prosperity to the scallop fishermen in that area and the Georges Bank as well. We have allowed the inshore fishermen to participate in an experimental offshore tuna fishery. We have increased licences and enhanced opportunities in the northern shrimp fishery. I have created an offshore clam fishery which will create unparalleled employment in the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia. We have encouraged the domestic utilization of a bountiful resource known as silver hake, and are encouraging a number of ventures to turn that resource into new jobs and new economic opportunity for our fishermen.
We have done many things to improve the inshore fishery. We have stabilized the management of the gulf herring roe resource. We have eliminated the lawlessness and confrontation between our officials and fishermen which prevailed in that fishery for many years. We have taken many initiatives in
Supply
the riding of the Hon. Member who moved this motion. For example, we provided for the first time in history 30 inshore crab licences. That initiative was started by my predecessor, now the Speaker of the House. Those licences are bringing new landings and new prosperity to the people of the Hon. Member's province.
For the first time we have created an Atlantic policy advisory group, and an Atlantic licence appeal board to which fishermen can turn to have their legitimate licensing grievances addressed. This is something the Liberals never did and never would have done.
As to managing the fishery, we have increased surveillance and enforcement. Last December in this House we increased fines as much as fivefold, in some cases to an amount in excess of $500,000 for a single offence, for foreign vessels that fish illegally in our waters. We are providing full observer coverage, at the expense of the foreign country concerned, when fishing for surplus stocks within our zones. We are eliminating all foreign fishing efforts on non-surplus stocks in those zones. That is an initiative the Liberals would never have taken. It allows us to turn those resources to the benefit of our fishermen.
This year we terminated a 15-year arrangement with France wherein they were able to harvest 17,000 tonnes of groundfish, largely cod, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That arrangement was entered into by the Liberal Government and we are getting out of it in order to make that resource available to Canadian fishermen.
This year we are ending the long-term agreement with the European Economic Community, also arranged by the Liberals, which gave that community in the last year 9,500 tonnes of quota. For the last 10 years, 15 since the extension of jurisdiction, the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part gave fish away to foreigners when it was really needed by our own fishermen. We have ended that.
We have taken many initiatives to work co-operatively with the provinces in light of their role in the fishery. I have had 12 federal-provincial conferences since I was appointed Minister two years ago this week. We produced a report which was requested by the Prime Minister and the First Ministers two years ago this week which dealt with challenges and opportunities facing the fishery. That report was submitted in Vancouver one year ago. It had the unanimous support of all provincial fisheries Ministers, and included their support for a free trade arrangement with the U.S. That report received accolades and glowing commendation from the provinces and fishermen, indeed everyone who has taken the time to read it. It deals not merely with maintaining the status quo, not merely in continuing to over-regulate our fishery and give away whatever could be given away to foreigners. It deals with the future into the next century. It deals with the question raised by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) about what is to be the future of our fishermen in the year 2050.

November 20, 1987
The report deals with aquaculture opportunities, enhancing the recreational fishery, and deals with habitat questions, adding value, income stability, and the effective patrol and management of our offshore fishery. All of those things are reflected in the policies of this Government and the benefits already flowing to the fishermen in all regions where the fishery is important.
In the last 12 months we released a new habitat policy for Canada, a new oceans policy for Canada, a new recreational fisheries policy for Canada, a new aquaculture policy for Canada, none of which were ever even contemplated, let alone developed, by previous Governments.
With respect to services to fishermen, one year ago this past October, in the Throne Speech initiating this session, we announced we would take major initiatives to improve the support and services available to our fishermen through our small craft harbours. We have brought forward those initiatives. They were debated in this House only yesterday and commended by all sides as a major step forward in recognizing the fact that fishermen need good ports and services onshore as much as most Canadians need good highways. We are committed to ensuring that that is the case. That is why this year, in tough economic times, we raised the maintenance and operating budget for our harbours from $48 million to $70 million. That was done in one year and that is significant.
Over and above that, we created a new small craft harbour revitalization program, an additional $85 million available for development and upgrading of our harbours.
1 have had the privilege of travelling from one end of this country to the other, from Prince Rupert to Black Tickle in Labrador, from Saulnierville, Nova Scotia, to Lameque, New Brunswick, to announce new harbour ventures which are long overdue; to communities like Flat Rock, Newfoundland, and Bauline, where fishermen have hauled their fish out of water with buckets and cables because the Liberal Government never took the time to give them the services to which they were entitled.
We have over 180 new small craft harbour projects under way totalling $98 million of commitment. More than 200 projects are yet to come. Over the next few weeks we will see contracts for 50 new harbour locations and more than $50 million of additional expenditure.
In conclusion, I want to remind the Hon. Member that I have announced already four harbour projects in his own riding: Alberton, $400,000; West Point, $850,000; Fishing Cove, $500,000; Milligan's Shore, $164,000. I will also be announcing Miminegash, $350,000, all in his riding. What has he got to complain about-over $2 million in new harbour improvements in his riding alone.


Some Hon. Members:: Smile, George!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Other Hon. Members will be speaking of the Canada-France issue, the Hon. Member for St. John's West
(Mr. Crosbie) in particular, and of the free trade agreement. However, I want to say that that agreement finally allows Canada to end her dependence on natural resources. We will no longer be referred to as hewers of wood and drawers of water, because this agreement will eliminate all tariffs on value-added products and give us secure access to the American market to offset the countervailing and anti-dumping duties and other kinds of harassment which were erected by our largest market, a market on which our fishery depends.
I am surprised that the Hon. Member and the Premier of his province would oppose this deal because it offers the greatest opportunity in history for Prince Edward Island. His own seafood processors have commented about this. The Tignish Co-op Manager, Glenn MacRae, said: "We in the seafood industry definitely need the United States." Mr. Archibald of the P.E.I. Seafood Processor's Association says his organization has supported free trade from the beginning. He said that Canada cannot absorb existing Island product and without the United States our industry at its present level would not exist.
I say "shame" to the Opposition for bringing forward such a despicable motion. I say "shame" that the Premier of Prince Edward Island does not realize, as his fishermen and processors do, what a great and important initiative this Canada-U.S. trade agreement will be for those people whom he represents.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Statements by Members.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that Quebecers have not been taken for a ride, they have just missed the boat, the six frigates are gone!
Sure enough, Industry Minister Johnson has confirmed that New Brunswick's Saint John Shipbuilding has landed the contract to build the six frigates, no bids asked! In exchange, I have the impression that the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina) led Mr. Johnson to believe that Quebec just might be awarded the main contract to build the submarines.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am speaking on behalf of Quebec's 5,000 shipyard workers. We are glad that New Brunswick got the contract, but what we want is work orders for these 5,000 employees. People in Quebec City, Montreal and Sorel want to work, they want to make their contribution,
November 20, 1987

and they urge the Conservative Government and the Conservative Members to see to it that shipyard workers in Sorel, Montreal and Quebec City are given work, some of the contracts to build the frigates, that Montreal be chosen under the TRUMP project to build the two remaining ships, the Tracy and the Bernier. They must have something to do, the
15,000	Canadian shipyard workers must be on the job as soon as possible.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 recently had the privilege on behalf of my constituents and my Government to represent the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) in southern and east Africa.
As you know, I spent many memorable years working there for CUSO and CIDA and had not been back for 11 years. The sounds, sights, and smells were all too familiar. My pride in representing Canada as 1 signed three aid agreements with the Government of Zimbabwe was well witnessed by our hardworking, competent External Affairs and aid officers: Don McMaster, Robert Lee, Ross Noble, Hunter McGill, Adair Heuchan, Jocelyn Lepage and Sarah Dowswell.
I revisited Tanzania and reviewed the very successful Canadian assistance to the Tanzania Harbours Authority in Dar Es Salaam, the Tanzania Railways Corporation locomotive repair workshop in Morogoro, and the Tanzanian-Canada Wheat Program in Arusha. I also spoke to the assembled students at the College of African Wildlife Management where I used to work on a CIDA assignment.
Rod Haney, Martin Soutter, Monique Angers, Yves Morneau, Reg Smith and Alex McKeague from our Tanzanian programs are also officers of whom we can all be proud.
The Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) leadership within the Commonwealth, especially concerning African affairs, paved the way for a very successful mission.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House some of the
concerns which railway workers in my riding and across the country have had in the last few weeks. They have been particularly irritated by the extension of the period for the arbitrator pursuant to the legislation which ended the railway strike. They had hoped the matter would be settled much sooner, but the deadline has been extended until March.
In the meantime there are no increases for them while there are increases for the President of CN Rail. Mr. Lawless has received an $81,000 bonus while railway workers must wait another three months before they find out whether they get anything at all. That type of thing seems obscene and is cause for legitimate outrage on the part of railway workers in Canada. They are also outraged, as am I, by the fact that the railway is now claiming that it does not have enough boxcars to meet all its commitments with respect to the shipment of grain, as we have seen in recent days. Yet these are the same railways which claimed a number of years ago that they had more than enough box cars, when we were trying to have them produced more quickly with the box car rehabilitation program in Transcona, for instance.
It is another example of short-term stupidity for long-term damage to our economic infrastructure and ability to export.
The railways ought to be called to task, as should the Government for that matter, for making the railways operate on such short-term considerations that the long-term ability to do the job is put in jeopardy.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at noon, Mr. Vanunu, brother of imprisoned Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, addressed the Middle East discussion group here on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Meir Vanunu described the plight of his brother since his kidnapping by the Israeli Secret Service in Rome on September 30, 1986. He spoke about Mordechai Vanunu's detention incommunicado in jail and the flagrant violation of all his human rights.
Mordechai Vanunu has done immense service to the international community by alerting it to the fact that Israel has become a military nuclear power.
Canada has the obligation to press the State of Israel to sign the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and respect the Convention on Human Rights so that Mordechai Vanunu has a fair hearing in the courts of Israel.

November 20, 1987
[ Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, today the frigates are in the news again. It seems a decision has been made to build the six frigates in New Brunswick, but on the other hand, people are saying a decision has yet to be made. Why the hesitation on the part of the Government? It has had all the figures for some time. It knows that New Brunswick is offering a better package: six frigates at the best possible price. No one can build them for less.
This hesitation on the part of the Government is creating serious tension between New Brunswick and Quebec. The Government's way of souring relations between regions in this country cannot be tolerated and it is unhealthy. Canadians want the Government to make a decision. Canadians want the frigates built for the best possible price. Canadians want the frigates build in New Brunswick. Canadians also want the Government to reach a decision on the TRUMP program so work can be given to other Canadian shipyards.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: In the early 1970s the federal Government purchased a 400-acre site in the city of Nepean, which is now known as Centrepointe. At the time it was the most prestigious land development site available in the national capital area.
It was to be used by the federal Government to demonstrate how Governments could develop a modern urban community. I recall ten years ago, while being a member of the Regional Council of Ottawa-Carleton, examining the plans for Centrepointe with some enthusiasm and excitement. However, over the years these plans vapourized because they were bogged down in government bureaucracy.
Yesterday I was pleased to be present with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) at a ceremony in which phase three of this development at Centrepointe was handed over to eight small private sector companies to develop the land.
Yesterday we witnessed a modern community developing under the aegis of the private sector. New homes are being built and occupied. A modern municipal complex is under development and will house municipal offices, a modern library, modern theatre, and an outdoor artificial rink. Beside it there will be new facilities for health care and seniors.
This is a dramatic example of how government in other years failed by not recognizing the importance of the private
sector in housing development. Today, I take my hat off to the City of Nepean, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Minister of Public Works and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for moving forward so dramatically and collectively with the private sector to build this modern urban community.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity this morning to commend the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) for her strong guidance to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Her corporate guidelines have contributed to interjecting fairness into the free trade debate in Saskatchewan. The CBC has refused to air a blatantly partisan advertisement submitted by Premier Grant Devine.
The Minister's policy guidelines regarding controversial materials state in part as follows:
The principle of this policy is that the airwaves must not come under the control of any individual or group who because of wealth, special position, etc., might be better able to influence listener or viewer attitudes on a contentious issue.
The policy guidelines go on to state:
Social, economic or political comment or opinion that is contentious may not be used in commercials regardless of the advertiser submitting the material. Under this policy paid political advertising is unacceptable on CBC facilities except as provided for under the Canada Elections Act.
If the Premier wishes to use the public broadcasting system for his partisan use, perhaps he should call an election.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, for some weeks, various groups have been trying to influence public opinion by claiming that free trade may cause irreparable harm to the future of Canadian women. Yesterday, the Committee responsible for examining these issues had the privilege of receiving public testimony from an eminent Canadian economist. Katie MacMillan, who submitted her report as a private citizen, has prepared similar studies for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Canada West Foundation and the C.D. Howe Institute.
November 20, 1987

She came to shed some light on what the future would hold for women as a result of free trade with the United States. She painted a very positive picture of that future, stressing the fact that 80 percent of women work in services, a sector that is not affected by the Agreement. In fact, 12 percent of women work in industries that are not affected. This means that less than 10 percent of women may be affected by the Agreement. Ms. MacMillan said that as far as this group was concerned, there was no cause for alarm since women have always been more mobile than men, adapting more easily to new jobs. In fact, she sees free trade as a very interesting challenge for Canadian women.
Mr. Speaker, we have always demonstrated our concern for the status of women, and we have maintained that concern throughout the free trade talks.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, recently I received a letter from Mr. Philippe Champagne, who lives in my riding in Montreal. He asked me to find out from the Minister responsible for Canada Post why, at the beginning of September, welfare recipients like him had to wait more than eight days for their welfare cheques.
Incidently, Mr. Champagne's letter arrived several weeks late, which in itself is scarcely justifiable, but delays in the delivery of welfare cheques is something we cannot tolerate.
It seems to me Canada Post should give priority treatment to welfare cheques and have some way of identifying this priority mail in post offices across the country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is serious about cleaning up the Great Lakes. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) recently signed an agreement with the United States to deal directly with all sources of Great Lakes pollution. This new agreement is the result of a comprehensive review of all former agreements. The two countries will study pollution entering the Great Lakes
from the atmosphere as well as pollution associated with contaminated sediments.
Canada will identify heavily polluted sites around the Lakes and prepare plans to rectify the problems in each area. The agreement also calls for specific abatement plans for a variety of non-point urban and rural land drainage pollution sources. As well, the Government will identify and control sources of contaminated ground water.
This new accord reinforces the responsibility of the Government not only for the safety but for the health of its citizens. Let us hope that a similar agreement can be signed soon in regard to the acid rain problem. This demonstrates to all Canadians the unyielding attention the Minister of the Environment has given to this very grave problem.



WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Canadian Olympic Organizing Committee seems incapable of staying out of trouble? Does it not have enough to do? Does it not have any direction?
I find it absolutely outrageous that it has decided to go around the country terrorizing small businesses which use the word "Olympic" or "olympia" in their name. Perhaps it has secured the rights to use the words for marketing purposes but what possible purpose could be served by dragging the Olympic Tuck Shop, a tiny Ottawa confectionery, through the courts for using the name it has had since long before the folks from Calgary even thought about the Olympics?
What benefit could be derived to the Olympic Games, the organizing committee, or to Canada by threatening the Olympic Dry Wall Company or the Olympic Drilling Company?
I have more than a passing interest in this matter because I am the official Olympic spokesperson for the New Democratic Party. I wait in fear by my telephone every day wondering if I, too, will be sued by the valiant protectors of the Olympic name. But it is not just a name.
The Olympic officials also claim rights to the number 88. Does that mean that the Oldsmobile 88 is under threat as well? It also claims the rights to "stickmen" figures. Does that make the New Democratic Party's official logo illegal? Is it going to sue us, too? What will it go after next, Mr. Speaker, the official rights to snow?

November 20, 1987
Oral Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, can you imagine my surprise this morning when a reporter telephoned me asking what I thought about the Province of Saskatchewan having banned the publication of advertisements about free trade? I had never heard of this development and I was sure it was not true.
However, the truth is that the CBC has refused to allow profree trade advertisements sponsored by the Province of Saskatchewan, or anyone else, to be aired over the CBC. In spite of the hogwash we just heard from the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), this is a publicly owned facility that allows critical editorials by anyone who will speak against free trade. It allows a biased chairman to chair a debate on free trade and make a summary of only the opposition side of the debate.
Premier Grant Devine was at a meeting in Prince Albert of over 500 people who were enthusiastic about the benefits to Saskatchewan when he heard the decision of the CBC. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, he was not pleased. Thank God, we have a private radio and television station which will carry this important message to the people of Saskatchewan who will benefit so greatly from this initiative of this Government.
This is another reason to privatize the CBC.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Lady Chatterley, that lady of fiction, who, because of her fall from grace, spent the rest of her days being debated in the courts, is with us again.
In the Government's Bill on pornography which deals, as it should, with violence against women and children, there is a very poorly defined section on erotica in which the same old Victorian attitude which haunted the readers of D. H. Lawrence all those years ago reappears.
We are again going to ask our law enforcers to pore over Canadian films and literature and to comb the art galleries to decide what is erotica and what is not. There is still no real guidance or definition to go by, but this time there is one big difference. If this Bill becomes legislation, it will be up to the accused to prove that he or she is portraying erotica and not that forbidden activity, s-e-x.
This is not the legislation called for by the various groups who have worked so hard to bring the brutal treatment and exploitation of women and children to the attention of the
Government. The question is if the Government is really serious in addressing the real need for protection for women and children, the most vulnerable in our society. If so, why has it mixed its message?



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, it is the traditional duty of the opposition Parties to bring to the attention of Canadians the record of the Government on matters of economic and fiscal policy. Given that convention, one cannot help but wonder why the Opposition shies away from this important issue.
Could the reason be that since the Government took office three years ago over one million jobs have been created?
Could it be that since the election the prime interest rate has dropped by 3.75 percentage points?
Could it be that Canada's economy has expanded by 13 per cent since September of 1984 and now leads the OECD nations in terms of economic growth?
Perhaps the opposition Parties are not eager to focus on the highest level of housing starts in eight years, or on the fact that while retail sales have increased by 31 per cent inflation has been held to around 4 per cent.
It is small wonder that the opposition Parties continue to avoid the issue of the Government's economic policy. 1 want to join with the 1,019,000 additional Canadians who are at work today in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government on an outstanding record of job creation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport had the honesty to admit that the new trade deal with the U.S. is bad news for the Canadian transport industry. We gave up our trucking industry through deregulation. We sold our railways through competitive line rates as a result of Bill C-18. Now the Minister himself admits that we have nothing for the Canadian maritime industry.
November 20, 1987

Why did the Minister wait so long before introducing Bill C-52 when he knew full well what the intention of the Government was in relation to a trade deal with the U.S.? Why has he put on hold the work of the Legislative Committee that is dealing with Bill C-52? Why has he given orders to stop proceeding with this legislation? Is this another sell-out to the Americans?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is another in the pattern of increasing braggadocio and bushwah that comes from the Official Opposition.


Mr. McDermid:: I wonder what the translators will do with that.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will spell that for the translators later.
The critic for transportation in the Official Opposition said that I had the honesty to admit something. I know that it is shocking to him when he comes across honesty.


Mr. Foster:: Especially from this Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 certainly did not admit any such thing yesterday. I said that it is a disappointment to us that we could not persuade the U.S. to agree to change the protective provisions of the Jones Act.
The Jones Act, which restricts shipping from one U.S. port to another to American vessels only, has been in place for 200 years. The Party that the hon. gentleman represents in this House has been in power most of those 200 years, and it has done shag all about the Jones Act. So is it surprising that we have not been able to do anything about the Jones Act either?


DELAY ALLEGED IN PROCEEDING WITH LEGISLATION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, whatever way the Minister wants to answer he is confirming what he said yesterday, that is, he got nothing in relation to the maritime industry in Canada.
The Minister should know, and I am asking him if he does, that in fact any new amendments to current legislation, or for that matter any new legislation dealing with transportation will have to give to American companies national treatment if it is passed after ratification of the free trade agreement. Therefore, I ask again why the Minister has waited for so long. Why has his Government procrastinated for three years before going ahead with legislation on the maritime transport industry which would have protected it, when he knew full well that his Government was going to make a sweet deal with the Americans?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hate to see the Question Period degenerate into this kind of cheap rhetoric, and 1 have no choice but to answer in the same vein. There has been more legislation in the field of transportation introduced and passed by this House in the last three years than in the previous 30. It has been done despite
Oral Questions
the consistent opposition, squeals, howls and stonewalling of the hon. gentleman opposite.
With respect to Bill C-52, it has already been given second reading in the House. I could go into the National Transportation Act and the Freedom to Move policy of the Deputy Prime Minister that we have implemented. There is a whole host of transportation legislation which we have passed.
With respect to the U.S.-Canada negotiations, the U.S. refused to budge in certain areas. One of those was in the area of marine transportation. The status quo will continue to exist in that area.
We refused to budge in the area of culture. We refused to budge in the areas that affect sovereignty. We refused to budge in the areas that affect farm marketing boards. That is the way a negotiation is. Unfortunately, we have not been able to persuade the Americans to change their cabotage rules. That is something we simply have to accept.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER NOT SIGN TRANSPORTATION ANNEX TO AGREEMENT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly the Minister is talking about the legislation that his Government has introduced. Bill C-18 is giving away the Canadian railways to the Americans. Bill C-19 is giving away the trucking industry. Bill C-52, which at least could have been legislation to protect the maritime industry in Canada, is not going to have any effect at all because the Jones Act still applies in the U.S. The Minister, after giving away the trucking industry and the railway industry, was hoping to get something from the Americans with respect to the maritime industry. He has failed miserably, and he has told us that.
Will he at least give us the assurance that he will not sign a transportation annex that will undermine Canada's ability to legislate and to regulate our own transportation industry in our own interests? Can he at least give us this little assurance today?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hearty applause from the Opposition. I can certainly confirm that we will not sign any transportation annex that will undermine Canada's ability to protect and advance Canada's interests. Any document we sign will be one that will enhance Canada's interest in trade with the United States and will strengthen the Canadian economy and the Canadian transportation system.
At the very worst, the status quo would still be in effect. But the status quo would certainly not be undermined by anything that we would enter into. There are some advantages, otherwise we would not be signing at all. In the area of aviation, for example, bilateral air agreement arrangements are being left as they are. They will be untouched by the transportation annex, but of course, whether there is an annex or not, or what

November 20, 1987
Oral Questions
is in it, will not be known until the final document is ready for signature.

[ Translation]


RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, 1 am astonished at the Minister's statement that in order to obtain concessions in certain areas, he sacrificed the transportation industry, lock stock and barrel.
The Minister knows that the provision on competitive line rates in Bill C-18 gives American railway companies access to Canadian markets. He also knows that Canadian companies do not have similar access to U.S. markets. My question is as follows, Mr. Speaker: Why didn't the Minister try, during the talks, to obtain the same right of access for Canadians to U.S. Markets? Why did the Minister give away the store before the talks, without even demanding protection for the thousands of jobs that will be lost here in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. gentleman is thoroughly confused.
The whole import of Bill C-18, the new National Transportation Act, and Bill C-19, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, is to increase the capacity of Canadian truckers and railways to be competitive, compete more effectively, put Canadian shippers in a position to be more competitive, achieve better economies and efficiencies, and get lower rates. It is to sharpen up Canada for the competitive struggle that looms ahead for any country that wishes to increase its standard of living and to progress in the future.
The hon. gentlemen opposite are afraid of the future. They are confined. They only want to look to the little, narrow Canadian market like the hon. gentlemen in the NDP. The 25 million people here in Canada are all supposed to take in one another's washing rather than try to expand our trade with the United States and the rest of the world.
We are visionaries. We are looking outside Canada. We know that we can compete. We are prepared to compete. That is what the National Transportation Act does. It puts Canada in a position to compete with the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: We have seen enough of your dirty laundry already, John.


André Ouellet: That is not what you said yesterday. [Translation]
FREE TRADE- iNQUIRY WHY MINISTER DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN NEGOTIATIONS


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion is in the Minister's brain, and I think all the hot air the Minister is producing is affecting his thinking processes.
We know that through Bill C-18, the Americans are getting access to Canadian markets. So why didn't the Minister take part in the free trade talks? And why did he rely on the Minister for International Trade, who gave away the store to the Americans? Why wasn't he at the negotiating table as well?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to leave anything whatsoever in the hands of the Minister for International Trade, who is capable of handling absolutely anything that is handed to her.
The position is that the Department of Transport has been fully involved. One of our top officials has been involved with the trade negotiations office from the beginning.


André Ouellet: And they lost everything.


John Carnell Crosbie: I wish to point out that 90 per cent of all exports from Ontario go to the United States. I suppose 100 per cent of all the exports from Oshawa go to the United States, and one has to wonder at the views of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who does not wish to extend the same benefits to the rest of Canada that the people of Oshawa now have.
Sixty-four per cent of all the exports of Atlantic Canada go to the United States. The hon. gentleman should be leading the battle in New Brunswick for the free trade arrangement between Canada and the United States.


GRAPE GROWERS' REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a visit-


John Carnell Crosbie: Shame!


An Hon. Member:: On holiday again?


Mr. Lewis:: Move to your second question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Members' welcome has drowned out the question. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in this case it is not Windsor, but the Okanagan Valley from which I have returned.


John Carnell Crosbie: Out tasting the wine.
November 20, 1987


Steven W. Langdon: I found a great many fruit, vegetable, grape growers, and wine producers deeply worried about this trade agreement.
1 wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why it is that those people, especially the grape growers, in requesting a meeting with the Minister for International Trade and/or with Mr. Reisman, have been turned down? Why is the Minister not prepared to meet with those victims of this trade deal?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member has his facts in error. It is my understanding that, naturally, they are represented on the SAG IT committee, and there have been numerous meetings of the SAG IT committee on this particular matter.
My understanding is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade has met the industry people.
A week or ten days ago, I issued a press release inviting provincial and industry representatives from all regions of the country producing grapes, to come to Ottawa and sit around the table with me. I believe that the meeting is scheduled for December 2 or 3.


POSITION OF OKANAGAN VALLEY GRAPE GROWERS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, is it too much to ask the Government to actually go and meet the people who are being hit hard by this type of crash which is devastating the grape growing prospects of the Okanagan Valley?
Is it too much to ask that there be a direct meeting between Ministers who come from British Columbia, like the Minister for International Trade, and this incredibly hard hit group of Canadians? Is it too much to ask for that type of common decency?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, and members of caucus are meeting with various groups each and every day of the week. Last year I attended some 190 events outside Ottawa. I meet agriculture groups each and every day of the week, including Saturdays and Sundays. In fact this morning was no exception; I met with three groups.
If the Hon. Member could figure out some way we could work 48-hour days, then it would allow us twice as much time to meet more people.


Mr. Skelly:: What about the jobs and the investment of those people?


Mr. McCurdy:: Are you saying that you do not have time to meet with them?
Oral Questions


John Wise: We are a Government that has been more available than any other Government in the history of this country. I can assure Hon. Members of that.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a list of dozens of propaganda meetings that Ministers are holding across the country this week. Yet they are not prepared to make this type of trip to talk to victims of the trade deal directly and to give some hope for the future.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Shame on you!


REQUEST THAT FINAL TEXT OF AGREEMENT BE MADE READILY AVAILABLE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. It concerns the delay in presenting the final text of the Agreement, announced this morning. How will Canadians be able to give this Agreement the time and attention required to consider the major changes that will take place in this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to make it very clear to the Hon. Member that in his preamble to his question he is dead wrong.
The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen, and other Members from British Columbia requested that I go to Vancouver and meet with the grape growers and the wine producers. I did that. We had a very good meeting.
The Hon. Member should not go around saying that we are not meeting with those people, because we are, and we are working very closely with them.


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister has refused to do so.


John Horton McDermid: To answer the other question, I wish to tell the Hon. Member that the Canadian people will have the opportunity to study this agreement, but I think that the Canadian people also want to assure themselves that the agreement that we signed on October 1 is translated into legal language that is proper and which spells out the agreement we negotiated with the United States during the last 18 months.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Sight unseen.


John Horton McDermid: We want to get that done correctly, and we are going to get it done correctly. It will be available in the not too distant future.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: What are you saying? Trust us?


TRUCKING INDUSTRY-ACCESS TO AMERICAN MARKET
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
1 1012

November 20, 1987
Oral Questions
The Minister knows that deregulation combined with the Tory trade deal allows complete access of American trucking interests into Canada, while 43 heavily regulated American states, including border states, ensure that Canadian truckers do not share the same advantages.
Will the Minister tell the House and the tens of thousands of Canadian truckers why, during the free trade negotiations, he did not at least get similar access for Canadian trucking interests and why he jeopardized Canada's trucking industry?
Why did he give so much to the Americans while getting nothing for Canadian workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members in the Liberal caucus are certainly confused, not only about the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement but about the legislation which the House passed several months ago.
The situation is that Canadian truckers have had more advantages to operate in the U.S. than U.S. truckers have had to operate in Canada.
The second point is that the present free trade arrangement will not discriminate against Canadian truckers in any way. It is too bad that certain interests are passing around misleading information. American truckers will not be able to come up and operate intraprovincially in Ontario, for example. There are restrictions and customs legislation and so on which still prevent that.
Canadian truckers will be able to compete very effectively with U.S. truckers as they already have. 1 believe there are over 600 Canadian trucking firms that operate in the U.S.
As 1 understand it-the Deputy Prime Minister is a greater expert even than I am in this area, and that is saying something-Canadian truckers can carry goods from one U.S. point to another at the present time, so the question being asked by the Hon. Member is simply incorrect.


Sheila Finestone: I suggest that he tells that to the truckers who are trying to get into Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York states.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that the Canadian trucking industry is saying that it was sacrificed during the free trade talks and that the U.S. trucking industry is laughing all the way to the bank while our workers are worrying about feeding their families.
What was the Minister doing when this happened? Why was he not there to defend the tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs, actually, in the trucking industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I realize-


An Hon. Member:: Ask the Deputy Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that this is not the Hon. Member's area.


Ms. Copps:: Don't be so chauvinistic.


John Carnell Crosbie: If Canadian truckers wish to drive down to the United States, all they have to do is get into their trucks and drive down there. They can go trucking on down-


André Ouellet: What about a permit, a work permit?


John Carnell Crosbie: Up to the present time they have had advantages compared with U.S. truckers-


André Ouellet: You don't know what you are talking about. Sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if I do not know anything, and if I am to be shouted down, why ask me a question?


André Ouellet: That is your best answer today, John.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. When I examined the Supplementary Estimates tabled yesterday in the House, I did not see any mention of funds earmarked for the Special Canadian Grains Program. Since Canadian producers are expecting at least a $2.6 billion pay-out, and since it is approaching 14 months since the last announcement of a payout was made, how will the money be allocated in this fiscal year, or has the Government decided against such a program for this fiscal year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member might take some comfort in the fact that the Government has not decided against a payment for the coming year. He will realize that we continue to consult with farm leaders to put the finishing touches on a program.
The method of payment as far as the Government is concerned, I expect, would follow pretty much the procedure as followed last year. If there are not sufficient funds to provide for a payment, then of course parliamentary approval would be sought again this year as it was sought last year, rather than an entry in the Supplementary Estimates.


FARMERS' DEBTS OWED TO FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: available in the foreseeable future to alleviate the debt load farmers will be carrying through the winter, and since in Saskatchewan alone 40 per cent of its farmers are deemed by the FCC to be in serious financial difficulty, will the Minister now permit FCC, under the Farm Credit Corporation Act, to write down some of the interest and principal on those debts so that we can keep existing farm families on their farms until such time as the Government makes up its mind what to do about providing financial assistance?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member poses a half dozen questions in his supplementary.
It is false to say that the Government is sending a signal that there is not to be financial assistance to farmers.
The Hon. Member knows that my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, announced some time ago the largest interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He has to do that under the legislation.


John Wise: The Hon. Member should also know that I would suspect that sometime during the next few hours or so the Minister of State will be announcing a very substantial amount of money that will be going in direct cash into the hands of Canadian farmers under the final payment.
Of course we would be more than likely considering an interim payment under a program which might well be called the Special Canadian Grains Program No. 2.


SHIPBUILDING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
I believe I agree with what he just said. He has every right to be disappointed in a constitutional agreement that, as far as the transportation and shipbuilding industry is concerned, gives everything to the Americans and nothing to Canadians. The Minister knows perfectly well that the Jones Act is a protectionist measure that is aimed at protecting the shipbuilding industry of the United States and as a result closes the U.S. market to Canada's shipbuilding industry. The Minister is aware of the problems in our shipyards.
Could the Minister give 10,000 workers in Canadian shipyards an honest explanation for the fact that he allowed his Government to let American shipyard workers bid and work on Canadian ships, while they refuse to let Quebec and Canadian workers bid and work on U.S. ships? Why did the
Oral Questions
Government allow this kind of discrimination against Canadian shipyard workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it gets more and more confusing. The Hon. Member does not point his finger at any particular action taken by the Government which permits discrimination against Canadian shipyard workers. The Hon. Member mentioned along the way the Jones Act which was enacted in the United States of America some 200 years ago. We plead not guilty to having done that 200 years ago. We didn't do it and we haven't done it. As a matter of fact, we attempted to persuade the Americans to change the Jones Act, to revise their rules on cabotage, and to permit Canadian ships to participate in American coastal shipping, but they refused to do that.
They have certain bottom lines which they will not go beyond in certain areas, just as we have bottom lines with respect to Canadian sovereignty, Canadian culture and institutions, Canadian farm marketing boards, and the like.
Canadian shipyard workers are being helped mightily by the Government which has placed, for example, contracts for the building of a ferry. Caribou II was built in a Quebec shipyard. The Joseph and Clara Smallwood, named after a Father of Confederation and his wife, is under construction at the present time in a Quebec shipyard. We have just given contracts to the Marystown shipyard, to the Halifax shipyard, and to shipyards in Vancouver. Right across the country we are helping Canadian shipyard workers; that is what we are doing.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport should wake up to the fact that the Conservative Government, in a Blue Paper . . . Free trade is supposed to give Canadian industries access to a market of 250 million, and now he is blaming the Liberals! He says we want a small market and we are afraid of competition. How could the Minister of Transport let the U.S. shipyards with a market of 250 million protect themselves against a shipbuilding industry with a market of 25 million? Is the Minister going to rise in the House to defend the workers in Canada's shipyards, yes or no?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is indeed a forceful and intimidating presence as we saw when he intimidated the Liberal Members of the Senate yesterday and brought them crashing to their knees, having putting his position firmly to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
1 1014

November 20, 1987
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: I suggest he continue his work in the Liberal caucus to make the Liberal Senators act in the best interests of Canada. If he does that, I will continue to do the same on the outside.


WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
As the Minister knows, the Calgary Olympic Committee has been sending its name police around the country harassing all those small businesses which use the word Olympic or Olympia as part of the name of their business.
Will the Government immediately intervene with OCO and tell it to concentrate on running the Olympics and to leave small businesses alone?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport is out of the House today. I will take the question from the Hon. Member and advise the Minister when he returns to the House.
I think 1 can say, particularly with the story in the paper this morning, that I know the Minister's office is concerned about the matter. His office is trying to find out specific information. When that is available I will ask the Minister to make it available to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister who just responded to my first question. It is appropriate that he responds because as he knows, most of the small businesses which use Olympic or Olympia are owned by individual Canadians who came from the country of Greece and were using the words to honour that country.
Rather than just report to the Minister, will he encourage the Minister to do something to stop this crazy attack on our small businesses just because they happen to have the name Olympic or Olympia in their titles? These words have been used for years and years well before Calgary ever got the Olympics.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I clearly understand the point of view of the Hon. Member. All I can do is tell him, and I think he knows, that 1 will bring his view to the attention of the responsible Minister when he returns to the House.
Meanwhile, I know his Department is trying to find out exactly what happened as reported in this particular story in the paper. I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest and I can assure him that the Minister will act with dispatch on the matter.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada stated very clearly that thousands of jobs would be lost in Canada in the food processing industry as a result of the free trade agreement with the United States because Canadian food processors would be obliged to buy their raw food materials at managed regulated prices and would not be able to compete with the United States companies.
This association represents 150 companies which do a business of $40 billion in goods each year and hire 230,000 Canadians. What is the Government going to do to keep these jobs and these firms operating in Canada?
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation which the Hon. Member puts on a testimony given to the standing committee is somewhat blown out of proportion. The Food Producers Association, which has played a very important part in the sectoral advisory committee on the negotiations, has a couple of concerns. They would like-I think if the truth were known-the marketing boards to disappear. They would love to see the marketing boards disappear. They would then have low cost input into their food production. 1 want the Hon. Member to stand up and tell this House that he and his Party are in favour of doing away with the marketing boards. Will he stand up and tell us that?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was at the meeting yesterday at which representatives of the Grocery Products Manufacturers appeared. I heard the brief and I participated in the questioning and answering and I know what was said.
Here we have a respectable Canadian business association saying thousands of jobs could be lost in food processing unless changes are made, while the Government is ignoring their concerns. They said the products that could be affected were, and I quote "bread, pasta, ice cream, yoghurt, breakfast cereals, cake mixes, cookies, crackers, baked goods, frozen entrees, meat pies, soups, canned fruits, vegetables" and others. This is the Government's deal and it has to solve the problems caused by it.
November 20, 1987
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will grant that the Hon. Member was at the committee hearings but he left early before all the testimony was heard.


Mr. Ailmand:: That is wrong. That is not true. You were not there yourself. What kind of nonsense is that?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since Expro, a company in Valleyfield, Quebec, is going to ship 1,250 tons of explosive powder, a very considerable quantity, to a Portuguese company over six months, and considering that the CBC says it has found a link between the Portuguese company and the Iranian government, why did the Government authorize the Canadian company to become the principal supplier to Iran's artillery?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to answer this question on behalf of the Minister. I realize that Hon. Members have the right to ask questions in the House, but they should also do their homework in order to avoid making needless accusations.
Exporting gun powder or munitions from Canada takes two permits: a permit for the exporting country, which has been issued, and a permit for the importing country, which has also been issued. We have no control over any re-exporting that may occur subsequently, and that is exactly what is happening.
The RCMP is investigating to determine whether there is any possibility of illegal diversion, and when I say illegal, 1 mean according to our statutes and our principles in these matters. The RCMP is trying to determine whether there may have been illegal diversion of goods from the legal destination apparent from the contracts signed by the parties concerned.
[English)


GOVERNMENT EXPORT CONTROLS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. I am somewhat disappointed to get a technical explanation for something that could be a question of life and death.
I would like to have the Government's commitment that not only will our ambassador in Lisbon be instructed to attempt to identify whether that explosive is being re-exported, but also what will the Government do to introduce controls to ensure
Oral Questions
that Canadian munitions do not end up on the battlefields of Iran and Iraq?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member does not want to know about the technical details, maybe he is not interested in finding out the facts. The fact is that two export permits are necessary, and both permits are absolutely essential. We have met our commitments and we have complied with the regulations that exist today and have always been enforced here in Canada. If there are people who subsequently re-export those goods, the receiving country has a responsibility, and that is what should be investigated.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Grocery Products Manufacturers group pointed out the impossible position it has been placed in by the free trade agreement with the United States, including a flood of cheap surplus U.S. food which will come into Canada under this agreement.
How does the Minister plan to maintain the employment in this industry while at the same time maintaining our supply management and marketing system in Canada, which is one of the best systems in the world-


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are against marketing boards.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -which every other country in western Europe and the United States want to emulate?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this Government made the commitment at the outset of the negotiations that the marketing boards and their underpinnings would stay in place. This has been accomplished in this agreement.


William Warren Allmand: No, it hasn't.


John Horton McDermid: The Americans cannot dump into our country. Our trade laws, our anti-dumping laws, are still in place.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is not dumping.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member said it is not dumping. He just said the Americans were dumping cheap low cost food into Canada. That is just not accurate. The same marketing boards, the same quotas will be in place after the agreement as were before.
1 1016

November 20, 1987
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Not true.


John Horton McDermid: The allegation of the Hon. Member of low cost food pouring into Canada, dumping into Canada as he put it, is entirely wrong.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister knows that the United States has been trying to get rid of our supply management and our marketing board system. The U.S. has made that statement many times. He knows that this agreement chips away at all aspects of that system.
Will the Minister admit right now that the free trade agreement is the first step in getting rid of our supply management and marketing systems, and that the next step is the proposal that Canada has tabled with GATT whereby supply management and marketing systems are being put on the table? The United States and most of the Cairns group have agreed to get rid of Section 11 of the GATT agreement which provides for marketing boards and supply management.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, members of the Opposition are taking an interesting tack. 1 am rather enjoying this. They spread fear throughout the country that marketing boards would be wiped out with the free trade agreement. We made the commitment that they would not. We made the commitment that those underpinnings would stay in place and they have. Now what are opposition Members trying to do? They are saying: "Well, this agreement is okay, but in the next agreement they will be wiped out". What poppycock. Members of the Canadian public are not that gullible. They will not buy that.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology who would agree, 1 am sure, that programs such as 1RAP that provided $1.7 million to Cimtech for the design of technology for shoe manufacturers are designed primarily to produce jobs ultimately in Canada. I would like the Minister to clarify the answer to the question 1 posed to him yesterday.
Is it not true that the result of the acquisition of Cimtech by Microdynamics Inc. is that, while the research facility will stay in Canada, the essential production jobs will ultimately go to
Dallas and in fact the agreement does not prevent that from taking place?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: First, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that such a deal has been made and consummated. Second, if it were, as 1 said to the Hon. Member, I have assured that any of the undertakings that must be made by recipients of the kind of research support grants the Government makes will be honoured. It is my understanding that the proposition that has been advanced would keep the company in place in Trenton and research would continue there, as would the production of software that is being marketed throughout the world. I do not see what the Hon. Member's concern would be.


EFFECT OF CAN ADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the question is a very simple one. Money is being provided to a company to produce technology, to produce research and to produce a product, and it is the production of the shoes in this instance which will produce the jobs. The Minister said that the research and the software production will occur in Canada. Is the answer to the question not clearly that the shoes will be produced in Dallas? Is it not about time that the Government recognized that it is rather senseless and will be increasingly senseless, because of new investment rules under free trade, to invest in research and job production in Canada when the jobs will be shipped to the United States?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled. Members of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They lament the fact that American and foreign companies come to Canada with investment, bringing technology with them, creating jobs in Canada, and that is supposed to be bad. It is also supposed to be bad when we market our own technology in other parts of the world. They cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period. Given the hour, I would ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to make her question short.


AIDS DISEASE-CONDOM ADVERTISING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why, in light of the AIDS epidemic that has hit the whole world, the Government has the ridiculous policy that it is illegal in Canada to advertise that condoms can help prevent the transmission of AIDS?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of National
November 20, 1987

Health and Welfare is out of the House until Monday. 1 will bring that question to his attention.
1 might say to the Hon. Member that the program the Minister adopted a year ago, a $39-million commitment over five years, has been very successful in a number of areas. It always needs improvement like all programs do, but 1 think the Hon. Member in honesty would agree that the Minister's project has been a very impressive one.


OPPORTUNITY TO ADVERTISE CONDOMS
[Stage Direction]
Mis. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, on June 19, the federal Government issued a press release stating that
[Stage Direction]
-"latex condoms are effective barriers to the transmission of the AIDS virus". According to the Government's food and drug regulations which were confirmed at a meeting last week, this statement made by the Department of National Health and Welfare is against the law because it is illegal in Canada to say that condoms can help prevent the transmission of AIDS. Why does the Government not bring its policy into the 20th century, throw out this ridiculous law and bring in a comprehensive AIDS policy, instead of making cabinet findings behind closed doors which are not dealing with the problem of AIDS transmission?
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare will be back on Monday. The Hon. Member can raise that with him at that time. I will take her question under advisement and so advise him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3210, 3323223, 332-3239, 332-3267 to 332-3269 inclusive, 332-3283 to 332-3289 inclusive, 332-3295 to 332-331 1 inclusive and 3323317 to 332-3320 inclusive.
Introduction of Bills


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food irradiation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the Food and Drugs Act is to prohibit food irradiation, the importation of irradiated food and the exporting of equipment or materials likely to be used for food irradiation until such time as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has undertaken studies and research on the effect of food irradiation on human health and environment and made a report to Parliament. The House of Commons would refer the report to a committee or a joint committee and the Governor in Council could not, under this proposed Act, proclaim the expiration of the Act until such time as the committee had tabled its report.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1987
Petitions

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a group of petitions signed by 975 constituents of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.

Mr. Speaker, in this petition my constituents ask and urge the Government of Canada to amend the tax reform that would have the effect of creating a disaster situation for many Canadian senior citizens, and which would also be disastrous for families, the unemployed, taxpayers on low and modest incomes and young people.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to table this petition, and I hope the Government will realize what it has to do and will help my constituents.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions signed by hundreds of people from Vancouver Island. They point out that in February of 1985 the Government ordered the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights. That committee recommended there be a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas under federal jurisdiction. The petition requests that the Government move expeditiously to remove this form of discrimination as soon as possible.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Henderson:
That this House condemn the government for its inept management of
Canada's fisheries in Atlantic Canada and its lack of political will to assert
Canada's rights in the Canada-France dispute and for its willingness to allow
Americans to exploit its weaknesses in order to gain control over processing in
the fishing industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When debate was interrupted, we were at the question and comment stage on the speech of the Hon. Minister.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my time had expired but there were a couple of minor points with which I would like to have concluded. However, if it is your judgment that we continue with questions and comments, that is fine.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This morning the House was very gracious in giving a couple of minutes more to the mover of the motion. I am sure it would be the same for the Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker.
The question of the Canada-France dispute was raised in the motion of the Hon. Member. I would like to point out that in January we embarked on an important initiative to resolve two outstanding problems, both of which were caused by negligence, we believe, on the part of the Government of the day.
In 1972 the Liberal Government of that time entered into a treaty with France which gave the French fleet unquantified fishing rights within Canadian waters in anticipation of the extension of jurisdiction to the 200-mile limit. Then, when that jurisdiction was extended, the Liberal Government of the day failed to secure from France an arrangement under which the boundaries around St. Pierre and Miquelon would be clearly described and defined, even though, as I understand it, France offered to accept a much smaller boundary than the area of some 180 miles south into the outer mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence which France now claims.
We have attempted over this last year to take a firm position with France to end the overfishing and resolve the uncertainties surrounding a vast area of our waters claimed by France so we can turn those resources over to the benefit of our fishermen. After taking many measures through the year, and having witnessed France withdraw from the negotiating table twice, I can assure this House that Canada's position is being well advanced by this Government. Indeed, we will not extend quotas in Canadian waters to French vessels in the 1988 fishing year in the absence of an agreement to refer the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary issue to a form of international arbitration. I wanted that to be clearly entered on the record.

Second, with respect to free trade with the United States, this Agreement represents a substantial improvement in terms of market access for exporters of Canadian fish. The Agreement gives exporters of Canadian fish a substantial competitive edge over other competitors on the American market.
November 20, 1987



The fishing industry of Atlantic Canada relies on access to the U.S. market for 80 per cent of its income. In 1986 that amounted to $1.4 billion worth of exports. This year it will probably exceed $2 billion. Anything that reduces tariffs and allows us to add value to our raw materials in Canada, and at the same time secures access and prevents harassment by unfair countervailing and anti-dumping actions, means dollars in the pockets of our fishermen, our process workers, and every person in Atlantic Canada, and Pacific Canada as well, I might add.
In conclusion, entry into a free trade agreement, spurred by the vision of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), is a show of national confidence and the beginning of a future of immense opportunity for all fishermen of Canada. I wanted that to be clearly stated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister's speech with great care as he tried to take all the credit for all the good things happening in the fishery.


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


George Roland Henderson: I think it shows his naivete as Minister and indicates his understanding of the fishery. We asked the Minister how many years it took to raise codfish, for instance, to maturity. He obviously knows it is at least seven years, sometimes as much as 12. How many years does it take to bring lobsters to the legal size? Seven or eight. How many years for oysters? How many years for mackerel? How many years for herring and other forms of groundfish?
The success of the industry which we are seeing today has nothing to do with the Government or the Minister. It is because of the good management practices and regime implemented back in the late 1970s and early 1980s after we obtained our 200-mile limit. Mind you, we had to put regulations into place and they were not very palatable. Many fishermen would like to catch whatever they can and forget about tomorrow. However, over the years, through education and a sound management regime, fishermen have grown to understand the importance of good management. Therefore, all of the fish going to the market today have nothing to do with the Government.
The other major factor, of course, given the increased value of landings, is the American dollar. The value of that dollar in relation to ours has been very attractive to the Canadian fishing industry in its efforts to compete in the American market.
I just wanted to mention those two things. 1 also want to thank the Minister once again, as I did yesterday, for the harbour work he announced. I say "announced" because it has not yet started. I hope it will be followed through and I will be after the Minister daily to make sure it is. As the Minister knows, I have made numerous requests for work in my riding.
Supply
I was also glad to hear his announcement regarding Mimine-gash. We are very pleased with that. However, where is Tignish and Milligan's Wharf and the work I have asked to be done there? We have not yet had an announcement.
As well, is the Minister going to make the 30 crab licences, he referred to, permanent licences rather than the 14 which are now permits? Crab fishermen in my area want to know right away. He also mentioned that we had no habitat management policy in the previous Government. He said that in fact none would have been implemented. However, I can tell the Hon. Minister that the habitat policy was started. This is the discussion paper that was presented on August 2, 1983.
The Minister spoke about GATT and all the spin-offs from processing and value-added. Certainly I agree we should proceed in this way, but when 1 directed a question about this to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) on November 17, she said that I was confused. She said that, I am referring of course to the GATT panel decision which has been leaked, it had nothing to do with the free trade agreement negotiated with the United States.
An article by Christopher Waddell in The Globe and Mail today states very clearly that Canada also wants the final text to indicate that it retains the right to ensure that fish caught in Canadian waters are processed in the country. He went on to say that issue had gained more importance since this week's GATT preliminary decision supporting the U.S. claim that Canadian restrictions on export of unprocessed west coast fish, herring and salmon, violated international trade rules.
The Minister knows that under the free trade agreement we have absolutely no protection against GATT. We have no protection whatsoever against the omnibus trade bills that are before Congress at this time.
Finally, the Minister was taking all the credit for getting out of the Canada-EEC agreement this year. The agreement which we signed in 1983 was a five-year agreement, which automatically expires at the end of this year.
The 200-mile zone was a negotiated settlement. We were seeking access to fish in the European markets. This agreement was made at that time to achieve market access and to gain support for fisheries management inside and outside the 200-mile zone. That was solid, sound negotiations about which this Government unfortunately knows nothing about.
The Government and the Minister operate with the spines of jelly fish when dealing with other countries. I want the Minister to respond to some of those comments.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, while the rules generally require that I answer only one question, I have a long list of answers which could take the rest of the time available. However, I am glad that the Hon. Member has asked these questions.

November 20, 1987
Supply
Let me first deal with the question of the EEC agreement. It was this Government, myself as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who decided not to renew the EEC long-term agreement. The Hon. Member's Government had renewed it twice previously because it did not have the guts to tell the French and the Europeans that those fish were there for our fishermen. It is not unlike the way they sold out our interests by giving the French unquantified rights to fish in our waters, and the way they failed to address the question of the boundary when there was a much more modest proposal from France as to what the boundary should be.
The Hon. Member says there is no protection against GATT. It was a Liberal Government which arranged for Canada to become a member of GATT back in 1947, and it was Liberal Governments which consistently supported, as we do, our undertaking to live up to our obligations to the GATT. Furthermore, which Leader of which Party suggested that we should not negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the United States, but should take comfort in the GATT and live up to and abide by the decisions of the GATT? This hypocrisy cannot continue.
Under this agreement, the Government is securing specialized access to the United States market for fisheries products, access that does not exist in the absence of this agreement. It provides a privileged relationship for our Canadian fishing industry in the largest market available to us, that other nations do not enjoy.
Let me turn to the question of good management. I am pleased that the Hon. Member acknowledges that many good things are happening in the industry. I admit that the quota management system has evolved to a point where it has allowed for a certain stability and predictability in the fishery.
The Hon. Member points out that it takes several years for various fish species, whether it is lobster or cod, to reach maturity. The fact is that there have been quota declines in the last two years, largely because the Government of which he was a member set higher than acceptable quotas in some years. As a result of ignoring scientific advice, they caused a decline in the landings.
The reason this fishery is so healthy is because of the entrepreneurial instinct and the open approach to investment and trade that we have cultivated while ensuring that the ownership of the right to harvest in Canadian waters remains in Canadian hands. That is clearly spelled out in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
We are seeing the evidence of a much more dynamic, competition-driven and optimistic group of fishermen and entrepreneurs who are becoming involved in more diversified kinds of processing and harvesting. I mentioned the examples of silver hake, northern shrimp, offshore clam and offshore tuna. That additional strength is helping the core industry to succeed the way it is.
Finally, let me deal with the question of the harbour work. I want the Hon. Member to know that with the additional project I announced today at Miminegash, over $2 million of harbour improvements in that Hon. Member's riding, it represents over one-third of all of the projects I announced for the Province of P.E.I.
My Parliamentary Secretary meets with me regularly to ensure that we look after the interests of fishermen of Atlantic Canada, including those in his own province. He has ensured that these priorities are met, notwithstanding the lack of attention that the Government of which the Hon. Member for Egmont was a part gave to these necessities for all those years since the end of the Second World War.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister said that he was painting us a great picture. That is not the case.
For example, there are the advisory committees on both coasts. I will deal with the one on the West Coast because I am more familiar with it.
The Minister and his Government have politicized the advisory process by putting into the advisory capacity on the over-all management of the industry some of the most partisan politicians one can find in British Columbia. In many cases, those individuals are driven by self-interest and do not represent groups.
Unfortunately, this has led to the loss of credibility not only in the advisory committee but in the Minister himself. While I do not suggest that the Minister is without credibility, because I know how he works in the House of Commons and recognize his concerns about the industry, British Columbians will have that perception.
It is also unfortunate that there will be no continuity in the committee because those people will be replaced immediately after the next election.
Unfortunately, the politicizing of the advisory process will only gain momentum. I urge the Minister to immediately cease this policy and appoint those who are duly representative and accountable to their organizations, because the present situation is destructive for the industry and the Government.
Secondly, I am deeply disturbed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed another Minister to respond to questions. I do not care if he is in Alberta, on the trip of the Queen Charlotte Islands or in Newfoundland, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) should have that authority and accountability to answer those questions. I do not think anyone in this House appreciates the move of the Prime Minister placing another Minister in charge of that responsibility. I do not say this with criticism of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I simply say that if the Prime Minister feels he is not doing the job, get rid of him. If he is doing the job, back him so that there is accountability and some
November 20, 1987

confidence in the business of Canada, which really does not now exist.
My third comment is about free trade, and then 1 will sit down. The Minister is now contradicting himself. He promised there would not be one single job lost in British Columbia because of the GATT decision. He knows that is absolutely wrong. He heard it from the fisheries industries on the coast of British Columbia. He has now heard it from the Pacific trailers who want to take their product across the line unprocessed because they will get higher prices. If the Government does not fight that decision and win, millions of dollars of product will go across the line and we will lose massive processing aspects in salmon and herring. We absolutely must win.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must band together and turn this decision of GATT around at the committee level. We must not be faced with the prospect of our product leaving British Columbia in unprocessed form. I know the Minister supports that belief and I hope he will be able to convince the Government that that is the correct course to take.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate those three questions. First, on the question of the advisory process, some very serious allegations have been made. What we did initially under the leadership of the Speaker of the House when he was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was to create a policy advisory group on the Atlantic Coast called the Atlantic Regional Council or ARC. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that on that council sit people who carry, for the most part, no political affiliation, and those who might, carry affiliations of all three political parties.
We had a problem with the equivalent of PARC, which was not a policy group, but more a management advisory group. Eighteen of the 20 positions were held by representatives of the commercial fishery, that is, fishermen. However, the native sector had abandoned the organization as did, in the latter stages, the recreational fishing representation. It was then totally inappropriate to give proper representation to all of the the important policy issues on which I, as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, required advice.
We created a PARC on the West Coast, not a national PARC although we commend that decision as well, but a Pacific Area Regional Council, the equivalent of ARC, which consists of 12 members and a chairperson, thirteen in total, appointed to be my principle source of advice on policy issues, and appointed to represent people who are respected for their eminent stature and knowledge in various parts of the fishery, commercial, native, recreational and general interest, as well as the business aspect. Those selections were based on advice to me from many organizations, notwithstanding the fact that the United Fishery and Allied Workers Union refused to offer a nominee, and notwithstanding the fact that the large seine boat sector declined an invitation. Those are matters I expect to adjust in future.
Supply
On my Pacific Area Regional Council, again there would not be very many of those 13 individuals who would have a political affiliation, but of those who do would be representative of all three political parties. I could not live with a council where the members were changing and always had to report back to their organizations to call a special meeting to obtain the organization's consent, and to have a system of voting where some groups who could not have it their way had to leave because their views were always vetoed. I have a created a consensus group of advisory people, much as the federal Cabinet or a political caucus operates. They do not advise me when they do not come to me with consensus. That is what I seek and that is why this new advisory structure is so important to the future of the Pacific coast fishery.
In regard to the point the Hon. Member implies about the Prime Minister appointing a Minister, I was appointed two years ago this week as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada. I give my undivided attention and devotion to these duties and have the full support of the Prime Minister to that effect. No one has been appointed to speak for me, notwithstanding the fact that from time to time in the House Acting Ministers are designated when Ministers cannot be in the House. I do not even know what the Hon. Member is implying. It seems to be something mischievous or scurrilous. I fully carry out all of my duties as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for all Canada.
Finally, I can assure the Hon. Member that the objective of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement is to find means, by the reduction and elimination of tariffs and the unbiased application of U.S. trade remedy laws, to gain more added value, more investment and employment opportunities in the fishery of Canada. Anything that operates to the detriment of that will be opposed by this Government and is clearly protected against in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, notwithstanding the GATT panel recommendation to which the Hon. Member referred.
My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, who will speak later, will elaborate on this. Many GATT countries use measures which are accepted under the GATT and consistent with the obligations of those countries under the GATT to ensure that supply of raw materials, in this case fish, is available on a priority basis to serve the needs of established plants and industries in their countries. We expect to enjoy the same privilege all the other members of GATT have in that respect.


Raymond John Skelly: The matter before us is extremely serious. Before I commence my remarks I would like to deal with some of the comments made by the Minister. He suggested, and I think perhaps somewhat over hastily, that the remarks were intended as scurrilous and mischievous. When we dealt with the matter of the Canada-France issue, the Hon. Member from St. John's was designated as the speaker on that particular issue, the individual to respond to questions-

November 20, 1987
Supply


Thomas Edward Siddon: By whom? When? How?


Raymond John Skelly: -and 1 think, without offering any offence to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or anyone else, people in this House were concerned about that. There was not a clear explanation of why that was done and I think a lot of us would rather have dealt with the individual who was responsible for the fishing industry and who was responsible under law-


Thomas Edward Siddon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That point is absolutely incorrect. The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and I have been designated to jointly respond to questions relating to that issue. It depends whether it is a question of boundaries, international law, regional interests or fisheries. I have never failed to respond to a question directed to me by any member of the Opposition on this question.


Raymond John Skelly: I certainly do appreciate the clarification, Mr. Speaker, but the comment still stands. Hopefully, when we are dealing with fisheries issues in this House the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will in fact be the person who responds and who is in fact held accountable for that extremely important area. With his assurance, I will carefully watch in the future how this matter unfolds.
I would like to follow on with some of the unfortunate aspects of the Minister's speech. With respect to the nature of the partisanship in this Government, to which I had alluded, in the appointment of the Pacific Area Regional Council, we have now seen a politicization of the advice process. The previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the individual who has distinguished himself as a very competent and respected Speaker in the House of Commons, was in fact a very respected Minister of Fisheries. The Minister was open, very knowledgeable and concerned about environmental matters. He was concerned with all matters and aspects of the fishery. Had that Minister continued in the role of appointing the advisory committee we may have seen the direction continue in that the advice and the advisory committee itself would not be politicized. The individuals who have to live with the results of that advice and the management plans that are put into place would not feel that they had been exploited politically and that the management plan had come about as a result of partisan advice.
1 do not say that with malicious intent. It is my hope that it will be recognized and that the difficulties that are being created in the fishing community as a result of people's feelings in that direction can be rectified as the advisory committee grows and develops. I hope that it will not be stunted as it is today. I hope that criticisms against it will be examined and that improvements will be made to it so that there can be growing confidence with respect to the types of decisions that come out of it.
It is also my hope that as of the day after the next election every member of the advisory committee will not be fired and a whole new partisan group of individuals appointed to give political advice on management programs. Personally, I see that as a very dangerous trend. I know that many people in the west coast fisheries also see that as a very serious trend. I think it can be rectified quickly.
The Minister also alluded to the two approaches to an advisory committee. Of course, the dilemma is that to bring about some kind of consensus, or at least widespread support for management programs, is something which will never be. Dissension will always be there because of the underlying principle involved, that there are not enough fish and it is the fault of the Tories. Prior to 1984 there were not enough fish and it was the fault of the Liberals. Those fish were always being misallocated. One group was always getting a better deal than the other. Even when the NDP forms the Government those problems will not leave us.
What I think has to happen in this particular situation is that the advisory groups must represent the major players in the fisheries. If a major player group is involved in the fisheries and has no say on that committee, or at least no effective say, then it will not be content with the management results that come from it. When major players are eliminated the entire Government and the Parliament of Canada will be a target for constant and ongoing criticism with respect to what is going on. That is not in the interest of anyone. The people who are on the committee must enjoy the confidence of the group they represent.
The other option is the one which has been chosen by the Minister. The previous Government chose this approach as well, although it was a bit more careful to ensure broader representation. It had the wise person approach to the committee. What is done is that individuals who are not accountable to organizations but who have broad knowledge of the industry and certain aspects of it are selected. Or, perhaps, they have broad knowledge of the economy of the west coast fishery, let us say. I have been told that a wise Tory is a contradiction in terms. But giving the benefit of the doubt in this particular case, there are a number of wise individuals who have been appointed to this committee.
Unfortunately, in selecting individuals who are not accountable to organizations we end up with a situation in which people think that they were selected on the basis of their political affiliation and their partisan view. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. It is possible that I might be incorrect. I live a very sheltered life on the coast of British Columbia. I am not widely known as a partisan individual. I do not become involved in this type of thing regularly. But there are those cynics out there who believe that the organization has now turned into one which is very political and partisan. I urge the Minister to recognize those criticisms and the kind of dissension that is created by them.
November 20, 1987

I suggest that he move toward developing a more mature committee. In my humble opinion the committee should move toward credible representation of the major organizations which there are on the coast of British Columbia. If they can win the support of their organizations for management plans, then there will be much broader agreement in the community.
The Minister also mentioned that he was very concerned about native issues. He said he wanted native representation on the committee. It has been noted that this has caused a very major problem. What we have to see is a very responsive move by the federal Government with respect to the issue of land claims. In British Columbia, many fishermen are suggesting that the federal Government is driving a wedge between the native people and the fishermen to provoke conflict. It has been suggested that in the political management of the fisheries it is in the Government's interest to have various sectors of the industry fighting with each other. What happens is that the federal Government correctly begins to negotiate with the native people on the coast of British Columbia about their access and rights to fishing. Then it actively supports the defence leagues against the Indian fishery to become involved in advertising programs and, basically, to inflame this discussion, thus moving it to an almost racial conflict.
What has happened is that we do have a full-blown conflict between native people and a number of fishermen on the coast of British Columbia. Other voices are saying that what is at fault here, and what has created problems in the fishing industry, is the Government in its desire to divide and rule. It is dividing those who are natural allies, those who should be working together in the industry. It is doing so in a provocative and, in my opinion, dangerous manner.
What should be happening is that the Government should be moving on a broad based settlement of native land claims. Fishermen are asking that that happen. They do not want to see fish as the only currency of settlement of claim, or as the interim settlement of claim. They want to see a fair deal for the native people. They do not want to see what happened on Lyell Island happen again. Nor do they want to see what happened on Meares Island or in the Stein Valley of British Columbia happen again. It is being said that the Social Credit Government in Victoria and, indeed, the federal Government in Ottawa in working together are actually driving wedges between native people and loggers, native people and fishermen, in order to start community conflicts instead of getting people to work together. In the fishing industry it is critical. There is clear evidence that the federal Government has been supporting both sides of the issue. It can only be doing that in the same way as the classic 20th century arms merchant who makes money by selling guns to both sides in a war. This is totally unacceptable.
With respect to the management of the fisheries, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) should be demanding of the Government in the proper management of that portfolio that native people be given a broad range of economic opportunities to which they are entitled under the
Supply
settlement to aboriginal claim. It is absolutely imperative. So when the Minister mentions fisheries and the rights of aboriginal peoples, these are the kinds of matters we are expecting to hear from him. We want to hear that consensus and unity will occur.
We do not want to hear about the divide and conquer technique that has been used by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans for years and years. We do not want to hear about the politicization of advisory committees with partisan political individuals with one point of view on that committee, but about representatives of organizations attempting to strive for consensus in the committee and consensus between the major groups and players on the coast.
The Minister spent a great deal of time on the Small Craft Harbours Program. I agree with the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) when he states that he is very pleased to see this program come forward. There is no one in the House or the country who is not pleased to see the beginning of spending funds on this very necessary infrastructure.
I am not partisan or political, and well known for that fact-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: I do not have any cynical view of what the Government has done. I see that my colleague from Mount Royal completely agrees with me. We view this in a very positive manner. We do not think that the Conservatives are coming to an election. We do not believe that. The absolute neglect in the last three years of the Small Craft Harbours Program has been atrocious. Small craft harbours were in such a weakened state that they were in danger of destruction from the elements. Disruption of the fisheries were occurring. A fork-lift could not be driven across many areas. I have heard of winches coming off the wharf. Wharfs have burned down, and nothing has been done about it.
We were told that it was the Liberals-the filthy organization from the past, the ogre that ran the Government for millions of years-only for political reasons had built harbours. They had never added enough maintenance budget. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the Conservative Government to cut down on the number of harbours. It was going to close x number and reduce the capacity of others. It was going to privatize some and put the rest under harbour commissions. It was going to cut staff and budgets. This was having to be done because of this filthy, nefarious organization called the Liberal Government of previous years.
The Conservatives had a big dog and pony show with beautiful slides and overheads. When I saw the show, I was completely convinced about the evil nature of the previous Liberal Government, that staff needed to be eliminated, budgets had to be cut, and the harbours had to be cut down. When I returned to my own riding, my eyes were opened and I
1 1024

November 20, 1987
Supply
saw that the stories were false. The harbours were falling apart, there was disruption in the fishing industry, and there was a desperate need for infrastructure and facilities to service the new aquaculture industry. The Government was saying, "Sorry, we cannot do this because the Liberals have shafted the country. They have cut the budget. They have cut the staff'. There was a desperate need to get those facilities in place.
I wish to congratulate the Government for making a three-year leap from the 19th century to the 20th century in the Small Craft Harbours Program. I congratulate the Minister for taking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) and rapping them between the eyes and attempting to get them into the 20th century where the role of Government is to assist in the development of exciting new projects to ensure that people can continue to work.
As I mentioned, the unfortunate thing for the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) is that there is still an enormous amount of damage in his riding and an enormous amount of work that has to be done. The Hon. Member is satisfied to sit here and state that that is enough, the Government has done enough in his riding and he does not want any more. He stated that yesterday. 1 am appalled at that type of contempt-


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wish to correct the record or the impression made by the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). He stated that there have been enough wharf repairs in my riding. By no means have there been enough repairs. I want much more. I appreciate that the Hon. Member wishes to assist in getting more wharf repairs, and that I will be receiving my wharf repairs by the time that I am done.


Raymond John Skelly: To see another Conservative Member rise from the back of the cave, wake up and defend his constituents after being prodded by a new Democrat is an encouraging sign. I will continue to do this with the Hon. Member for South West Nova. 1 am sure that because of our efforts his constituency will be better served.
I hope that my constituency can receive as much money as the Hon. Member's constituency. To my knowledge, the coast of British Columbia has not received as much money as the Hon. Member's constituency and it should also be fairly treated.
I would ask that the Hon. Member stand up in his place and chew the hide off the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and tell him to make it an equitable program so that those harbours are not fixed to the amount that is in place, but that they are repaired to the full extent necessary to make the fishing industry effective, and that the coast of British Columbia is also treated with equity. 1 look forward to the Hon. Member's statements to the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Holtmann:: First, i wish to say it is the first time since i have been elected that I have spoken from this side of the House and faced the Opposition head on. It is a wonderful feeling not to look into their ears but to look into their eyes.
Having heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), I think he unfairly criticized the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), in his deliverance, about the work done by the Minister and previous Ministers for small craft harbours. I can advise the Hon. Member that on no fewer than 20 occasions I have announced improvements to small craft harbours since I was elected in 1984. Last year $1.8 million was spent on a major harbour repair. If the Hon. Member feels that that is doing little, or something at the last moment, I would advise that much foresight and planning went into that. He should recognize that there are probably as many harbours inland in the heart of the Province of Manitoba as there are on the coast of British Columbia. Many people do not realize that. There is a large fishing industry which is growing, and clearly we are very capable of looking after it and addressing the problems it faces.
My hon. colleague also observed that the job is not completed. 1 think that the important point is that the Hon. Member should know this Government did not go out in some reckless fashion, like the former administration was used to, and spend money on different activities with regard to Fisheries and Oceans such as a harbour or yacht club which were not needed. If the record is checked, it will be seen that the money of Canadians was foolishly spent in areas that clearly never asked for something-perhaps only for patronage sake.
This Government has made some major changes in the manner it has spent money. It brought down a Budget that is starting to reduce the deficit. It is unfair to criticize the Government because there are still some harbours that are not completed or repaired. It has been clearly illustrated, even by Members in the Opposition who represent those areas, that there is still work to be done. I do not think the Government can be criticized for not looking at this in a more prudent manner than was the case before.
1 would like the Hon. Member to stand in his place and tell the House, with that criticism he directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, how much more money would he spend if he was the Government? The NDP has great aspirations of becoming the Government. It has a great way of solving the harbours problem in Canada. What will it do? Will it immediately triple the budget and repair every broken harbour? Is that what it will do?
To criticize the Minister for the way that he has handled the problems is clearly not totally without foundation. We will have to see what the NDP is going to do. It will be going to go to the people when the Government goes to the people, and 1 am sure the NDP will have a policy. What is the policy of the NDP? What is it going to be?
November 20, 1987


Raymond John Skelly: I think the previous speaker completely justified my presentation and destroyed his own argument when he stated that my attack on the Minister was not without foundation, that in fact the harbours had been trashed in Canada. Of course, I would agree with him absolutely.
As a representative of my Party in the House today, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his move across the Chamber. We recognize that that was not without some serious concern for safety on the Government's part because of random attacks by the Member on people on his own side of the House. We are hoping that he will move forward. In the far reaches of the back-benches of the Conservative Government we recognize that there is not enough oxygen and that the quality of presentation sometimes is not as good as it should be, so we would hope that that Hon. Member would indeed move farther down into the lower altitude and be provided with more oxygen before he speaks.
However, I would like to deal with the immediate problems in the Selkirk-Interlake riding and along the lakes of Manitoba where there is a very important fishery. We support the spending of money in that Hon. Member's riding because it has important harbours which were left to deteriorate over that three-year period. It was not a matter of careful planning; small craft harbours people in the regional office have planned their brains out. They know where the damage is. They know where harbour infrastructure is required. They have known it for years. They were even so bold as to go to the Department of Public Works and say, "Draw us up some proposals for these repairs, figure out what the dredging will cost, and show us the infrastructure cost to get these things in action and keep them repaired". Public Works officials came back with it all. They also talked with contractors about providing support services like water, electricity, highway access, and hydro-the whole works. All that was in place.
The Minister did not need to plan it. The people have been screaming for it for a decade in many cases. We had a situation where the brakes were put on. It was not by the Minister. The Minister is an excellent fellow. I commend him. Of Ministers in any Government in Canada he has done an excellent job. However, the Government and the previous Hon. Member for Yukon put on the brakes and drove this economy to a stop. It suddenly realized that that cannot be done in harbours areas, because the more damage created in that period the more it cost the taxpayers. A completely "up to speed" harbour quite often defends itself and deteriorates much more slowly in terms of damage from the elements.
If the Tory Government had moved forward more quickly, and had Treasury Board been more receptive to common sense, we would not have had to jump in suddenly, prior to the federal election about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has been hinting and fooling around in the last couple of weeks. Indeed, if that money had not been spent now, many Conservatives would not only have been defeated, as they will
Supply
be, on free trade, but they would have been defeated on the small craft harbours issue. We heard that time after time as we travelled throughout Atlantic Canada.
At any rate, once again I congratulate the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) on his lofty promotion to the back bench on the Conservative Government side of the House. I will certainly write a letter to the Prime Minister to urge that he be moved forward into the lower benches.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment which I want to make to the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River (Mr. Skelly). At the beginning of his speech he made an unfortunate intervention which begs to be corrected.
He said that he was of the opinion that there was no fishing going on in the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I must correct that because Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is the home of the famous, and I should say internationally acclaimed, Lancaster perch from Lancaster, Ontario. Granted, it does not employ several thousands of people as does the fishing industry in other constituencies, nevertheless it is an important livelihood for a number of my constituents. I thought it was my duty to bring it to the attention of the House.
Perhaps I should utilize this occasion to remind Hon. Members on all sides of the House that in the unlikely event that some Hon. Member might not have had the pleasure of partaking in Lancaster perch, they are quite welcome to tend to this matter urgently. They should come to Lancaster, Ontario in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell where there are actually roadside stands similar to chip or French fry stands which sell Lancaster perch. It is a delicacy in our area, and I would want all Hon. Members to be aware of it, in the unlikely event that perhaps some may not have had the pleasure of tasting Lancaster perch.
I am sure the Hon. Member himself must have tasted it because he is an authority on fish and no one who is an authority on fish could be so, without having tasted the great Lancaster perch. I thought I would bring it to the attention of the Hon. Member, to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of all Canadians who may not have had the pleasure of tasting Lancaster perch.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I knew that Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was the scene of a great perch fishery. Indeed, that had been brought to my attention by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake the other day who was on his way into the area to do some fishing and had a case of dynamite.
I am glad the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) had the opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House, and I thank him for it.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the excellent motion
1 1026

November 20, 1987
Supply
put forward by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), or we might say the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Island.
The Hon. Member has attacked the Government on various fronts, and rightfully so, for its neglect of the inshore fishery, for its absolute and total disregard for the interests of Canadian fishermen in the France-Canada dispute, and for its lack of political will, as he put it, in what happened concerning the GATT ruling in which the United States is saying that Canada no longer has the right to process its own fish and to create its own jobs.
In other words, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Island has put on record for all times what the fishermen of Canada think of the Government of Canada.
Earlier I listened very carefully to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). I must admit that he appeared to be somebody who was greatly concerned about fishermen and the fishery and who wanted to present the best possible picture of what the Government of Canada was doing for the people of Canada, for the fishermen of Canada, for jobs in Canada, and for the entire future of Atlantic Canada, the West Coast of Canada, and everywhere else that we have thousands, thousands, and thousands of families who depend upon the fishery. We have them all along the coastline of the Province of Quebec. We have them all along the coastline of the Province of New Brunswick. We have them all around Prince Edward Island, all down the Nova Scotia coast, all around Newfoundland, and right up and down the coastline of British Columbia.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in the House and said, "Look what we have done in the Canada-France dispute". Just imagine this, Mr. Speaker. We have a number of small islands off the south coast of Newfoundland or the east coast of Canada. Those islands are about 13 nautical miles off the coast, about 16 miles off the coast, or about 24 kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland. The two populated centres of St. Pierre and Miquelon have a population of about 6,000 people, give or take 50. There are 5,400 people in St. Pierre and about 600 in Miquelon. Their unemployment rate is 10 per cent. Their only resource, apart from a few sheep, cows, goats, and a little agriculture, is the fishery; their entire resource is the fishery.
Let me refer to what they caught last year in Canadian waters, and this is the great dispute. The Minister of Fisheries stands and says, "We don't know where Canadian waters are". We are here to tell him today that we know where Canadian waters are. Canadian waters are around Canada. How dare the Minister of Fisheries stand up in the Chamber and say, "We don't know where Canadian waters are" or "we don't know who owns the waters off the coast of Canada"!
Just imagine that, Mr. Speaker. It has been said a dozen times in this Chamber by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), by the Minister of Fisheries, and by the Acting Minister of
Fisheries, External Affairs, Transport-everything under the sun-I am referring to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). We do not know who owns those waters off the coast of Canada so we cannot send in our fisheries patrol vessels to arrest those people who are breaking the law 200 miles off the coast of Canada. The Government of Canada says, "We don't know who owns these waters and, therefore, we cannot go out there and board a vessel to arrest somebody who is breaking the law. But we can if that somebody", says the Government of Canada, "is a Newfoundlander. Yes, we can arrest that person if he is a Nova Scotian or if he is from Prince Edward Island-if he is a spud islander as they call them sometimes- Yes, we can arrest him if he is a Quebecer or if he has come all the way around Canada and North America from British Columbia to get there". We can arrest him, and, Mr. Speaker, we do. The Government of Canada, that great strong Government of Canada, which stands up for the rights of Canadian fishermen, arrests people regularly if they break the law. If they are in excess of the quota allocation, the Government can arrest them.
We have had cases under this Government where a boat has been arrested for being 64 feet 10 inches long when it should have been 65 feet long in the disputed zone. We have had cases where Canadian boats have gone out and fished alongside American boats, Spanish boats, Portuguese boats and boats from China. The Canadian was arrested because the quota was gone for Canadians, but the quota was not gone for the foreign boats.
That sort of thing takes place right on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. They called them once upon a time the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. But the nose and tail of the Banks off the coast of Canada belong today, under this administration, to every foreign country that can send a boat there to fish. Canadians are not allowed to fish there because of a decree and a Cabinet decision by this Government, and they are not allowed to fish there because the Government says that for conservation reasons we will put a freeze on and we are hoping all the other countries will agree. If they do not agree, we can't arrest them but we will certainly arrest our own Canadian boats.
Getting back to St. Pierre and Miquelon-


John Carnell Crosbie: It is about time you got back there.


George Baker: St. Pierre and Miquelon with 6,000 population-


John Carnell Crosbie: Get back to Gander.


George Baker: Get back to Gander. Let us go to Fogo, just north of that. It is 18 miles off the coast. St. Pierre and Miquelon is 16 miles off the coast. Fogo Island and St. Pierre and Miquelon have roughly the same population. Now let us look at how much fish they caught last year. Fogo Island caught 24 million pounds and St. Pierre and Miquelon caught about 22 million pounds. There is a very low unemployment
November 20, 1987

rate on both islands. One would assume that each of the populations on those islands would have equal rights and that the needs of Fogo Island off the north coast of Newfoundland would have the same rights as St. Pierre and Miquelon off the south coast of Newfoundland. Equal industries, equal people, equal distance from the mainland, that is from the mainland of Newfoundland. But what do we see, Mr. Speaker? We see that Canadian fishermen, Canadian people who work on the Canadian island are subject to Canadian law on quotas. We see that whoever comes and fishes under the guise of being registered in St. Pierre and Miquelon, of being under the French registry carrying a French licence, can fish all they want without being touched. We are not allowed to board the boats and have a look at what they have on board because the Canadian Government under this administration says, "We don't know who owns these waters".
The solution to St. Pierre and Miquelon is quite simple. The solution lies in what happened back in 1967 when France was objecting to a group of islands off its coast. The circumstances are similar. The islands belong to Britain. France said, "You only deserve eight miles, seven miles".


Mr. Price:: Six miles.


George Baker: Six miles.


John Carnell Crosbie: Try for five, George.


George Baker: The matter went to arbitration and the international court ruled, like any other international court would rule, like every other court had ruled, like every other case that has ever been reported under international law ruled. That country off the coast of France, when France argued less than eight miles, was given an eight to nine mile territorial sea to fish in and control over that area-I am talking about the Channel Islands. That was not too long ago, Mr. Speaker. Now the shoe is on the other foot and France has a small group of islands off the coast of Canada and France demands 200 miles. What does Canada do? Canada does not say no.


Joseph Price: Twelve.


George Baker: Canada says, "All right, we will declare it a disputed zone". The Minister of Fisheries said a moment ago in this Chamber, "They are not allowed to fish in Canadian waters". That is what he said. That is what the Prime Minister said and what the Minister of Transport said, "not allowed to fish in Canadian waters". I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, yes, they are. Just forget the disputed zone off the south coast of Canada for a moment. We have a zone going out 200 miles that feeds thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Canadian families. It allows them to have money for their children. That zone takes care of Canadians, some of whom have now been kicked out of the fishery. They have 50 foot brand new boats and loans from the fisheries loans board. They had their licences cancelled this past year in this area called 3PS off the south coast of Newfoundland, and the federal Government said, "We will have to give you permits
Supply
from now on month by month". Why? Because France is overfishing. Just imagine, France is overfishing.
This particular zone, which runs all along the south coast of Newfoundland, today is almost a disaster area in the Canadian fishery.
As I was saying, there is no fishing in Canadian waters. This year the French for the first time in Canadian history are allowed to go up off the Labrador coast and fish in zones 2G and 2H.


Joseph Price: Wrong.


George Baker: "Wrong", says the Hon. Member across the way.


Joseph Price: Not for the first time.


George Baker: For the First time in Canadian history, they have an allocation to themselves in 2G and 2H off the coast of Labrador. I have heard the Minister of Fisheries and I have heard the Prime Minister in this Chamber say, "Well, you know, we are going to give them that fish up there as an interim measure to get them back to the bargaining table because Canadians don't want it because the ground is too rotten at the bottom of the ocean. You cannot haul a seine through it. You cannot haul a trawl through it because the ground is too rotten". That is utter nonsense. That is the spawning ground for the entire northern fishery, the entire stock that we call the northern cod stock. The northern cod stock is located in the riding of the Minister of Transport. The northern cod stock is in the riding of the Hon. Member for Bonavista- T rinity -Conception (Mr. Johnson). The northern cod stock is in Gander-Twillingate. The northern cod stock is in Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.
When people hear on radio or television reference to the northern cod stock or when they hear some Hon. Members talk about the northern cod stock, they think that that is codfish that is way up North somewhere where no one lives except for a few Newfoundlanders who hunt seals. That is wrong. The northern cod stock goes right from the Avalon Peninsula down around St. John's and right along the coastline of Newfoundland in every single bay and inlet.
If a person wanted to catch a codfish from the northern cod stock, he would get on a plane, go to St. John's, Newfoundland, get off at the airport, go out through Belle Isle to Torbay or somewhere, put a line over the side of the wharf and hook a codfish. He would then have a codfish from the northern cod stock.
There is this misconception that the northern cod stock is way up North somewhere. It is not. It is right around the coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am not now talking about the French who live in St. Pierre and Miquelon. I am talking about the French from France.

November 20, 1987
Supply
Has anyone ever argued against allowing the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon enough fish to harvest for themselves, thus allowing them to employ themselves? No, no one has ever argued against that. One would have to be crazy to say that the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon do not have a right to live. Of course they do, they have an historic right to exist off that resource which lies off the coast of Canada.
These great big ships called the Metropolitan Fleet with their fancy equipment, their fancy gear, their on-board freezing facilities and all of their modern technology come over and scoop up millions and millions of pounds of fish. That is what we are talking about now. That is the fleet that the people in St. Pierre and Miquelon detest. That is the fleet over which they call public meetings. They say that they must do something against the Government of France because the Government of Canada lacks the political will, as the Hon. Member who presented this motion said, to do anything about it.
Add to that the new horizons of the French Government, not of the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon but of the French Government. This year in St. Malo alone, where the Minister of External Affairs sent a letter guaranteeing jobs for years to come, 2,500 people worked in the fish plants from the fish they gathered off the coast of Newfoundland.
This year, the French fleet is fishing on 2G and 2H. This year there is an interim fishery. Granted, there is no interim fishery for 1988, that is true. The Minister of Transport made that quite clear. He drew that distinction, but the Minister of Fisheries did not a few moments ago.
On top of that, we have that poor, unfortunate Tory Government of Newfoundland. Amid all of this frustration felt by the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland went to work and applied for licences for what is called the middle-distance fleet, another bunch of new ships to be launched in order to take away the fishing resource that we do not have off the coast of Newfoundland.
In conclusion, I must congratulate the Hon. Member for Egmont for putting forward such a sensible resolution. I do hope that all Hon. Members and even members of the Progressive Conservative Parties will vote totally in favour of the motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment or two to make and even a question or two to ask the honourable toothsome gentleman. I must say, however, that I am afraid that he did not cook up very much in his remarks. There is not much we can get our teeth into. As a matter of fact, what he had to say was as toothless as a tomcod.
The hon. gentleman never made one sensible point. 1 would like him to deal with some of these other questions. I did not hear one offer of an answer or a solution from him.
The Hon. Member mentioned the arbitration between England and France in connection with the Channel Islands
dispute. That case went to arbitration because the United Kingdom and France agreed that it would go to arbitration. Surely the hon. gentleman must realize that for some years now, both the Government he was elected to represent and the present Government have been attempting to convince France that it should go to arbitration about the territorial boundaries surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon, but France refused to do so.
Would the hon. gentleman enlighten us on how he will force France to go to arbitration if France says that it does not wish to go to arbitration? There can only be arbitration if both parties agree to that arbitration. What is his solution to that?
If he had a solution to that problem, why did he not produce it when the Trudeau administration was in power through all of the years between 1968 and 1984? If he did offer that solution then, he might explain to the House why that Government did not act upon it.
While the hon. gentleman is dealing with that question and while we are on the subject of Canada and France, would he explain to the House why his Liberal Government in 1972 entered into the 1972 treaty between Canada and France that gave the French the right to fish in Canadian waters? He says that he knows where Canadian waters are. The Liberals must have known where Canadian waters were then if they know where Canadian waters are now. Of course, they had their water cut off in 1984 so 1 do not know how they could know where Canadian waters are, but if they know now, they should have known then.
The Liberals entered into a treaty with France that gave France the right to fish in Canadian waters, into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and into 2J3KL and all of the Canadian waters they could claim to have a right to fish in. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might explain to the House why his Party and Government did that.
The hon. gentleman might also explain to the House why his bench-mate, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port Au Port- St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), rose in the House on Wednesday and made a perfect fool of himself. He was the leading questioner of the day for the Official Opposition. He pretended that there had been some great change and that we were now threatened by France and that for the first time in history, a French navy vessel would be permanently deployed off the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. He went on and on and said that this was the first time in history that there would be French navy presence off the East Coast of Canada because the vessel La Centure was patrolling the waters off St. Pierre and Miquelon. It turned out that poor Tugboat Tobin had his mug in a tug and all this was was a naval tug that has been coming to Canada for 10 years. Four tugs come here and spell one another off. That was the leading question of the day.
Where was the Leader of the Liberal Party at that time? Was he out on a tug, or perhaps he was flying over the tug, getting his mug over the tug? The hon. gentleman might
November 20, 1987

explain to us why his seat-mate from Newfoundland asked that question.
By the way, I want to pass this on to the hon. gentleman. I came across Ambrose Bierce's definition of "positive" the other day. The Hon. Member is very positive. According to Ambrose Bierce, positive means that you are mistaken at the top of your voice. Certainly the hon. gentleman made a very positive speech. He was mistaken at the top of his voice.
Would the hon. gentleman get hold of Tugboat Tobin and ask Tugboat Tobin why in 1972 his Party signed this treaty, Article 7 of which says that the French patrol vessel which usually accompanies the French fishing fleet may continue to exercise its function of assistance in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? His Party agreed to a French patrol vessel which usually accompanies the French fishing fleet going not only into Canadian waters in the North Atlantic but into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Where was the Hon. Member for Humber- Bumptious-St. Barbe when this 1972 treaty was entered into? When will he apologize to the House for rising as the leading questioner and making a fool of himself, shaming his own province by fussing about a French naval tug with a machine gun, and guess where the machine gun was? It was on the stern of the vessel. It could not even fire forward! It could only fire aft. Of course, that is where you find that crowd, always to the aft. In the raft at the aft. That is where you find that crew. I guess they were in danger from that machine gun. I hope he will pass on to his Hon. seat-mate, the Hon. Member who has so shamed his Province of Newfoundland with his ignorance because of his lack of checking the facts, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-"St. Blab" as they are going to call him from now on. Why did he not check Article 7 of the treaty? It allows a French patrol vessel, not a French naval tug, to go right into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, I could go on a bit longer but I am going to have another 20 minutes and I am dying to get to it.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I know you are only going to give me two minutes but I want to answer the Minister because this is very important.
Why in goodness' name would the French want to go to arbitration when, as long as they do not, they are allowed to fish all they want in Canadian waters?


John Carnell Crosbie: Why did you give them the treaty?


George Baker: Why would you want to go to arbitration if you could fish all you wanted without fear of being arrested?


John Carnell Crosbie: Without fear of contradiction.


George Baker: You can drill for oil off the Canadian coast legally because the Government has proclaimed that it cannot interfere at all.
Supply
The other thing is, if they ever go to arbitration the Government had better watch them because the chief French negotiator, as you know, has been appointed to the World Court.


John Carnell Crosbie: He will not be on the case.


George Baker: The Minister says he is not going to be on the case. He is a judge, with 14 or 15 other judges. He will not be on the case? If he is not on it directly, he will be on it indirectly-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: The Minister read the 1972 agreement, or part of it. He neglected to say this, however. That 1972 agreement that gave France the right to fish in Canadian waters recognizes, "the right of French nationals to fish in these waters".


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why did you do that, George?


George Baker: Let me read it again for the Minister. It recognizes "the right of French nationals to fish in these waters". It is in the 1972 agreement.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why did you do it?


George Baker: The Minister says: "Why did you do it, George?"


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


George Baker: I will tell you why we did it. Because there is no period after "waters".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: There is no colon after "waters". There is no semi-colon after "waters". There is no dash after "waters". There is no comma after "waters". There is no bracket after "waters". What is after "waters"?


John Barry Turner: You are all wet, George.


George Baker: I will read it all to you. It recognizes "the right of French nationals to fish in these waters-" here it comes, "-subject to conservation measures, including quotas".


Thomas Edward Siddon: You gave them quotas.


George Baker: Subject to conservation measures, including quotas. End of quotation right from the agreement. The copy of the agreement that the Minister has must have been lacking somewhere. Maybe the person printing it forgot to put in the last part of that sentence. However, I can assure him that this is what is there. If he looks at it, that is what is in the agreement. That is why we signed the 1972 agreement. It was copperfast.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Still does not make sense.

November 20, 1987
Supply


George Baker: We had them, because we said it was subject to conservation measures, subject to quotas.
Apart from that, let me tell the Minister that under international law, unless you legislate something in your country, it really has no standing in international law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is verily one of the weakest and silliest resolutions ever brought before this honourable House.


Don Boudria: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen to me and 1 will explain to you why that is. Before I get into it I might say to the hon. gentleman who moved the motion that his Right Hon. Leader has not been here for several days. I am not criticizing him. He is probably out on great public business somewhere. He is a man that has no enemies, of course. However, as Oscar Wilde once said about Bernard Shaw, he has no enemies but he is intensely disliked by his friends. I would like the Hon. Member to pass along that little warning to his Leader about where he can look for support.
To get back to the motion, which must have the approval of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), like Gaul, it is divided into four parts. Anyone who moved it certainly had a lot of gall.
I will deal with all four points quickly because 1 want to concentrate on the Canada-France issue and on the last part.
It blames the Government for inept management of Canada's fisheries. In the last several years, in the present Minister-and 1 do not want to hurt the feelings of anyone else who has been the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, including those who occupy chairs in this House-we have had the greatest Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) I believe of this century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There has been the complete opposite of inept management. There has been "ept" management. One would think that Jake was in the Minister's position. Let me give one or two examples of "ept" management.
We are getting effective enforcement of the 200-mile limit that went into effect in 1977. That "ept" and effective management began with this Minister who has improved in every direction the enforcement of the 200-mile limit. He has placed observers on all foreign trawlers who fish within those limits. He has placed observers on domestic trawlers who fish in 2J3KL for the first three months of each year. Even our domestic trawlers have observers. Why? To help protect inshore fishermen.
That brings me to another part of this silly resolution. It alleges a lack of support for the inshore fishery in Atlantic Canada. I have just given one example of support. We also had the increasing of fines for illegal fishing in the 200-mile limit. I do not know how much they have increased. They have quadrupled or quintupled up to $500,000 an offence. The Minister says tenfold. Our patrol vessels have been armed. They are no longer afraid to meet naval tugs like the La Centure which has a machine gun on her stern. The French will find our patrol vessels now have a machine gun on their front end. This is because of the Minister.
The Minister has acquired a dual-engine helicopter for surveillance purposes. He has hired or contracted with Atlantic Airways for a new radar patrol facility for the 200-mile limit.
This resolution talks about inept management of Canada's fisheries. I am not even going to touch on the West Coast or central Canada or Lake Winnipegosis or any of those other lakes. I am not going to touch on the North. I am only going to touch on the east. This is the most "ept" management Canada has ever had in the fishery on the East Coast of Canada in the person of our friend here from British Columbia, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
1 will not go into other aspects of management because we do not have all that much time. The motion refers to lack of support for the inshore fishery. I gave one example of how the Minister is ensuring that stocks of fish are available for the inshore fishermen. All Members will know that over the last three or four years there has been some difficulty because the fish are not coming inshore in as great a number as in the past. In 1986, inshore fish landings in Newfoundland and Labrador amounted to 281.655 million tonnes, with a landed value of $135,365 million. That is for the inshore fishery alone.
This year, to the end of September, inshore landings have totalled 195.616 thousand tonnes, and the landed value of $149,248 million is already greater than the whole landed value of last year.
While the catch appears to be down, the year is not yet over, the value of the catch is up considerably. It does leave some problems of course for the fishermen who were not lucky enough to get any fish or very little. If necessary, programs will be introduced to help them, just as the Minister introduced a special program for inshore fishermen in the last three years who were in a bad position with respect to unemployment insurance.
Let me make one other point with respect to the inshore fishery. I want to mention the Minister's Small Craft Harbours Revitalization Program. That is a three-year $150 million inshore fishery program for major repairs and infrastructure over and above the ongoing A-base spending of the Minister's Department for operation and maintenance of $48.5 million a year. It is a tremendous program.
November 20, 1987

We were criticized for making announcements about this program during a by-election. Apparently, one is not supposed to announce anything during a by-election or an election, but must keep all the good news quiet. That is tommyrot, tripe, typical NDP softheadedness in suggesting that we should do nothing good in St. John's East during the by-election. The Member opposite, who was elected temporarily to this House, is now coming to me to make sure that the projects are completed. I tell him not to worry, the projects will be completed. They will be done in Flat Rock, despite the flat heads in the NDP and despite their criticism. They will be done in Processor's Rock in my district. There will be $6 million put in St. John's, Newfoundland, so that we will have for the first time in our history proper fishing facilities for the some 200 inshore fishermen of St. John's. These are projects implemented by this Minister, yet this resolution criticizes how he is looking after the inshore fishery in Atlantic Canada. That is absolute bunkum.
I hope the Hon. Member will withdraw this motion in shame when I sit down.
When I was goaded by a foolish question from the NDP one day, 1 let the cat out of the bag about the work that was being done in St. Bride's. This Minister is the patron saint of St. Bride's, St. Siddon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister appointed a special committee, comprised of experts from outside Canada, who are studying the fishery resource off our East Coast in order to advise him as to why in the last three or four years the cod are not coming inshore in the quantities they have previously. That committee will report to him during November or early December so that he can use the information and advice when he decides on the total allowable catch at the end of December of this year.
This is the most "ept", adequate and best management of the East Coast fishery we have had in this century, bar none. Even if 1 had been Minister of Fisheries I would have to say the same thing.
As a matter of fact, I was Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland for a year and a half. Therefore, the House is not listening to some neophyte, some know-nothing, to somebody who knows nothing about this issue. The House is listening to someone who has thousands of fishermen in his district. Every rural community in St. John's West is a fishing district and they all love me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With the exception of two communities where they had the temerity to vote continually for the Liberals. However, they are swinging around now.
The third criticism raised by the Hon. Member is the lack of political will to assert Canada's rights in the Canada-France dispute. That is absolutely contrary to the facts. Since last
Supply
February particularly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and I, under the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have handled this dispute firmly and I believe capably. While we always had good negotiators, we now have a first-class outside negotiator in the person of Mr. Fortier.
I do not have time to go into all the details of what we have done, but at the moment there is an impasse. We had meetings with France which ended on October 9. As an example of how firm we have been, in February we closed Canadian ports to French fishing vessels to show the French that we were not satisfied with their attitude and with their over-fishing in the disputed zone of 3PS. In March, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans closed Burgeo Banks so that the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon cannot fish in Burgeo Banks.
In August, the Minister closed all other areas of 3PS, including the western gullies which are outside the disputed zone, to French fishing vessels.
We have placed reasonable offers before the French because we are worried about over-fishing in the disputed zone of 3PS and what effect that will have on Canadian and Newfoundland fishermen, particularly on the south coast of Newfoundland. On October 9, when the French broke off negotiations and asked us to go to arbitration, quoting us under Article 10 of the infamous Liberal treaty of 1972, we said that we are not going to arbitration on fishery quotas under the treaty. We said we would not go to arbitration on quotas at all, but only consider giving quotas if the French reduce their fishing in disputed area 3PS, and agree to go to arbitration on the boundaries of St. Pierre and Miquelon. We told France that they will receive no quotas in Canadian waters in 1988 under this undesirable and unsatisfactory treaty of 1972 unless they begin to bargain with us in a sensible and reasonable manner. We said there will be no quotas for France in Canadian waters in 1988 despite the treaty, which French actions have made unworkable. The lack of reasonableness of the Government of France in this negotiation has made this treaty unworkable. Since the French have made it unworkable, we do not intend to go to arbitration and allow anyone outside Canada to decide what quotas might be in Canadian waters, despite the wording of this infamous Liberal treaty of 1972. That is our position.
The French have agreed to resume negotiations on the compromise with respect to the boundary dispute. There was a meeting on November 6, dealing with these technical legal matters, and I believe another meeting will be held at the end of November.
We witnessed a disgusting spectacle from the NDP ranks last January and February. The Leader of the New Democratic Party called for Canada to go into battle and use the Navy to clear the French ships off the sea. We saw Rambo Jewett, Battleship Broadbent and Hotspur Harris-the former lambs of peace. They are all for peace in the NDP. Their motto normally is: "peace at any price", except in the Canada-France matter. They wanted to let slip the dogs of war.

November 20, 1987
Supply
We believe Winston Churchill when he said that it is better to jaw jaw than it is to war war. We do not believe in the use of force. We will avoid the use of force in this dispute, unless, of course, we are given no alternative. That was the sensible policy of our predecessors in the Liberals. Apparently an NDP Government would resort to force. The Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) was going to send out the Navy, but first he had to find it, of course. Tug Boat Tobin, that tame tabby, crying wolf across the House is now a little pussy cat and we will not hear, 1 do not imagine, too much more from him. That is point number 3. 1 do not know how much time I have left. That is the trouble with speaking on one of these debates, one does not have sufficient time.
1 come to the final point of this resolution, criticism of the Government for our willingness to allow Americans to exploit weaknesses in order to gain control over processing in the fishing industry. What a pernicious load of piffle. What have the Americans done? They made a complaint. 1 have five minutes. That is great. I can handle this adequately, then.
The Americans made a complaint under the GATT. The GATT should be a magical name to the members of the Official Opposition and members of the New Democratic Party because they have been harkening about the GATT ever since we started discussing free trade arrangements with the United States, since the U.S.-Canada free trade discussions began. They said: "Oh, we would go multilateral". The Leader of the New Democratic Party is a multilateralist. He does not want anything to do with the United States where, unfortunately, 75 per cent or 78 per cent of all Canada's exports go. Mr. Broadbent does not want anything to do with the U.S. That is unimportant. He is a great multilateralist. He is sitting on a $2 billion investment from General Motors in Oshawa and he is so darned selfish that he does not want to share the benefits of that kind of thing with anyone else in Canada. That is Mr. Broadbent for you.
But they ail believe in the GATT. The Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, believes in the multilateral. Now, he is against free trade in connection with our agreement. He is for free trade, he is against this agreement, or he is against this agreement and he is for free trade. Anyway, he is for free trade but he is also against free trade. He is on both sides of the free trade issue, he is for and against everything. His mug is on one side, his wump is on the other, and he has not even been around all week anyway. That is where he is on free trade.
What is the alternative of the Official Opposition to our negotiations with the U.S. on free trade? It has no alternative except to mention GATT. Unfortunately, there was a GATT panel ruling the other day in connection with certain restrictions pertaining to the sale of unprocessed salmon and herring in British Columbia. We want that fish processed in Canada, naturally. There is a regulation which says it has to be processed in Canada. The U.S. challenged that, as is its
right-the right of any member of GATT to challenge anything they think is protective-and it managed to get a panel to agree with it. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) are battling that all the way. We do not know what the final outcome will be. But did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as there was a decision contrary to what we conceived to be our interests in the GATT, the lack of enthusiasm for GATT on the Liberal and New Democratic Party opposition side and the criticism we received from Mr. GATT Broadbent? GATT Broadbent got up and: "GATT, GATT, GATT, GATT, gittle". Do you remember Danny Kaye, Mr. Speaker? He used to go: gittle, gittle, gittle"? That was the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
He no longer likes GATT. He does not like the United States. What does he like? What are we going to do, give up all our exports? Will a quarter of our GNP disappear because the Leader of the New Democratic Party, if he gets into power, will have nothing to do with the United States and nothing to do with GATT? Is that not an inconsistency? I mean, if we are going to be members of the international world trading community, do we not have to observe the rules? If some panel says we violated the rules, do we not have to go through the process? Can we turn our backs on it? We, the country in this world most dependent on trade, are we going to be taking in one another's washing, 25 million of us: "I will give you my socks to do, you give me your dirty underwear to do, and we will pay one another"? Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that is the way to have prosperity in Canada? What nonsense. Do the opposition Members think we have our present standard of living because we did that? Not at all. It is because 25 per cent of our GNP comes from trade. That is why we have our present standard of living.
These people are inward looking. They are midget-minded. They are mean spirited. They do not have the guts to take a risk. They are afraid of the outside world. They think they can fool the Canadian people, and now this resolution comes along and adds this piece of nonsense. We have no willingness to allow Americans to exploit any weaknesses of ours, or anyone's, to gain control over processing of the fishing industry. We are fighting the case just as any Government here in Canada would fight the case. We have a similar problem on the east coast of Newfoundland, one that is not as bad because 1 do not think the Americans are anxious to buy, or try to buy, our raw fish down there. They oppose the sale to the United States of raw fish. It is a question of conflicting interests between processors and fishermen and so on, in any event.
We have a resolution here that is completely nonsensical and completely inconsistent. I do not blame the Hon. Member from Prince Edward Island for leaving the House. How could one stay in the House and have exposed to view the nakedness of this nitwit, neutered resolution? I only appeal to Hon. Members opposite to ask him to withdraw this so we can adjourn a bit earlier, get up to our offices and do something
November 20, 1987

worth-while. This is a disgrace of a resolution. The Party that moved it, the further it gets from power, the more irresponsible it becomes, the louder it shouts, the more it roars, the sillier its questions get in the House. It has disgraced this country with its behaviour during Question Period. We see it day after day. There is no sense of rationality, no sense of responsibility, no sense of reasonablness, and no connection with its past. When it was a Government, it did have to try to be at least responsible from time to time. This resolution is a further confirmation of the lack of thought and the lack of alternative that the Official Opposition provides to this country.
The NDP does provide an alternative. It provides Canadians with the alternative of committing suicide, of committing hara-kiri, the alternative of all of us getting together and marching off the wharf like a group of lemmings, right over the side of the wharf.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order. Forty-seven per cent of the people in British Columbia would rather commit suicide than go any further with this particular group, according to the recent Gallup polls.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


John Carnell Crosbie: Am I finished?


Raymond John Skelly: May we seek unanimous consent for additional time to enable us to listen to the stand-up comic in the House of Commons? He has spent 20 minutes making us laugh. I wonder if he would like another 20 minutes.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, I recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on questions or comments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians who have just witnessed what we heard will now know why unanimous consent was not granted. If someone could not make any sense in 20 minutes, one really has to wonder why additional time is required under the circumstances.


John Horton McDermid: I have a question for the Chair, Mr. Speaker, are these comments now in question period or are we in debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments.


Don Boudria: Perhaps we should repeat those things slowly for the Hon. Member opposite so he would not have to ask these ridiculous questions from time to time.
I was just about to say that every now and then I do stand in for the Whip of my Party, as I am doing today, which means I had to sit through this debate and listen to the entirety of the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). I
Supply
now know that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is having to listen to the comments we have just heard from the Hon. Minister. They were nonsensical, first, and, second, and probably even more importantly, totally inaccurate. Sir Winston Churchill described those kinds of remarks once by saying, "The Hon. Member could not have stated the opposite to the truth with greater accuracy". That describes the comments we just heard from the Minister.
It is interesting to note that on the one hand the Minister wanted to speak longer while on the other he asked if we would adjourn the debate so that he could return to his office. This is typical not only of this Minister but of the Government of which he is a member.
The Minister was critical of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for not being here in the House. Not only is it improper to refer to the absence of Members at any time, as you well know, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure you wanted to bring that to the attention of the Minister if he had stopped for more than half a second to catch his breath-but there is another unwritten rule of the House. It is that when an Hon. Member is ill and when it is known by everyone, such as happened with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) at one point in the past, one does not question the motivation for the absence of that Member, particularly when it is written across the front pages of most newspapers of the country. I suggest that those kinds of comments are inappropriate.
I want to ask the Minister this question. He referred to the protest against the free trade agreement made by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who obviously is not of my Party. Nevertheless, he is a Member of the House. He said that the Hon. Member for Oshawa was glad to have foreign investment in his own constituency but did not want to share that kind of wealth with the rest of the country. That is not the first time that we have heard members of the Government saying that Ontario is populated by fat cats or that another part of the country is wealthy and they want this and that part of the country to be as wealthy or as well off as another part.
Does the Minister not feel that those kind of divisive words are, first, a sign of desperation of a Government that is engaged in a futile attempt to continue to sell a free trade deal which is obviously not selling, not only in Ontario but in terms of a large number of Canadians everywhere? Second, does he not think that there is a certain moral ethic that dictates that one does not in such a manner divide Canadians, or attempt to divide Canadians one against the other, in order to sell a free trade deal which should never have been signed in the first place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member almost brings tears to my eyes with his moral protestations. Where was the hon. gentleman I wonder when his Government was engaged in the battle with Newfoundland and Labrador over offshore

November 20, 1987
Supply
mineral resources? For four or five years it attempted to starve the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the struggle over who would control the ownership and management of the offshore resources. He has the gall to get up to suggest that we are taking some type of discriminatory steps against Ontario. Some 90 per cent of all of the exports of Ontario go to the United States of America. Of them a tremendous quantity move under the Auto Pact.
I am simply suggesting, and I will keep suggesting, and I will suggest it from one end of the country to the other in every community in Canada in which I speak, that if the sauce is good for the goose it is good for the gander. If a free trade auto pact arrangement is good for Ontario, then a free trade auto pact arrangement is good for the rest of Canada, and we are entitled to have it in the rest of Canada. That is what we will say. It is what we will keep saying. There is nothing discriminatory about that.
Where was the Hon. Member when his Party was discriminating against the West by placing a cap on what price it would be paid for its resources at a time when the resources were rising in value and when doing this was being done for the benefit of other parts of Canada? That is all part of being Canada. Sometimes one's area has to make a sacrifice for another area. So the Hon. Member should not wave his honourable finger at us saying that we should not use arguments about what part of Canada is benefiting from what.
We know that Ontario benefits from the Auto Pact. Can anyone deny that? I know that Newfoundland and Labrador do not derive any benefit whatsoever from the Auto Pact. But I know that Newfoundland and Labrador will derive a great deal of benefit from the free trade arrangement. Why? Because Newfoundland's exports are primarily resource-based.
The Hon. Member might be interested in this. The most important example of this in Newfoundland is the U.S. tariff structure for fish. The duty on processed seafood, including breaded, battered or value-added products averages 12 per cent. That is why in the past we have not been able to produce in Canada the higher value-added products. We have had to build plants behind the U.S. tariff wall in Boston and Gloucester to make fish fingers and all the breaded, battered and other value-added products. After the free trade arrangement goes into effect we will be able to do all of that value-added work here in Canada. The President of Fisheries Products International, Vic Young, said, "It means that our fish products-like the value-added products we produce at Burin, we would be able to put into the U.S. market without the existing tariff. We could thereby increase the amount of exports from the Newfoundland fishing industry. This would increase the number of jobs for Newfoundlanders. So what is good in terms of the Auto Pact is good in terms of the fishing industry. If there can be jobs in Ontario then we want to be in a position to have increased jobs in Newfoundland. We will not apologize for that.
The free trade agreement will ensure that there will be no new barriers to trade resulting from the abuse of technical standards. Our exports of fish through packaging requirements and through inspection regulations will not be able to be stopped. Our right to control foreign investment in the fishing industry will be maintained. All customs user fees on Canadian exports to the U.S., including fish, will be eliminated. The fishing industry will benefit from the dispute settlement mechanisms. I quote from Gordon Cummings of National Sea Products Ltd. who said:
The most important aspect to us was the dispute settlement mechanism and we got that. It's a hell of a gain for Canada ... As it stands now we cannot get fair treatment in the United States. The bi-national trade panel will bring a more sane approach from the United States. This is a straight win situation for
us.
He also predicted that National Sea would expand its workforce by 400 as exports to the U.S. increase. And the Hon. Member says he is against this free trade agreement. The Official Opposition says that it is against jobs and expanded jobs in the fishing industry of Canada. Members of the NDP say the same thing.
Finally, I just want to quote Carlyle. When someone wanted to introduce him to the poet Swinburne he said, "I have no desire to meet a person who if he sat in a sewer would add to it". That applies to some other people I could name.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, one rarely gets a chance in the House to enjoy a speech such as the one given by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Most of the day of a Member of Parliament is spent struggling with the complex problems of Canada and working into the late hours of the night. Rarely does one get the quality of stand-up comic that we have just been witness to in the House of Commons this afternoon. This hon. gentleman could stand and speak for hour after hour making humour and flashing cracks as quickly as he pleases with absolutely no content or relevance to the problem before us. it has been one of the most enjoyable and refreshing afternoons that I myself and many other people in the House have experienced in a long, long time. I now hope we can get back to business.
There is one matter about which I would like to ask the Hon. Member for St. John's West who is a former Minister of Justice. He had the responsibility of protecting the morals of Canadians. Perhaps he could explain this to the House. I understand that the residents of Dildo Hill have put the Minister of Fisheries through the beatification process and allowed sainthood to fall upon him. Is he taking any responsibility for stamping out the satanic cults that would have done that? That is the first question I would like to put to him since in this country the Minister is certainly viewed in many quarters as a representative of the forces of evil and the Conservative Government.
In the free trade situation again the conflicts between the two individuals are astounding. The Minister of Transport
November 20, 1987

(Mr. Crosbie), a prominent member of the Conservative Government is overriding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) from British Columbia and saying that the free trade arrangement in fisheries is good, that the export of our raw, unprocessed salmon and herring on the West Coast, which will also undoubtedly happen on the East Coast, will be an excellent thing. The GATT ruling is protected in the free trade agreement-or the Mulroney free trade agreement, and there is nothing free about this. We will pay through the nose until hell freezes over.
The Minister of Transport is actually advocating that as a valuable thing that has been protected under the trade agreement with the United States. On the other hand, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans states that it is absolutely wrong, British Columbians will not lose one job.
The second question here is, who is in charge? The Minister of Transport speaking on fisheries today, attempting to give this country a snow job on free trade, or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans standing up and advocating that that GATT arrangement should not go through, that it should not be honoured and that the raw product in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada should be processed in this country?
The third point on which 1 would like a response is the desperation technique of attempting to fan the fire of regional racism in this country. I am not sure whether he did this in his usual exercise of an incredible sense of humour, or whether he put this before the House through his lack of intellect, but the Minister knows that the auto trade is a managed trade agreement in a specific sector. It was carefully thought out and worked out. There were bugs in it when it came through, and people pointed out those bugs, but it was a managed trade agreement in a sector that was worked out very thoroughly before it went into place, and it has derived benefits for Canadians. What the Government did was to put forward an agreement, a proposal to sell this country out. That is not a free trade agreement, and the Minister of Transport knows it. This country will lose its sovereignty. It will pay through the nose forever, if this agreement goes through.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is about the weakest, most insipid, and most dishonest series of remarks that I have heard in the House in a long time.
1 just finished explaining how the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister for International Trade were taking this GATT panel decision to which we are subject because we are members of GATT, and because we have to trade to live, therefore, we have to be members of GATT which is an organization that both opposition Parties support, and those Ministers were going to appeal it and do everything that is possible to resolve the issue in our favour, or to see that processing of unprocessed fish still continues to be processed in Canada. That is what I said. Then we have this weak-minded attempt to get up and say that I said exactly the opposite. I will leave it to Hansard to reveal exactly what I did and did not say.
Supply
The hon. gentleman ended up talking about sovereignty. That sovereignty argument is not going to wash.
The European common market and the countries that make it up have gone far further than a free trade arrangement. Yet, is anyone suggesting that any one of those countries has lost its sovereignty? They have not lost their sovereignty. They have entered into a whole common market. The labour movements in those countries opposed it. They had the same short-sighted approach. You are the most reactionary body in society today. You oppose everything that is a change in the status quo. You are just selfish and want to hold on to what you conceive are your own gains; small-minded and inward looking.
By entering the European common market has England lost its sovereignty? Has Mrs. Thatcher lost her sovereignty? Has she lost the power to control her destiny? Has France lost its sovereignty? Has a small country like Belgium lost its sovereignty? Has Luxembourg lost its sovereignty? Of course they have not lost their sovereignty. They have not even lost their what-do-you-call-it-virginity. Somebody says that they have not even lost their virginity.
Yet we are supposed to accept this as a serious argument against a free trade arrangement that Canada is losing its sovereignty. The only way that we can retain our sovereignty is if we retain our capacity to grow and increase our economic strength. That is what gives a country sovereignty. What good is sovereignty to Canada if we have a shrinking market and a declining standard of living?
A month or two ago Doug Fisher pointed out in his column that in the 1960s Mr. Pearson's Government looked at the question of what we could do if we took the protectionist role and got out of our international GATT obligations or ceased any attempt to co-operate with the U.S. How would we survive on our own? The conclusion of the study was that there would be a decline of our standard of living of 25 per cent. The Government wisely concluded that no one in Canada would take that route and willingly forgo 25 per cent of their standard of living to follow the route that is now advocated by the so-called Canadian nationalists.
We know, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition would not take that route either because he is for free trade, and he is against free trade, but he is more for free trade than against free trade. Although he is not for this free trade agreement, he is for some other free trade agreement that he thinks that he could get that nobody else could get. Well, it is no wonder that he did not get anything when he was in for two or three months. He was too busy appointing people to the livestock feed board where they are still feeding away.


Fernand Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I must say that there will not be as much wind in the House as when the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had the floor because I will try

November 20, 1987
Supply
to deal with this fisheries issue in a little more serious and less facetious manner than has been the case so far.
I am pleased, therefore, to support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) which reads:
That this House condemn the government for its inept management of
Canada's fisheries in Atlantic Canada and its lack of political will to assert
Canada's rights in the Canada-France dispute and for its willingness to allow
Americans to exploit its weaknesses in order to gain control over processing in
the fishing industry.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this motion says a lot. As far as condemning the Government for its inept management, we need only look into the expenditures of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to realize what has happened since the Conservative Party came to power.
In 1984-85, the Department's budget was about $690 million. The first full year, 1985-86, under this Government, the budget was slashed to $620 million. In 1986-87, it was cut even further to $550 million. Using the 1984-85 budget as a yard stick, this Government has accumulated nearly $350 million worth of cut-backs in this Department alone.


Don Boudria: Irrespective of inflation?


Fernand Robichaud: Of course, irrespective of inflation, as suggested by my colleague the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), which means that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now operating with a lot less money than in 1984 and 1985. This simply does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, we could review the way the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has tried-and now I am using their own words-to improve a number of programs especially designed for fishermen. I am referring here to the Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan which was tailored to the needs of fishermen and made it possible for them to obtain lower insurance premium rates.
Because of certain changes which were made to improve this program, the rates are now much higher and the fishermen no longer find the program attractive. They are forced to get their insurance elsewhere because the Government has decided that it would no longer help them with their insurance. Some will say: "Well, why not?" A program was developed and implemented by and for the fishermen. What reasons could there be to say that the program was not worth much and could simply be cancelled? Yet, this is exactly what happened. Conditions were brought in which the fishermen found unacceptable and the program is no longer attractive.
Then, there is the boat-building subsidy program. Mr. Speaker, in the regions of this country where there are fishermen, you only have to mention the boat subsidy program and everyone will know what you are talking about. Fishermen could have a $50,000, $60,000 or $100,000 boat built for inshore fishing, or a bigger boat costing much more money, but in my region, it was mostly $50,000 to $60,000, and they
could obtain a subsidy to help them build it. Fishermen finally could afford the boats which they needed and which had the safety features necessary to give them peace of mind. What happened to that program? Mr. Speaker, this is a very good example of how this Government has given in to the Americans. The Americans said: "Your boat-building program subsidizes the fishing industry and we shall therefore apply countervailing duties." When the minister heard what the Americans were planning, he said: "No, do not do that, we shall simply remove the program completely."
This is exactly what he did. The fishermen can no longer benefit from this program which helped them build their boats for so many years. The Government simply and remorselessly cancelled the program. This is how the Government reacted to the threatened intervention by the Americans, by simply giving in.
There is a lot of talk about free trade. Ministers are travelling throughout Canada saying that free trade-we should perhaps call it the Mulroney treaty with the United States-is the magical solution and what the fishing industry had been waiting for. Now, we have no more reason to worry about our fishing industry. All the problems have been solved. However, when we ask how this industry will benefit from the agreement, we find it difficult to get answers.
We hear from the fishermen's association that they are somehow happy with the free trade deal, but when we ask them why, we get the answer that we have enhanced status quo.

What is the meaning of enhanced status quo?


Don Boudria: That is just like the Progressive Conservatives.


Fernand Robichaud: There you are. My colleague had the answer.
Mr. Speaker, it means that this agreement, this Mulroney treaty, does not mean anything at all in terms of fisheries, it simply has no positive impact in the fishing sector. And when we are told about the agreement provisions concerning trade dispute settlement, and we are told that this mechanism will solve all our problems, we look at the fine print of these provisions and come to the conclusion that this mechanism does not entail any kind of power. In cases where countervailing duties have been imposed, they will quite simply examine the situation to find out whether the duties were imposed pursuant to American legislation, whether they are in accordance with American laws. And if they are, Mr. Speaker, nothing will change as was the case with respect to soft lumber, potash, and shingles. There is no way this mechanism will serve Canadian interests.
November 20, 1987

And yet they keep telling people, fishermen particularly, that the provisions of the agreement are just what they wanted. That settles all problems. We are also told that we are gaining access to the American market. Of course we have access to the American market. We have always sold to the Americans, especially in the Atlantic regions. So what more do we get out of this? Well, absolutely nothing. We quite simply have the same access. Someone might have asked what kind of protection the fishing industry could have under the agreement. Well, we can see now that there is absolutely no protection for fishermen or for all interested parties in the fishing sector. There is nothing to prevent the Americans from taking over our first processing companies and plants and, by the same token, from monopolizing some of the fish stocks we want to keep for ourselves. And there is no protection in the Agreement against this kind of takeover.
We could go on discussing the Free Trade Agreement and the Mulroney-U.S. deal at infinitum. However, I would rather talk about the Small Craft Harbours Program that was discussed with considerable verve yesterday morning. We were told that at last we had a program that would solve all the problems of our fishermen. There would be harbours for small boats, wharves would be repaired, channels would be dredged, and all other problems related to fisheries would be taken care of. Of course everyone welcomed the funds that had been allocated. I did so myself. However, Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we saw a reduction in fund, for repairing small craft harbours. Wharves could no longer be repaired and in some cases had to be barricaded. People were advised not to go to certain areas because it was dangerous to do so. Access channels to the wharves could no longer be dredged. In some cases, fishermen had trouble leaving the wharf to go fishing and had to watch the tides.
And this despite the fact that where I come from, fishing vessels don't draw that much water, not more than one meter or three or four feet. And even there, fishermen were having trouble going out.
Mr. Speaker, you must realize that in my part of the country, along the Northumberland Strait, we have some very specific problems owing to the fact that storms cause the sand that is carried by the currents to shift and fill up the access channels to the wharves, and these channels have to be dredged every year, or at least often enough to make sure they are open.
As I was saying, the funds to carry out this work had been reduced, and now all of a sudden, they seem to have found the money to do it. Of course they had to find the money, because if they had let the situation continue, some of our wharves would have been lost altogether.
It was high time money was found, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the same funding will continue, so that our harbour facilities will meet the needs of our fisheries.
The creation of harbour authorities was also discussed. These would be set up along the coast and, in fact, would be
Supply
committees that would take care of the facilities, make sure someone looks after the lights on the wharves, does minor repairs, and watches the buildings where the bait is stored. Of course we have to have people to do these odd jobs.
But in addition to managing the facilities, they also want to make these authorities responsible for imposing certain fees on users. All 1 can say, Mr. Speaker, is that if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans tries to impose user fees on our fishermen, something is going to give!
I would really like to stand at the end of the dock when the person in charge of collecting these charges will ask the fishermen to pay up. I would really like to be there!
If possible, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Fisheries to ask the Minister of Transport himself to go to the end of the docks to collect these charges from the fishermen. That would be amusing, much more amusing than what we saw this afternoon because our fishermen will simply not accept these user charges.
The Government is trying to do by the back door what it was unable to do by the front door in Bill C-75. We debated that Bill at length, to such an extent that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-Sainte-Barbe (Mr. Tobin) spoke for nearly seven hours to block it. Section 4 of the Bill would have applied the user pay principle.
The Bill did not receive passage, but the Department of Fisheries now has a plan to impose user charges anyway. I really do not see how the Department can collect these charges.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak about a major project which will probably go forward because this is not the first time we hear about it. I am talking about the fixed or dry link between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
If a bridge, or even a tunnel is built, because it might be one or the other, it will have to go through some of the best fishing grounds in New Brunswick. In the Northumberland Strait between Cape Tormentine and Borden on Prince Edward Island, you go through a fishing zone which produces a rich lobster harvest. Indeed, these last few years, this has been the highest yielding sector for lobster fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, the fishermen were told that they would be consulted and that all the studies on the environmental impact and the effects on fishing would be made available. A few meetings were held in New Brunswick. The first steps were taken, but after the studies were completed, Public Works officials did not go back to consult the fishermen.
Now I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make sure that the Minister of Fisheries will accept responsibility for defending the interests of Northumberland Strait fishermen, because if this bridge or tunnel project were to have a negative impact on fishing, that might prove to be a disaster for all

November 20, 1987
Supply
people in my riding. Indeed, not only fishermen depend on fishing, but so do all lobster processing plant workers.
We heard recently that the project would have no impact on fishing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how anyone can make that kind of statement. If they are going to build a bridge to cross over to Prince Edward Island, it certainly will not be a suspension bridge spanning the full width of the strait. They will have to build foundations, piers resting on the bottom of the strait, they will have to dig, they will have to dredge. And if they disturb the bottom, they will certainly disturb the habitat of the lobster and that of scallops, for there are also lots of scallops in that region.
I mention this this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make sure that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) will assume responsibility for seeing to it that this project will not have a negative impact on fishing. And should the project indeed have such a negative impact, either during or after the construction phase, the Minister will have to set up a mechanism at the earliest opportunity, that is before work begins, a mechanism to provide compensation for fishermen who will be affected by the bridge or tunnel construction project.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and a comment. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) for a very good speech. He is an excellent Member of the House of Commons and he certainly represents his riding and the interests of the people in Westmorland-Kent and New Brunswick very well.
It was refreshing to hear a sincere and honest speech in the House today on this most important motion put forward by myself and seconded by the Hon. Member compared to the outburst, if you will, by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who tried to liken this Mulroney-Reagan trade fiasco to the European Economic Community and the trade deal within the EEC. The Minister drew the analogy that we could not live within our own borders. He said that we could not live simply within our own borders. No one disagrees with that. Members of the Opposition are not saying that we should only trade within our own country. Our Party has always stood for multilateral trade, trade with all different countries, and for trade that is enhanced in every way. However, we are now talking about a deal that left far too much out.
The Minister of Transport tried to give the House the impression that we stood only for trade within our own borders. Obviously this is the story government Members are carrying across the country. It is simply not true.
The Minister said: "You wash my socks and I will wash your shirts". That analogy is incorrect because one cannot liken Canada and the United States to the European Economic Community. There are many millions of people in the European Economic Community. We in Canada live alongside a
giant. There are 260 million people in the United States, whereas there are 25 million people in Canada.
Under this deal, which offers no protection whatsoever for most of our natural resource industries, we will be pressing the pants of the people in Washington. As well, we will be washing their dirty underwear. That is the analogy I would draw.
I would like to deal with a few of the issues mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent. One such issue was the harbour authorities which are being put in place by the Government. Yesterday, we dealt for a couple of hours with concurrence on a motion for increased funding for small craft harbours. We all agree with that, but does the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent believe that the harbour authorities that are now being appointed are simply a backdoor approach to collecting more revenues at harbours and ports? In other words, is the Government trying to get the fishermen themselves to levy user fees on themselves rather than following through with the Government's original intent which was to have the Government itself do it?
I would also like to comment on the P.E.I. crossing. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent and I agree in general principle with a fixed crossing bridge or tunnel to Prince Edward Island. My concern and the concern of the Hon. Member, on which he may comment, surrounds the environmental aspects of the project. It is very important that there be no adverse environmental effects if such a structure is to be built across the Northumberland Strait.
If the fishery is adversely affected in any way, there must be a mechanism put in place before construction of such a crossing or facility is begun. The fishermen should know right from the start that if there are to be adverse effects, some meaningful compensation would be paid to them for the duration of the construction of the structure if it happened to be a bridge. If a bridge were to be built, the pilings and foundation work would obviously disrupt somewhat the lobster and scallop grounds in those areas during construction, and that would take away some of the income of the fishermen. Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on that issue as well. Perhaps he could tell us whether or not he agrees with me that we are in agreement with the general principle of this, provided that those two important items are looked after along with a number of other items.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) for his comments and questions. I should like to mention here the contribution of my colleague on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee who, throughout the Committee proceedings, has forced the Minister to look into the harbour facility situation and make sure that enough money would be available to carry out the necessary repair work. I commend him, therefore, for his efforts which seem to have been successful.
November 20, 1987

As to the port authorities, 1 do believe that, afraid to go directly to the fishermen and ask for users' fees, the Government will try to do it through a committee. I feel it is not quite right for the Minister to tell fishermen to get together and devise development plans for the facilities, in order to be the first to get the funds appropriated for small craft harbour repairs.
Fishermen will then be faced with a dilemma: on the one hand, if they refuse to get organized, they will not be able to get Government's funds to repair their facilities; if, on the other hand, they get organized, they will be the first to obtain part of this money. 1 suggest it is not quite straightforward to operate in that way.
Concerning a fixed link, either a bridge or a tunnel, I agree with my colleague the Flon. Member for Egmont who lives on Prince Edward Island that such a structure should be built provided it has no adverse effect on the fisheries in my area. The Hon. Member also mentioned a compensation mechanism. A precedent exists already. Before the Miramichi River was dredged in the early 1980s, a mechanism had been put in place to compensate the affected fishermen, and 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this way to operate was quite successful in the sense that a number of fishermen were appointed to sit on this committee, together with representatives of Public Works Canada and the contractor doing the work. Mr. Speaker, I should like such a mechanism to be put in place before construction work starts either on a bridge or a tunnel.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest of respect for and, I believe, friendship with the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). We have got along well over the last eight years. I am very disappointed in the motion he brought forward today. It will not impinge upon our friendship or upon my respect for the gentleman, but it does put into question his judgment and his knowledge of the industry we are discussing today.
I had a great 20-minute speech planned but I only have 10 minutes left. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment before I deal with the GATT panel about what the free trade agreement will do for the fisheries. We have heard a lot of scare tactics, so I would like to put on the record of the House of Commons the facts regarding the free trade agreement and fishermen.
The free trade agreement which has been negotiated between the United States and Canada is a tremendous deal for the fishermen and for the fish processors. It is going to bring down tariff barriers to our exports. It is going to protect our fish products from vexatious countervail and anti-dumping actions, and reduce technical barriers which have hampered our exports. Those technical barriers are better known as nontariff barriers.
Supply
Canada's export of fish products to the U.S. totalled almost $1.5 billion in 1986, almost one-third of which were subject to duty. Elimination of those tariffs will particularly benefit processors of fresh and frozen groundfish fillets, prepared fish products such as fish sticks, which are currently facing a U.S. tariff of from 10 per cent to 17.5 per cent. That tariff will disappear with the free trade agreement. Do they mean to say that will not help our fishermen? It will not help our fish processors? How can they stand up here all day long and say it will not help?
Those products I mentioned, including crab meat, represent over 90 per cent of dutiable Canadian fish trade with the U.S. The tariffs on fresh frozen fish, fish-meal, and anchovies- which, I must say, I am not a fan of, even though I know the Minister is-will be lifted as soon as the agreement goes into effect. Reductions will begin on all other tariff items. By January 1, 1994, U.S. tariffs will have been eliminated on fish fillets, salmon, mackerel, clams and, guess what, lobster.
To give an indication of what this means in concrete terms, exports in 1986 to the U.S of lobster from New Brunswick totalled $84 million. From Nova Scotia it was $97 million. Newfoundland's export of fresh and frozen fillets to the U.S. were valued at $331 million last year. British Columbia exported $50 million worth of salmon and salmon products. All other fish products, including tuna, fish sticks, prepared meals, herring, crab, and others will be duty-free by January 1, 1989. These products will gain market share through elimination of tariff barriers. Growing and more secure markets will lead to more processing taking place in Canada and more jobs for Canadians.
Industry spokesmen, the people who put their money on the line to create the plants and hire the people, all say this will be good for their industry. We hear opposition politicians running around this country like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. Yet Canadian entrepreneurs, the people who take the risk, are saying this is great.
I watched the great debate the CBC had on trade last night between the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mrs. McDougall). Do you know who the most excited people were? The young people. They love it. One of them was from Windsor and he said, "You mean I can't compete with those guys across the border in Detroit? You're crazy. I can compete with them." The young people are excited about this deal.
Then we have Ron Bulmer, President of the Fisheries Council of Canada, who said that we will be getting better access to a market of 250 million people for our processed products. These are the guys who can make it happen. They are not afraid of it. They are looking forward to it. They want it. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who encouraged us to get into these negotiations. It was industry-driven. We are not afraid of this. The industry is not afraid of this. It is that little

November 20, 1987
Supply
red rump over there who want to be isolationist. Stop the world, I want to get off, that is the way they like to operate. That is what they are trying to do when they go through the country scaring people. It is totally unfounded.
I could go on and on and on about the fishery, quoting chapter and verse of what those people involved in the industry are saying about this. It is a great deal for fishermen and fish processors. For my friend to come along and say we have sold out to the Americans, that is just poppycock. Those big bad Americans are going to come up here, oh, dear, and take us over. Canadians are not that gullible. They have not taken us over since this country came into existence and they are not going to do it now.
We are proud Canadians. We are Canadian nationalists. We believe strongly in Canada. For this Captain Canada, Mel Hurtig, to run around the country saying he is a better Canadian than I am or a better Canadian than the Prime Minister (Mr, Mulroney) is fraud. He is a fraud. What total and absolute nonsense. Tariffs have been coming down from an average of 40 per cent to an average of 9 per cent over the last number of years. Have we lost out to the Americans because of it? No, we have gained strength. In that period we have had prosperity, except for that time during the early 1980s when the Liberals were in power. That was a disaster. Do you know why? Because they hog-tied every industry in this country, especially the energy industry, and we do not want to see that happen again ever.


Mr. Nowlan:: And Captain Canada supported them.


John Horton McDermid: That is right. He sure did.
I want to cover briefly the matter of the GATT panel because there have been so many inaccuracies coming out about that. This is the genesis of the issue and this should be understood by Canadians. This action was primarily brought by Alaskan processors. They wanted the same deal for American processors as Canadians had for their processors. In other words, they wanted to make sure that American-caught fish was sold to American processing plants. Our processing plants were buying raw fish from Alaska. The Americans just said they wanted to be treated the same way. The GATT panel kind of twisted this thing around. Instead of saying that American processors should be treated the same way, they said that this was an unfair trade practice. We understand the problems. The Americans understand the problems. We have GATT procedures which we are following and will continue to follow.
The only thing I have time to say is to assure the workers in the industry-the fishermen have a different attitude towards this GATT panel then do the processors-that we are working diligently with the B.C. Government, the unions and the industry to ensure that the results will be beneficial to all concerned. Canada will maintain its reputation as a fair trader and it will continue to be great for the economy of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11. a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, November 23, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers