1989-10-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) this report will be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-29, an act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other acts, with amendments, in both official languages.


TABLING OF SEVENTEENTH REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventeenth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] RAILWAY ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Railway Act (telecommunications).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the Minister 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. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-I am sorry, the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Ms. Mitchell:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, would that we had a Kingsway.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I must indicate to her that I feel very much of the same sentiment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, I realize that you do, Mr. Speaker, and wish only that we had power to change some boundaries.


PETITIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition from a number of constituents, most of them from my riding of Vancouver East, protesting very strongly the cuts to VIA Rail services which they believe are essential for many Canadians, rail service having been a part of Canada for more than 100 years. These reductions could eliminate a

October 19, 1989
Routine Proceedings
third of our national passenger railway system or more, as we know now.
The undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment, and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from voters in Windsor-

They are outraged that the government is proposing a goods and services tax, a vicious and nasty tax, and they call on Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, certified correct in form and content, from citizens of Bath and vicinity who call upon the government to exercise its constitutional right and disallow Quebec's language Bill 178.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table in the House a petition criticizing this Government for its arrogance in wanting to impose an additional tax on Canadians, a goods and services sales tax.

The people who have signed this petition make it quite clear that they disagree with the goods and services tax, would like it to be dropped from the agenda, and implore the House to call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with subjects that are as important for my constituents and those in other ridings. The petitioners oppose the planned goods
and services tax. The petitioners feel that the Government proposing this tax is probably making a bad decision for Canadians and they ask Parliament to reject the planned goods and services tax.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, the second petition that I have is on another very important subject and that is VIA Rail.
Whereas the Government of Canada has decided to eliminate many of VIA Rail's existing routes and thousands of jobs; and whereas the rail passenger mode is the safest and the most environmentally friendly mode of travel, the petitioners humbly ask the House of Commons to ask the government not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger services in Canada.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition that I want to present on behalf of over 100 residents of Halifax West and Halifax-Erie.
I want to stress their ancient right to petition the House of Commons, because in this petition they ask the House to consider recommending disallowance of Bill 178 which was enacted by the province of Quebec.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present two petitions that have been certified correct as to form and content.
The first one represents the signatures of 1,327 central Albertans who call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the justice minister of Canada to extradite alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada, even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada.
If my arithmetic is correct, this brings the total to 83,438 signatures on the same petition.


Douglas Fee: Madam Speaker, the second petition I have is signed by approximately 100 residents from the town of Rocky Mountain House who call upon
October 19, 1989

Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage, tradition and uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by the residents of Hamilton Mountain. The petitioners have spoken out overwhelmingly against the Conservative government's proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax. They believe that it places an unnecessary additional burden on low and middle income Canadians.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to reject the Conservative government's 9 per cent goods and services tax proposal.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty as a member of Parliament, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition signed by some members of my riding who urge the Governor General in Council to exercise its constitutional powers with respect to Bill 178 of the province of Quebec and disallow the bill.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I too stand in the House this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to file a petition with 180 signatures from people from various cities in rural areas of Ontario.
These people are very concerned with the elimination of the rail passenger mode in Canada. They feel that it is the safest and most environmentally friendly way of travelling.
Whereas, since 1883 rail passenger service has been an integral part of Canada's public transportation network, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail services in Canada.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present a petition on behalf of our Lady of Fatima's 50-Plus Friendship Club.
Routine Proceedings
They asked me to present this petition to object to the onerous burden placed upon them as the goods and services tax will be applied on virtually everything they buy.

I also have the honour to present to you three more petitions telling us that this new universal goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardships for Canadians on low and moderate incomes. The signers of these petitions ask us to demand that the Government reject this tax.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of producers from western Canada who are concerned about the government's handling of the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board on August 1, 1989.
They indicate that the decision was made without prior consultation with the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee or the major farm organizations in western Canada.
They also indicate that farm marketing boards are a structure developed by fanners, are essential to the orderly marketing of farm products, and should not be weakened but strengthened.
They therefore call on this government to replace oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection under the Canadian Wheat Board as wheat.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present two petitions this morning.
The first is from some 400 residents of Lloydminster, on both sides of the border and the surrounding area, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by retaining uniformity of dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have such great historical value to this country.

Supply


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have a further petition signed by over 1,000 residents of the province of Saskatchewan who call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions this morning.

First, with respect to the goods and services tax that is proposed, there are signatures of many of my constituents who object to this regressive and unfair tax.


John Paul Manley: Second, again I have a large number of signatures of constituents who are objecting to the proposed clawback of old age security benefits.
The petitioners feel that they have paid for their old age security benefits since 1952 and that the government should withdraw this proposal.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before putting the motion in the name of the hon. member for Beausejour, since today is an allotted day, pursuant to special order the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour) moved:: That this House condemn the govemments's mismanagement, lack of leadership, incompetence and negligence that has placed Canada's fishing communities and worders in unparalleled jeopardy.
He said: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to start the debate on the motion you just read, which is in my name, and perhaps may read it
again:
That this House condemn the govemments's mismanagement, lack of leadership, incompetence and negligence that has placed Canada's fishing communitites and workers in unparalleled jeopardy.
Madam Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to point to the many shortcomings in this Government's policies where the interests of the fishing communities on the West Coast, the Great Lakes and the East Coast are concerned. I would like to start by discussing the problems on the West Coast, especially those problems that will arise as a of the decision by the binational panel on Pacific salmon and herring, landings. Many jobs are at stake. Jobs are in jeopardy and jobs will be lost. On November 17, the Minister said in Richmond, and perhaps I may recall his words:

"I give my assurances that these jobs are safe". [Translation]
He wanted to reassure these people by saying that no jobs would be lost as result of the FTA.

As my colleague the member for Winnipeg South Centre remarked on June 15, the Conservative government could have protected the west coast fishery by not putting it and all these jobs on the free trade bargaining table.
Today I wish to demonstrate to this House, to the thousands of people who are listening in the fishery
October 19, 1989

industry, and to Canadians in general how this government put our west coast jobs at risk, as well as jobs on the east coast.
Article 1801 states:
Disputes arising under both this agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Hade and agreements negotiated thereunder may be settled in either forum, according to the rules of that forum, at the discretion of the complaining party.
In other words, the U.S. has the choice to challenge any trade practice in either the GATT or the free trade agreement. Naturally it will choose whichever forum is to its advantage.
If the U.S. chooses to challenge under GATT rules, the free trade agreement clearly states in article 408 that Canada cannot use export taxes to protect domestic industries such as the west coast fisheries. It reads as follows:
Neither party shall maintain or introduce any tax, duty, or charge on the export of any good to the territory of the other party, unless such tax, duty, or charge is also maintained or introduced on such good when destined for domestic consumption.
Export taxes to protect domestic industries have been a recognized practice under the GATT. As my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre said on June 15, it is perfectly legitimate to use an export tax so that non-pro-cessed fish from Canada is subject to a higher tax. However, the government has decided that we could do without this unique and potent remedy. This is sheer stupidity.
The next time we hear this government saying that it is through no fault of its own that the GATT rules apply, we will know that it is not telling the whole truth. They have castrated the GATT rules by removing the most effective remedy, the only one that could have helped Canada protect those jobs in the west coast fishing industry.
To summarize, this government has signed a deal which gives the United States of America the right to choose its weapon, the free trade agreement or the GATT. If the U.S. chooses the GATT, this government has chosen to abandon the only GATT consistent remedy of any significance, the right to impose an export tax. This has led to the free trade panel ruling by which Canada has lost its power to impose processing and landing requirements. This means that Canadians will
Supply
lose jobs and that Canada can no longer establish job creating policies for Canadians.
We have not even started to speak about conserving our resource. With this ruling we can no longer take measures of conservation. This ruling says that we cannot apply landing requirements to 10 per cent or 20 per cent, that part of the fisheries which will be exported. How are we to determine just what is 10 per cent or 20 per cent? We will find out after the fact when it will be too late.
As I stated earlier, in 1987 the minister of fisheries said that he would save those jobs. Two days ago he said that he did know how many jobs would be lost. On the one hand he says that it is a victory for Canada, and on the other hand he says that he is going to take 30 days to consider. Then his colleague in the Senate, the government leader in the Upper House, Senator Lowell Murray, contradicts the minister and says that the government accepts the finding and intends to work within the context of that finding.
Confusion is the major problem in the fisheries. There is confusion from this government. We do not know who leads the fisheries. When we talk about overfishing, it is External Affairs; when we talk about free trade, it is the Minister for International Trade; and then, the leader in the Senate intervenes once in awhile. Who is in charge?


Some Hon. Members:: Nobody.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, this is not the only instance where the Conservative Government failed to take a firm stand on defending our interests in the fisheries industry. The case of drift net fishing on the West Coast is another example. The Americans have the same problem but have taken a much firmer stand and obtained far better results.
If we look at the Great Lakes fisheries, it's the same story. The Great Lakes fisheries also have problems like water pollution and acid rain which affect the quality of the fish.
Madam Speaker, you will agree that the Government has been guilty of mismanagement as far as the West Coast and Great Lakes fisheries are concerned.

October 19, 1989
Supply
I would now like to look at the situation on the Atlantic coast. The problems facing the Atlantic Provinces do not concern just one minister. In fact, the entire Cabinet is responsible.
All this started a while ago. More than 1,200 jobs were cut at the CN workshops. The Tories are now going to make cuts in VIA Rail, and we will lose hundreds of jobs. The Tories have refused to take part in a joint program with the provinces for improving existing municipal infrastructures.
The Conservatives are going to make cuts in the Unemployment Insurance Program, after we were given the assurance there would no cuts. The Tories are going to make more cutbacks and close bases, especially the base at Summerside. Thousands of jobs will be lost.
Now they are asking us to approve a 9 per cent tax on goods and services. And as if that were not enough, on top of it all, they refuse to acknolwedge there is a crisis in the fisheries industry. This is simply too much! When fishermen, plant owners and workers and all the people who depend on the fisheries industry call for help, the Government, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, says that this year is a good year, that things aren't that bad and that the fishermen are pretty well off!
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with the approval of its Minister, has the gall to publish a document that describes the current situation as the best we ever had. This is utterly absurd!
Madam Speaker, the Minister is aware of the fact that a number of fish stocks are in danger of disappearing. First of all, our northern cod, and there is also the crab in the Gulf and the lobster situation.
The preliminary report prepared by Dr. Harris suggests various ways of dealing with a crisis that is imminent, a fact that the Minister refuses to acknowledge. Furthermore, the Minister keeps repeating there is surplus capacity on the East Coast and that the number of vessels has doubled since 1986. What he does not say is that the Tories allowed this surplus capacity to build up. They do not say that all the decisions since 1984 were made by the Tories. This Government must take the blame for the surplus capacity.

This government does not know what it is doing. Here is another example of confusion. On May 11, the Minister for International Trade hinted at help for fishermen, communities, and plant workers, and told reporters that the impact of further cuts would be comparable to last year's drought on western and Ontario farmers, who had been promised a $1 billion aid program.
The same day the Minister of Fisheries said: "We will be deciding on a comprehensive way of dealing with the problem". Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs commented that it is a very serious problem.
How is that, Madam Speaker, from a government that says fishermen are having a good year, as the Minister for Fisheries insisted on October 2 in this House? The same minister is now saying that there is no real emergency, there is no need for an aid package, and that existing programs are adequate. You will hear from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada who will tell this House how inadequate those programs are, Madam Speaker.
This government is showing a sense of irresponsibility, especially when it comes to the well-being of Canadians and especially Atlantic Canadians.
This government is trying to convince Canadians that the problems are not as serious as they are in reality. We know that in late December, when we are out of this House, reductions in cod quotas will be announced. These reductions will mean a loss of revenue for the fishermen. It will mean a loss of jobs for the plant workers. Communities that depend on those stocks will lose their economic base. What does this government, this minister, do? He turns a deaf ear. He is not prepared to come to the rescue.
Unemployment is also a very good example of the short-sightedness of this government. The Minister of Employment and Immigration wants to retrain the unemployed in Atlantic Canada. I have been saying that it makes no sense because there are no other jobs to retrain for, and that consequently the people we retrain will have to leave the area. This is a massive relocation program, that is what it is.
This program has been questioned, not only by the members of the opposition, but also by the Minister of Fisheries who, on May 12, in an interview with the Chronicle-Herald was quoted as saying: "It's tough in Atlantic Canada to talk about retraining or restructuring

entire communities. You can't treat it", speaking about the fishing industry, "like a bolt factory closing in Toronto". That is exactly what we have been saying, the types of training programs that are proposed will not do the job.
The numbers do not lie. There is a problem in the fishery. What is lacking is a government with the necessary courage to address the problem right away, not wait until later on. In this crisis we must remember the fishermen, the plant workers, the small fishing communities. They do not have the strength or the capacity of the bigger corporations. At least one-third of the labour force in Nova Scotia's small fishing communities, which amount to about 150,000 people, are employed in the fishing industry.
Overfishing is also a plague. How can we ask our own fishermen to make sacrifices when some countries, some members of the European community overfish to the tune of ten times their allocated quotas. Canadians are asking for an end to this overfishing. They are asking that we extend our jurisdiction so that we can control those stocks. All Atlantic Canadians are asking the government to take some kind of action, and still this government refuses to act.
Finally, I come back to the beginning. In addition to all the problems that this government does not want to deal with, we must add the possibility that the Americans will want to access our east coast just like they are doing on the west coast. It is only a matter of time. They will access it either through recent legislation, as in the case of lobsters, or through GATT, since this government has stripped GATT of any remedy. There is no stopping the U.S. It is only a question of time.

Madam Speaker, of course I would have liked to spend some more time on the problems in my riding and the entire province of New Brunswick, such as the decline in crab stocks, lobster prices and lobster catches, and also, if I may digress somewhat, on the economic policies of this Government which go against the interests of our fishermen, and I am referring to the Government's policy of high interest rates which keeps the Canadian dollar at a relatively high level compared to the US dollar and makes our exports less competitive. That is
Supply
exactly what is happening to our lobster. We can't sell it. Our fishermen had to catch it and sell it for practically nothing: $1.50 a pound. And the Minister and the Government still refuse to act.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues will describe these problems in detail when they speak later on, and I am sure the people of Beausejour will recognize the situations and will conclude, as I have concluded, that although we cannot do much about the vagaries of mother nature, in some areas it is possible to find solutions and to take action, something this Government has refused to do.
Madam Speaker, what fishermen and workers in the fisheries industry want is a minister who understands them, a minister who goes out and meets and talks to them and listens, so he will be better able to defend the interests of these communities. The people in the Atlantic provinces, the fishermen and the workers, will not tolerate being ignored by this Government.
And so, Madam Speaker, I repeat my motion: [English]
That this House condemn the government's mismanagement, lack
of leadership, incompetence and negligence that has placed Canada's
fishing communities and workers in unparalleled jeopardy.


Mr. Rompkey:: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague on this motion today. This is a very serious topic. I have some questions for him. The questions arise from the statement issued by the Government of Newfoundland that said that they had presented their case to the Government of Canada and received no reaction whatsoever. As a result of the interim report, the Harris report, the province indicates that the total allowable catch is down to 190,000 tonnes in the coming year and that they are facing a resource crisis.
They presented that case to the Government of Canada, and the statement the premier issued recently states that the federal government has indicated that it could not arrive at an acceptable reconciliation of the estimates of the magnitude of the problem because the federal panel of inquiry, the Harris panel, has not submitted its final report. They could not do anything because it has not submitted its final report. Are they not hiding their heads in the sand? Are they not refusing to deal with reality, to deal with probably the greatest crisis that the Atlantic provinces have ever seen? Doesn't the

October 19, 1989
Supply
hon. member think that the requests of the government of Newfoundland should be acceded to?
What they are saying is this, and I quote from the executive report of the summary: "The problems we are facing in 1990 are a direct result of the resource crisis". This document from the Government of Newfoundland states: "It is not acceptable to say that it has been caused by unwarranted expansions. Neither is it acceptable to say that it has been caused by structural or cyclical factors such as weak markets or a strong dollar. The problem has been precipitated by a resource crisis, but it requires more than a resource solution. There must be resource management. There must be measures to increase the scientific assessment. There must be measures to control and eliminate foreign overfishing". "However", it states, "the response of governments must go beyond resource measures. It must include structural, economic development and diversification". Let me repeat that. "It must include structural, economic development and diversification. Such diversification is needed to fill the vacuum left by a substantially reduced fishing industry".
I want to ask my hon. colleague, does he not think that in view of the fact that we have the initial report and we know the resource is going to be less this year than last year, and in view of the request for structural alternatives to the economy for alternative employment for those fishermen and plant workers that are going to be affected, it is about time that this government acted?


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question and comments, and of course I agree with the points he mentioned.

Once again this is an example of the lack of leadership of this government, the lack of commitment of this government to the people of Atlantic Canada, and the lack of commitment to the fishing communities of Atlantic Canada. When we say there must be major changes, we must pay particular attention to the
problems. What does this government do? It cuts the sub-agreements on different sectors of the economy.
We have seen the government cut into ACOA which was supposed to do wonders for Atlantic Canada. We were supposed to receive $1 billion over five years and this was supposed to be new money, over and above what was already there. What have we seen? We have seen the period for the $1 billion extended to over seven years. We have also seen the government going to the ACOA fund to fund the sub-agreements which were funded separately.
This government has absolutely no sense of responsibility. It has no commitment to the region, to Atlantic
Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the remarks that the member for Beausejour made about the problem posed by unprocessed fish leaving Canada and being processed in other places, particularly in the United States of America. That happens on the Atlantic coast as well as the Pacific coast. The solution that the member mentioned was an export tax. As I understand his presentation, we should have kept the ability to put export taxes on unprocessed fish leaving Canada.
What I want to comment on so everybody will know, is that the people who are exporting that unprocessed fish out of Canada are Canadians. I want to know whether the member has spoken to those Canadian fishermen and fish brokers and told them that he thinks there should be an export tax on the products that they are exporting. I wonder if he has discussed it with them and has their consent to that kind of tax imposition.
I would also like to know what the member has to say about the possible repercussions of imposing such a tax. Is it not possible that the people in the countries that are adversely affected by such a tax might look at our situation and perhaps take retaliatory action? What is he going to do if that action is taken? What is he going to do if fish products from Canada are banned or taxed in some other way? Now, reflecting on these two points, I want to ask the member, does he still think export taxes solve problems?


Fernand Robichaud: I would say that the first task of an export tax would be to protect Canadian jobs. That is why
October 19, 1989

it was there. We were never challenged, before the free trade agreement, on the west coast for our processing. Yes, the action was taken before the deal was signed. But in the deal we gave away the only action we could take against the Americans. We gave away our right to use an export tax.
I may turn the question back to the member. Has he got anything against protecting Canadian jobs? What has he got against that? This is exactly what we would be doing with export taxes.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the member for Beausejour, give what I consider to be a very concerned speech on behalf of not only the constituents in his riding of Beausejour, but all of Atlantic Canada and the western fishing industry. I watched the minister across the aisle and I saw the smirks and the smiles. It really bothers me.
I would like the member for Beausejour to tell me, who lives in inland Canada, and whose constituents do not rely on the fishing industry, what an average fishing family in his riding makes. What kind of problems do they have to attend to with regard to the environment, the elements of the weather, and the periods of unemployment? I would like to hear comments from the member on these.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, a document published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans mentioned the average income of fishermen, and allowing for unemployment insurance, the figure was well below $20,000. The document added that this figure had gone up since 1984. But Madam Speaker, is a salary of less than $20,000 enough for a whole family? People living in the Atlantic region may be at some distance from the focus of activity in Canada, from the more prosperous central region, but we still have to pay the same prices for food and all our services and all the goods we buy that are produced here in Central Canada, which makes the situation even harder for us, and it will get even worse when this Government decides to impose a 9 per cent tax on everything sold in this country. This will hit us hard.
Supply

Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Beausejour initiated this important debate in the House of Commons today. It is not that I agree with the stark language of the motion, but I think this is a very important subject which is too often ignored in the House of Commons and across the nation. It is of extreme importance to the people of Atlantic and Pacific Coast Canada and the inland waters where commercial fisheries are also important.
I want to say to my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean, that she or her party have no monopoly on concern.
We take our responsibilities to the fishermen and the fishing communities of Canada extremely seriously.
At the present time there are a number of troubles in the Atlantic Canadian fishery, most not of the making of governments, but due to other circumstances over which we should exercise a different kind of control perhaps than we have in the past, but there are a number of troubles which must be addressed and this debate will give us a chance to discuss them.
These difficulties have to be discussed in a sensitive and caring fashion because they pose a great amount of anxiety and worry for the people who depend on the fishery and, indeed, if they are not addressed there could be genuine areas of hardship in the months ahead.
I want to take part of my time to point out that there is no crisis in the fishery. The crisis emanates from those who would exaggerate alarm and suggest that, contrary to the fact, throughout Canada there is some kind of great chaos when indeed the opposite is true, and the management of Canada's fisheries is sound.
There is no government before us in recent times that has devoted more effort to enriching and improving our vital fisheries resources. No government before us has ever considered the state of the fisheries as carefully, no government has ever included fisheries as high on the priority list of cabinet.
The record of this government in the area of fisheries is one of responsible, intelligent and sensitive management of an important and valued resource. The government knows, and everyone should know, there are no

October 19, 1989
Supply
shortcuts to managing a healthy, natural resource so that sustainable development becomes a reality, not just a goal to which lip service is paid when it is convenient.
This government has taken strong measures to keep the fisheries vital and in consequence we have had years of unprecedented growth, a thriving industry, and maximum profits up to the end of 1988. The fishery is changing and we have to recognize that the fishery has undergone cyclic change many times through its history, and that change is also part of reality. New fishing technologies, shifts in the environmental conditions globally, market forces, the unpredictability of nature, the supply of fish from other sources in other lands, all these factors have contributed to the state of flux and, therefore, the state of anxiety on the part of Canadian fisheries, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
We are honestly and intelligently addressing that change. This means we are taking an objective look at the state of our fisheries to ensure that vision and reality merge to provide a healthy resource for today and for generations to come.
To do this we must explore, develop and adopt policies which can maintain a viable and productive resource for the future. This government does not endorse benign neglect when it comes to renewable resources. This government, unlike hon. members opposite sometimes, does not endorse merely taking short-term measures when we expect a long-term steady gain and improvement in the fisheiy. It just does not work that way.
Scientific research, consultation among all players, and judicious management of fish stocks are the keys to a prosperous resource. This takes time and special expertise. Putting all this together is what constitutes an intelligent management of the resource.
The fact is that conservation and the need to avoid overfishing involves difficult choices. We have an overarching commitment to resource management and to sustaining economic utilization of a well-managed fishery. In this regard, Canada stands at the top of the list among nations when it comes to the refinement of methodology for stock assessment, the establishment of quotas, and devising an effective protective process for living within those quotas that amounts to sound management decisions.
I am pleased to say that all in all, the professionalism of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
sometimes cautious but realistic way in which we have managed stocks has led to many significant gains for the industry.
Let us examine some of the facts. For Atlantic Canada alone, from 1983 to 1988, landings of all fish species increased by 200,000 tonnes to 1.3 million tonnes over that period of only five years. Total added value increased by $400 million to over $1 billion during the same period. The total value of processed fish products increased by three-quarters of a billion to $2.2 billion in 1988. Our management program has resulted in more than two and one-half times as much cod in the sea now than there was when we took over management of the fisheries.
In Scotia-Fundy, lobster landings have more tripled, from 5,133 tonnes in 1978 to 15,335 tonnes in 1987. The landed value of lobster increased more than five times, from $28 million in 1983 to $143 million in 1988. In the scallop industry, which is again showing strong returns this year, it looks like this year's catch will exceed last year's record levels and there are still three months of fishing left.
This year's bluefin tuna fishery in Atlantic Canada has turned into a bumper year. Our inshore fishermen have landed nearly $10 million worth of tuna since the middle of August. We, for the first time in memory, will use the full Canadian quota. Canada is developing a name for itself as a supplier of high-quality tuna to the international marketplace.
The success has not been limited to one coast alone. In the Pacific we have had the largest sockeye salmon run this year, in 85 years. We have rebuilt the stocks in the herring fishery from 13,000 tonnes in 1986 to 35,000 tonnes today. For the continued growth of all our fisheries, we have instituted a national habitat policy, a model for the world to emulate, which provides certainty in the growth of the industry and a balance among competing interests for development. We have had ongoing success with our program of enterprise allocations and we are introducing individual vessel quotas on an experimental basis at the present time in Atlantic Canada.
Now I ask you, does all this not suggest something other than gross mismanagement as the opposition charges?

I want to take a few minutes here then to describe, in more detail, the current situation in the Atlantic fishery, a situation which is very complex and is not amenable to a quick fix, short-term approach which the hon. members opposite are wont to put forward.
The fact is that, based on our professional scientific assessments, we have been able to develop and enlarge the potential of the Atlantic fishery enormously. In recent years we have experienced very strong gains, but new factors and pressures, the wild cards, if you will, have had different effects on the Atlantic fishery.
These include the impact of technology on the resource; that is, the improved boats and techniques of fishermen and the capacity that is accumulated with that, and the real effect of a changing environment in the northwest Atlantic on the quality and the accuracy of our predicative techniques.
Combine this with the fact that healthy profits of the last two years have been eroded by global market changes, by shifts in exchange rates and by significant declines in prices, and you begin to understand the new context in which the fishery must be managed for the future.
This is the context, this ever-changing environment, the entire environment, markets, the resource base, the capacity, the technology, and the effect it has on people. It is this context, that of change, that we must manage.
We have taken already a number of important concrete steps. In the almost four years that I have been Minister of Fisheries, I have met close to three dozen times with my Atlantic fisheries colleagues. I meet regularly with industry and a host of advisory groups. We have availed ourselves of all the expertise and resources at our disposal to explore every dimension of this issue. We have brought initiatives forward which were endorsed at the First Ministers' Conference in November, 1986.1 visited Atlantic Canada in the summer of 1986, as I do each summer. I walked the wharfs, went to see the fishermen, and witnessed a deterioration in the northern cod inshore fishery. So I took specific measures, starting in the summer of 1986, to change the fishing practices of the offshore fleet, to reduce quotas, to reduce the wastage by discards at sea, and to require observers on all domestic vessels fishing in that offshore fishery.
Supply
We went further. We appointed the independent Alverson Commission of eminent international scientists to review our own scientific methodology so that we might be sure we had it right. That, coupled with new enforcement initiatives, helicopter patrols and much increased fines under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, have all contributed to an updated and more effective means of assessing the northern cod stocks which are such an important and fundamental part of the Atlantic fishery. This gives some of the background to the problem that faces us today.
However, in light of declining quotas and changing world market conditions we have had to take additional measures. I want to describe four special initiatives we have taken. The first is the establishment of a special committee of senior ministers, chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to develop and co-ordinate the government's response on the state of the northern cod fishery and other Atlantic fisheries issues. Through this committee, cabinet is reviewing the adequacy of existing programs to help communities that might be affected by all the factors I have just described, and is poised to act quickly upon the solutions best suited to the task. I am pleased that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and other members of that committee are coming up with some very interesting and innovative ideas as to how to deal with this. I will leave it to my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to describe later today how we will address some of these social conditions and how we will look, over the next few months, to special assistance for the fishermen of the Newfoundland region, as we have done for areas within the fishery where important social assistance was required.
I recognize, as does this government, that from time to time there are problems in the fishery. Lord knows, that is the nature of my existence. There is not a new morning that dawns but what there are one or more new problems to be addressed. Some of these are large problems, some are smaller, and more localized. This government is addressing all these problems, working with the industry and all of those affected to provide appropriate solutions for fishermen and their families in fishing communities throughout Atlantic Canada. I assure them that the Prime Minister and all of the ministers of this government are deeply concerned. That is why the government is devoting significant resources to deal with the problem.

October 19, 1989
Supply
The Harris Panel, a second initiative on northern cod, is again examining all the scientific techniques used in the stock assessment process. By the end of the year, I look forward to receiving the final report of the Harris Panel, which will give us input to the quota-setting process for 1990.
Third, a Scotia-Fundy task force, which I recently established, is exploring all aspects of fishing and fish processing in the Scotia-Fundy area, where we have far too little added value. We are exporting too much raw fish, with the consent and encouragement, very often, of local government. We have to change that; we have to deal with the over-capacity in the Scotia-Fundy fishery. That is why I have asked for this special Scotia-Fundy task force to meet with fishermen, travel to communities, and report back to the special cabinet committee.
Finally, we have made foreign overfishing a government priority of the highest order, as reflected in the Throne Speech of last spring. Foreign overfishing in the Atlantic, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and also foreign overfishing on the Pacific by the indiscriminate use of high seas drift nets threaten to endanger international high sea fish stocks on a global scale. It is this overfishing, which is wreaking havoc on the life cycle of the northwest Atlantic fishery. It is depleting the straddling stocks that live both within and beyond our jurisdiction.
The European community has abstained from supporting the quotas set out by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, a voluntary international body that regulates fishing quotas, and will go ahead and set their own quotas outside Canada's 200-mile limit, if all Canadians do not stand up and express their outrage, as we have been doing in various forums, for the past six months.
I have travelled abroad, as have other ministers, in the United States and Europe, giving this message that we must halt this intolerable practice of overfishing Canadian groundfish stocks.
In the meetings of the OECD in July, the Prime Minister raised these overfishing problems directly and forcefully. A new campaign launched last week by my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, takes our
case directly and forcefully to the European people, appealing to their sensitivity and concern for global environmental practices, which threaten the very future of the living resources on which we depend.
All these honest efforts to deal with the changing realities of the Atlantic fishery are proof of our concern and commitment to the well-being of our fishing communities and our resource, the backbone of the economy.
That is not all. We have added $3 million to our scientific program of stock assessment on northern cod, an increase of 80 per cent over last year. We will be providing additional funds for aerial surveillance and enforcement. I hope to have details forthcoming in a few weeks on the new surveillance program that we will be initiating on both coasts. As well, over the next few months, I will announce an aquaculture strategy which will bring a new dimension and untold benefit to the coastal regions of Canada.
We can talk about incompetence and mismanagement, but overfishing is not practised by the Government of Canada or ministers. It is practised by fishermen, whether foreign or Canadian. We must end this wastage of the resource and the inaccuracy it introduces to our scientific stock assessment process.
We must bring it under control by introducing amendments to the Fisheries Act which will significantly increase fines for infractions committed under our Canadian fisheries legislation. Fines, which are presently limited to $5,000, must be raised to more realistic levels commensurate with the magnitude of the benefit to be gained from crimes against the fishery.
I seek the co-operation of members on all sides of the House to support the speedy passage of this package of initiatives, which I hope to bring to the House soon.
I would like to take time to deal with the Pacific fishery and the recent free trade panel decision which Canada has not yet accepted. I see that my time is running to an end but I want to assure Canadians and members of this House that, first of all, we are examining this FTA panel report very carefully. We have never claimed it to be a victory. I do not know why the press and the opposition persist in using the word "victory" or "win" to describe it, although there is much editorial opinion to that effect.
October 19, 1989

The headline in The Vancouver Province yesterday stated that it is a net gain for Canada. The Ottawa Citizen yesterday stated, "Fish trade ruling pragmatic." Yesterday's Montreal Gazette said of the free trade panel ruling:
Chalk up one success for the Canada-U.S. free trade deal-the panel decision, which is non-binding, seems to be a good one in principle. And there seems to be no reason to think Canada would have got a better deal from a GATT panel if the dispute had been resolved there.
I am not coming to that conclusion. We have taken note of the facts and the decision of the free trade panel on which three of the five members were Canadians. The sovereignty of Canada takes precedence over all other factors in terms of ensuring that we have the scientific data, the necessary information, biological information, weight and size information which we must use as a basis for managing the fishery.
Therefore, in establishing whether or not some quantity of fish might be allowed to be exported by sea, the Minister of Fisheries, under Canadian fisheries legislation, will , have the final say to ensure that all means of transport, all means of taking fish from our fishing grounds are subject to full management control in accordance with our scientific objectives. That was the purpose of the new landing requirements that we brought into effect last May, I believe, it was. Those regulations were brought in to replace discriminatory protectionist measures restricting the export of unprocessed salmon and herring which were found unacceptable by the international General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs council because they gave Canada protection that our American neighbours did not enjoy. We have dismantled those regulations, because as a fish exporting nation, our markets must remain open. Eighty per cent of our fisheries production goes into international markets. For members to suggest trade restriction or protectionist practices as the way to protect jobs in Canada is to ignore the fact that those jobs are never secure unless the markets to which the fish is destined remain open.


Mr. Baker:: Madam Speaker, I have one question for the Minister of Fisheries. It relates to what he was talking about, quotas and Canadian jurisdiction.
National Sea Products recently came to this government, because this government is a shareholder in that company, and said that they were soon going to announce the closure of two more fish plants, one in Newfoundland and one in Cape Breton, because of reduced quotas. Those fish plants would likely be either
Supply
Canso or Louisburg. They also said that if it were Canso, it would mean the loss of 700 jobs inside the plant, plus eight trawlers tied up. In the case of St. John's, Newfoundland, the other plant mentioned, 450 inshore workers would lose their jobs and several trawlers tied up in Newfoundland.
How can the minister allow a reduction in quotas to these Canadian companies, with announcements coming of more lay-offs in the fisheries in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia, when he has allotted to the Japanese 3,000 metric tonnes of red fish inside our 200-mile zone right now; 5,000 metric tonnes of halibut inside our our 200-mile zone right now; and, for the Russians, cod inside our 200-mile zone right now-red fish and halibut to 12,000 metric tonnes. That is 20,000 metric tonnes of fish, the very fish that is processed in those two plants in St. John's, and in Canso. Why does the minister not kick the foreigners out of our waters instead of kicking Canadians out of their jobs?


Mr. Siddon:: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the drama in his question. That is the member's style. But he has a clever way of manipulating numbers to his own advantage.
I think the hon. member knows, but probably would not want to tell the House himself, that we do not make any stocks available to foreign fishing vessels within our 200-mile economic limit, unless they are surplus to the requirements of the Canadian industry, whether it be inshore or offshore. Now hold your seat, my friend. We do not make non-surplus stocks available. Canadian fishing companies always have first option to access those stocks.
The only fishery by foreign vessels within Canadian waters is for surplus fish that the Canadian companies, the Canadian fishermen, the Canadian markets, and our export markets are not interested in. I want to point out to the hon. member who sat as a member of a government for several years that ignored the problem of foreign fishing in our zone, that, in fact, his government allowed the European Community to harvest 10,000 tonnes of prime cod stocks and other prime groundfish stocks in our waters and allowed the French fleet to fish within the Gulf of St. Lawrence to a level of 17,000 tonnes over and above the needs of St. Pierre and Miquelon. We have ended those practices. We have eliminated the 17,000 tonnes of fishing by the French metropolitan fleet and we have removed all fishing by European nations from within our waters on the non-

Supply
surplus stocks, which are necessary for our own fishing fleets.
The Hon. Member knows that. I wish he would stop alarming the people of his area by suggesting that somehow foreign overfishing is the heart of the problem within the 200-mile zone. We have fixed that. We brought in helicopter surveillance. We brought in fines up to $750,000 for offences by foreign vessels within our waters. The Liberal government did not have the courage to do that. We ended the long-term agreement with the European community. We ended the agreement that the Liberals had perpetuated from 1972 allowing the French trawlers within our waters. We have found a means of solving once and for all the boundary problem around St. Pierre and Miquelon which will bring untold benefit, when it is finally resolved, to the fishermen of Newfoundland. The hon. member has the gall to get up and condemn this government when it was the Liberal government that caused these problems.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, the minister spent a fair amount of time talking about the management of the resource which is at the heart of a healthy industry, if we have the capacity to manage the resource in perpetuity. I wonder if he would tell the House how the recent judgment made by the FTA panel enables Canada to protect the jobs of Canadians and manage the resource in such a way that in perpetuity we will have a resource that we can count on for Canadian jobs. He might also want to comment on the virtue of an export tax on the product.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, there is some confusion about the purpose for which the new landing requirements were introduced earlier this year. For many years there was an export restriction on unprocessed sockeye and pink salmon and herring from the west coast of Canada, but no such restriction on the other species of salmon, Chinook, the coho and the chum species. These are very important, not only to our commercial fishery on the west coast, but they are a prized fish within the five species of salmon. This is also a very important sport fishery, and a recreational interest to Canadians.
In March 1987, Canada accepted the findings of the GATT panel that the old export restrictions gave Canada certain protection which was not in the nature of a fair-trade practice. We removed those and brought in last May, new requirements that all salmon and herring caught on the Pacific coast be landed at registered landing stations to be counted, graded, weighed, and sampled from a biological perspective so that we would have more effective control. We need good records and accurate information on which to base the scientific estimates and the establishment of quotas.
This set of landing regulations has been upheld with a slight modification in recognition of the paramountcy of Canada in deciding the way in which we should regulate the export of our fish. This relates to the possibility of some fishermen taking their fish directly to U.S. processing ports, rather than bringing it to shore in Canada first. The panel report found that a small proportion of the fish might be allowed to be shipped directly, as is often done in Atlantic Canada. That has been done with other species on the Pacific coast. We oppose the notion that we should not have control of 100 per cent of the species landed. The FTA panel agreed with Canada's position that a state could not be obliged to make its fisheries conservation and management regime dependent on co-operation with another state.
That overrides and gives to the Minister of Fisheries the authority to be the final say as to whether any fish should be allowed to be shipped by sea. I can assure this House of our interest in conservation and long-term stable management of the salmon resource, which we built up to record levels of production from a very low point in 1913 when we had a great slide on the Fraser Canyon. We will use the powers of the Fisheries Act, the Fish Inspection Act, and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to ensure that the resource is well managed by having full access to the necessary scientific information no matter what means of transport when fish is sold from Canada.
I should point out that many experts and some representatives of the Pacific coast fishing industry welcome this decision because it gives them a choice as fishermen to get the highest price for their fish. They are not forced to sell to a cartel of a certain small number of processing plants in Canada. A very prominent former Royal commissioner and candidate for the Liberal Party said only yesterday, and I would like to quote Dr. Peter
October 19, 1989

Pearse: "Fishermen should be allowed to sell their catch wherever they can get the highest price. If fishermen can get more value out of them and pay a higher price than domestic processors we won't get the maximum value out of the fish by processing them at home."
In answer to my hon. colleague from Surrey-White Rock, I just want to say that we are confident that the panel report-I am not in any way fettering the powers of Canada and the Minister of Fisheries-is going to prove, if we accept it, to be an improvement, notwithstanding the fact that we would prefer to have 100 per cent landing of our fish at Canadian ports.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, I shall start with a question which the minister in his good time may answer. I think the minister would agree that what the panel really decided was that our regulations, as they now stand, are contrary to the free trade act regulations.
If we want to submit a new regulation it would then have to go through the process again. If we said we need 95 per cent or 90 per cent or even 60 per cent to manage the resource, that would have to be again adjudicated to see whether or not they agreed this was a proper percentage. In all likelihood there would be different people on the panel. I do not think we are in a very safe position having the minister read from the body of the report. It is the recommendation or conclusion of the report that counts, not the discussion in the body of the report. I have read the report, and the conclusion as well.
I take no pleasure at all in supporting the Liberal Party's motion at this time-more in sorrow than in tiying to get political advantage from criticizing. I have been personally aware, having lived on the west coast in Nanaimo all my life, of mismanagement, lack of leadership, incompetence, and negligence with respect to the fishing industry for the last 50 years of my life. Not only has it placed the Canadian fishing communities in unparalleled jeopardy, but it threatens the long-term protection of an invaluable sustainable resource.
It is not something that has been done deliberately or through lack of knowledge, but rather often through use of the wrong knowledge. I can recall some 40 years ago when I discussed with a fisherman on the west coast advice coming from the Department of Fisheries and
Supply
Oceans to the effect that herring was totally unlimited. It was impossible to overfish that resource. And the fishermen knew better. They were warning these officials that they were taking too much herring out of the water. Of course the officials, the experts, knew better. I think it was just three years after that before they had to impose controls because they were seriously depleting the herring resource.
The minister quoted examples this morning of individual successes and said, "Doesn't this prove that there has been proper management in the last five years". The minister knows better than that. If there is proper management, it had to go back more than five years in order to rebuild some of the runs that were so seriously damaged, at least on the west coast. It goes back a lot further than that.
Nevertheless, using as examples a few successes and omitting to mention all of the failures makes me wonder whether it is good luck or good management. The minister, for example, did not mention the serious depletion of the halibut resources on the west coast, and I have heard halibut resources on the east coast talked about here. He has not mentioned serious depletions of other species on the west coast where I understand his own ministry is likely to impose total closure for at least one year, and I am not sure how many more years. That is not known yet, as I understand. We will wait until that happens.
There is serious depletion of some species on the west coast and there certainly is on the east coast. I was at Lockeport. I took the time to go there and listen to some of those people who have lost their jobs. Twenty odd million dollars of provincial and federal money was put in that processing plant which was closed down through lack of product at the same time as we are shipping roundfish to the States and, as the other members have told us about, to Europe as well. Fishermen are coming over and taking it.
The minister has said that we must get together and continue to express our outrage internationally at what is happening to our fish stocks. Those expressions of outrage, along with 80 cents, will get you a cup of coffee in the parliamentary cafeteria. That is about all it has achieved to date. We have not achieved any co-operation

Supply
internationally in looking after our very valuable resource.
To come perhaps a little more up to date with respect to what has happened recently, the minister said that Canada accepted the GATT ruling in March of 1987. I believe he would like to make that March of 1988. I do not think I have his attention right now, but it was actually in March of 1988 rather than 1987 that Canada accepted the GATT ruling.
It was in April of 1986 that the American fish processors first complained about Canada's actions which affect the fisheries, the fact that we were not allowing the export of our product and yet we were importing some of their product. At the time, it was calculated if it were reduced to dollars, the total claim for damage would be in the neighbourhood of $3 million.
In September of 1986, American trade negotiators complained to GATT. In November of 1987, a GATT panel upheld the American complaint and referred it to the full GATT council.
The minister took this seriously because in the same month, the same minister is quoted in Hansard as saying that many members of GATT use export controls to ensure adequate supply of raw materials for their own domestic industries. He believed and speculated that representatives of nations who sat on the GATT panel used such export controls, and what we have here is a panel recommendation which will, in all likelihood, be overturned by the GATT council of which we are a member. We will be opposing that recommendation when it reaches the GATT council.
I can find nothing that tells me that the minister and the government did actually oppose those recommendations at the GATT council. Perhaps I can be corrected on that. I would hope that the minister can assure me that Canada did actually protest it. As I say, to the best of my knowledge, I have seen nothing to that effect.
It would appear as though Canada decided to roll over and play dead with respect to the GATT decision. We could have objected. We could have vetoed it, but we decided to accept it because we had a solution.
Before the final ruling of the GATT council in March of 1988 supposed to do everything to protect Canada. If
it was going to protect Canada, it had to hurt the United States, and you know very well that the United States was not in it to get hurt. It was in it to get even. Getting even was its goal and getting even is what it has achieved.
In any case, on March 21, 1988, the same minister and the then Minister for International Trade announced that Canada will not veto the GATT ruling. The GATT council accepted the panel report on March 21, 1988. I have the minister's attention now, I think. Earlier he said March of 1987.
On April 25,1989, under U.S. pressure to abandon the processing requirements for B.C., the Minister for International Trade ignored the recommendations of the fishing industry working group representing all sectors of the B.C. industry and announced that the government will proceed with a landing requirement for B.C. salmon and herring. All the new regulations require that fish be brought to shore at a licensed landing station before they can be exported unprocessed.
I said earlier that the extent of the damage with respect to the first complaint was calculated to be some $3 million. We are talking about an industry with gross revenues, three years ago-and the minister himself has said that this is a record year in the past nine decades- of $747 million. That was in 1986. We do not have the figures for 1989, but they have to be over $1 billion. We are talking about a big industry; $573 million of $747 million is generated by export sales, a very important industry from the point of view of exports. If we are looking at a $3 million penalty, it would be very easy to swallow to maintain the long-term future of such an industry. It had an annual payroll, again three years ago, of $125 million; $79 million paid annually in taxes. It is important that we do maintain this industry. Employment is important, but the long range perpetuation of the resource is of even greater importance. It is the fourth largest industry in B.C.
When it comes to employment, I think it is significant that most of the employees in the processing industry are women, many of whom are native women or members of visible minorities.
The processing requirements, the industry argues, the union argue, and the opposition generally argues, were necessary to ensure proper conservation and management of the fish stocks. It is impossible to accomplish
October 19, 1989

that if the product, the roundfish, is sold to U.S. processors.
The minister talked about the free trade panel upholding our sovereignty. As I suggested yesterday, I did not know that our sovereignty was under question, but obviously it is. The answer is, yes, we are a sovereign nation, as long as we let the Americans tell us what proportion of our product should be exported in round.


Thomas Edward Siddon: There were three Canadians on that panel.


David Stupich: I am told that there were three Canadians on the panel.
It is also important, since the member raised that question, that Canada could have asked for further hearings with the passing of one of the Canadian members of that panel and his replacement with another member, to hear additional evidence which was accumulated since that time. There was a strike and we had certain information. Canada chose not to ask for those additional hearings. We let it go through.
I have yet to see a copy of the preliminary report. All I have seen is the American summary of it in Inside U.S. Trade, which was published September 15, the day the report was first talked about up here, and the day I was criticized for making it public. The Minister was not reading, the government was not reading, they did not know it was in the public papers. However, we found out by reading public papers what the preliminary report was. We have yet to see a copy of it. I assume it is similar, if not the same, because no one has suggested there have been any changes. We could have tried to get changes, but we chose not to. Presumably, the minister or his ministry, or somebody, must have some kind of solution in mind. The solution is not to let the Americans tell us what proportion of the fish can be sold over the side of the boat to other boats, to other processors.
The landing requirements refer to all five species of salmon. I have seen one figure that we are talking about, possibly some 1,200 separate runs of salmon up the-


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is 4,500.


David Stupich: The minister says it is 4,500. I am glad to have the figure. I was looking for it and I could not even find the 1,200 figure this morning. There are 4,500 runs of salmon that do not all go up the rivers the same day. They go in different periods. If you are going to get
Supply
sufficient escapement of each of those 4,500 runs, you have to make sure that that is happening on a day-to-day basis. We know what fish are being landed in British Columbia promptly. Even before they are landed, we know what is happening. We know where the B.C. fishermen are landing. We know the figures and the species. We do not know the runs, we cannot identify them, except that we know what days they are coming.
We will not have that kind of knowledge even if everybody plays fair. I have seen a suggestion in one of the papers this morning from one of the processing industry people asking how we can keep track of individual sales from a fish boat to an American packer if we do not bother to keep records, if they forget to tell somebody that they caught these fish and do not bother to say where they got them from, how many they caught, and what species they were. If we do not get that information, we cannot keep track of it.
How are we going to know early in the fishing season how much is going to be 20 per cent? If the minister had estimated at the beginning of the 1989 fishing season- and I think he has already said that that is the best sockeye run in some 84 or 87 years-what 20 per cent would be he would have been 100 per cent out because that much more sockeye showed up than he expected, so there would have been only 10 per cent, which is better for us.
But suppose the estimates were the other way around. Suppose they were only half as many came back as were expected. It would have meant a serious depletion of the early runs to the extent that they could have been so weakened that they would have been wiped out. That is serious. We have no idea when each one of the 4,500 runs is going to go up the rivers and which river each one is going up. We have no idea unless we are keeping track of those fish on a day-to-day basis.
It is important for conservation that we have that control. There is a solution. Both the industry and the union are proposing the same solution, namely, that we insist on landing 100 per cent of our salmon in B.C. Let us negotiate the penalty. There would be a penalty because it is going to cost the American processors-if they want to buy 10 per cent or 11 per cent of our fish, even up to 20 per cent-a couple of cents a pound to truck those fish from our landing stations down to their processing stations. It is very little per fish, very little for

October 19, 1989
Supply
10 per cent of the total cash, when you look at an industry that this year was worth over $1 billion.
The minister and his department have now had 34 days because they had the preliminary report. They must have had it on the same day as U.S. Inside Trade printed it, or earlier.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are assuming it is the same.


David Stupich: The minister interjects by saying I am assuming it is the same. In light of his lack of any comments to the contrary up to this point and in light of the fact that the government did not ask for any further hearings even though there was a new member on the panel, I think it is a fairly safe assumption. If the minister cares to tell me that it is not the same, I will not accept that. If he says it is not similar, then I would be pleased to hear it. I would like to hear what the differences are. Maybe we can approach Inside U.S. Trade and ask for a copy of the preliminary report on which it based this summary so we will know exactly what was in it. We seem to have precious little luck in trying to get it out of any government circle here in Ottawa.
I will admit we got the final one. We could not find out when we were going to get it, how we were going to get it, or where we were going to get it but we were told it would be released on Monday. That was as much as we could get.
Although the press got copies of the press release from the trade minister's office and from the Minister of Fisheries' office, we had a great deal of difficulty even getting a copy of that press release. We finally got one by fax from a member of the press gallery. There are ways of getting these things if one works at it hard enough.
Employment is important. As I said, there are mainly women in the processing industry, mainly native workers and visible minorities, immigrant women or second generation immigrant women. The government talks about all the jobs that are being created by free trade. I am talking about some 15,000 part-time jobs in the height of the season that could be lost. This is the beginning.
If the Americans say they will let us limit the export to 10 per cent of roundfish this year, what is to stop them from coming back next year and saying it has to be 15, and year by year changing it? Nothing at all. There is nothing in the deal. We are not signing a contract that it is going to be 10, 11 or 12 per cent, or whatever figure, from now until the end of the free trade agreement. We are simply saying that for today that is the rule. There is nothing stopping them from changing that.
It could mean wiping out the fishing and the processing industries in B.C. and the subsequent loss of all those jobs. All the jobs that free trade creates, such as making and serving coffee in the tourism industry, is not going to help the people in the communities that are going to be totally shut down because fishing is the only source of employment in those communities. It is a serious matter.
The government has, up to this point, abandoned the fishing industry on the west coast. It made a deal for the east coast. That deal, as I think I said yesterday, is not worth the paper it is written on. That deal will not stand up long under attack if the Americans decide to go after it.
There is a solution, and I have pointed out the details of that solution. The minister acknowledged that he was aware of that solution. Ele knows that the industry supports it and he knows that the union supports it officially, because he was nodding as I was describing the possible way to resolve the situation, a way that would maintain employment. The minister has said in the past that it is important to maintain historic jobs, I think were his words. Another time he said he did not mean the same jobs. He said he would not allow jobs historically established to be threatened.
I do not know what other kinds of jobs there could be other than the jobs in the processing industry which have been historically established. The minister made it quite clear that what he had in mind was preserving the historically established jobs. He can do that with the solution I described.
Even with every possible control, even by catching every fish and knowing exactly what run each one comes from, we still cannot be perfect, but at least we will know how many fish come back in a season. We can ensure the optimum escapement on a day-to-day basis if we know what is happening on a day-to-day basis. The only way

we can know that is by insisting that 100 per cent of our resource is caught and landed in British Columbia so that we can count it, identify it and grade it. Then we will know.
I am concerned, as I have said, and as the Leader of the New Democratic Party has said, that it is not just fish. If the Americans say that they have access to our fish resource, that we cannot deny them the right to come into this country and buy them, how can we possibly maintain our position with respect to round logs? How can Ontario possibly retain its position with respect to mineral ores which the province of Ontario now says have to be processed to some extent before they are shipped out? This is one renewable resource, and certainly B.C. timber and timber from other provinces is another. Are they not in as much jeopardy as are the fish resources, particularly on the west coast and eventually the east coast, if we accept this meekly?
I urge the minister to accept the solution proposed by the fisheries industry council and by the fishermen's union.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, while I enjoyed listening to the member from Nanaimo, I do have a few comments I would like to make, and perhaps I will ask a question or two. First of all, he pointed out that it was mainly minorities and women who worked in fish canneries, as though there was something wrong with working in a fish cannery in the first place and they had been relegated to second class status.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Benno Friesen: Here is the noble NDP shouting us down again. I remember that when I worked in fish canneries, the people working there were mainly from minorities. I was one of those who was from a minority group working in the fish cannery.
I noticed that the hon. member said the government should treat this decision on the FTA with caution. At the same time, the minister is criticized for saying that there are 30 days in which to make a decision. Now, the member cannot have it both ways. He cannot say decide today, but be cautious. We can count on it, for sure, that if the minister made a decision today, he would be criticized for not being cautious, for being hasty. Somehow, the member wants it both ways.
Supply
Well, now the NDP are taking coaching lessons from the hon. member from Newfoundland. It needs all the help it can get, even from the member from Newfoundland.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Even from where?


Benno Friesen: From this member here, the member from Newfoundland. What is his riding?


Mr. Simmons:: Which one?


Benno Friesen: He represents all of Newfoundland.
The other thing that I want to talk about is the member's oversimplification of the change that has taken place in the industry. He pointed out that he grew up in British Columbia as I did. He has lived there a little longer than I have. I hope to catch up to him some day if normal events take their course.
He pointed out that in the early days of fishing, there was unlimited access to the resource. You could pretty well go fishing at will. I remember those days when the fishing industry was shut down mainly on weekends. The rest of the time it was open. I remember the days when you could pretty well on a Monday walk across the Fraser River on the gillnetters that were fishing the river at that time.
I guess he is suggesting that because you could fish constantly 50 years ago and you cannot fish constantly today that somehow there has been a depletion of the resource and that is a sign of mismanagement. If he will do only one thing and that is check the tonnage figures of the total catch of the 1930s and 1940s and compare them with the figures for the 1970s and 1980s, I think the member from Nanaimo will agree that there has been a steady progression in the increase of tonnage. Just because there is not constant and daily fishing and it is not open season in the fishing industry does not mean that the resource has been depleted. Maybe it is a sign of careful management rather than depletion.
For example, does he not agree that there has been a change in technology? In the days that he harkens to of the 1930s and 1940s in the fishing industry, fishing was restricted mostly to gillnetters of about 30 feet long. There was no sonar, there was no radar, there was no radio to speak of, none of the high technology. There were no seiners out there, no trailers out there of any size or consequence.

Supply
Today, the fish do not stand a chance when you have the kind of technology that can track them all over the place. There has been a change in technology on the fishing side of it. There has also been a change in technology on the processing and marketing side of it. In the days when he and I worked in the industry, it was all canning.


Mr. Tobin:: Question!


Benno Friesen: It doesn't have to be a question, it could be comments.


Roger Simmons: Well, get to either one or the other.


Benno Friesen: In those days, it had to be canned immediately. Today, if the processing plants cannot keep up with the catch coming into port, they can freeze it and can it a little later on, as we saw on television the other night when the worker was interviewed regarding her opinion on the FTA decision.
There is also a different market where the fish are quick frozen today and then flown to Europe. The whole industry has changed.
I would like to ask the member if he does not accept the notion that maybe he oversimplified the problem by saying that just because things today are not the way they used to be, there has been a depletion of the resource and a mismanagement of the resource. Would he not accept the fact that the increase in total tonnage that we have seen is a result of the successful management begun in the government previous to ours in the Salmo-nid Enhancement Program and enhanced by this Minister of Fisheries when he doubled investment in the Salmonid Enhancement Program several years ago? He doubled the commitment to make sure of the future of the resource. Would he not kindly agree that he oversimplified the case when he spoke earlier?


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, I was afraid that the member would not leave me any time at all for a response.
First, with respect to women working in the canneries, either I was not speaking clearly or the member was not listening, but my point was that in the small communities that I said were going to closed down totally without these small canneries and I know that they are closing anyway, there are mainly women working in them because that is the only opportunity for employment for
people in those communities. It is not a case of demeaning the role that they are playing.
With respect to my advising caution, I do not recall using that word. I did suggest to the minister what the Canadian reaction should be, but I would say to the member that it is not three days that have gone by, the minister has had the report in his hand for 36 days, and there are only 26 days left.
With respect to depletion of resources, the point that I was trying to make, and again I think the member may have been distracted, is that there has been an increase with some species. There has been a serious diminish-ment in the quantity of the resource for many other species. Can you say that we are good managers of some species because they happen to be the ones that have increased, and say that we are good managers of the others that are being wiped out? Would the member say that maybe there was some good fortune? Also, the member knows that there was a serious incident on the Fraser River that has taken quite some time, the most important run of all.
Yes, there has been good management. I accepted that. I mentioned that, but I said that in some instances, unfortunately we rely on the opinion of experts who do not always know and who do not, at least in my experience, listen to the fishermen who are out there.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the House, my colleague on this side of the House and the member who just spoke have been focusing on the situation on the west coast.
One of the reasons we in this party put down the motion in the name of the hon. member for Beausejour, the fisheries critic for the official opposition, was that we have been alarmed by an attitude of the minister of fisheries who insists on telling us that the fishery is in great shape, the catch has been bountiful, profits have been high.
I want to tell the minister of fisheries, who is in the House, that in my riding of Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, on the Baie Verte Peninsula, and in the Bay of Islands area, the entire west coast of the province, there are 1,200 fishermen this year who have found the fishery so poor that they have not even earned enough insurable weeks of earnings to qualify for unemployment insurance. When we have asked, for a response program for those primary producers, the same as the government has, rightly and with our applause, responded to the

plight of primary producers called farmers, so far, all we have heard is that the fishery is in good shape.
Not in anger but in desperation, I take this opportunity to say to the minister that these people are in desperate shape. He knows they cannot qualify for unemployment insurance, until November 15. He knows that the social welfare program does not kick in until the end of that qualifying period, and he knows that right now there is a shortage of bread and butter on the table. That is not an exaggeration.
I use this opportunity to ask the minister of fisheries to get together with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to give us this year a response to a desperate human plight, a response that cannot wait until a week or two before Christmas, one that needs to be dealt with now. I make that plea in the name of all of those fishermen, and fish plant workers, primarily women, who today have no income and no prospect of income as we enter the Christmas season, until some time perhaps nearing the new year. Let us not leave them hanging high and dry, hungry and cold again this year, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon there was a legislative committee meeting to study Bill C-13. This bill aims to privatize two crown corporations, Nordion International and Theratronics International which produce products that relate to the treatment of cancer. During this meeting we had yet another example of the dictatorial
attitude of this government and its obvious interference with the committee system of the House of Commons.
Following the meeting the committee went in camera to discuss the agenda for future meetings. At a previous meeting it was agreed that each party would submit a list of witnesses and from these lists we would put together a program for the future. My office had made many calls to line up possible witnesses, such as the Canadian Cancer Society.
Shortly into this steering committee meeting the conservative member for Louis-Hebert abruptly moved a motion that no further witnesses be called and that the committee report back to the House by Friday. This act by the government destroys the committee system of this Parliament and clearly indicates that we have an executive type of government and not a Parliament that is allowed to function in the interests of Canadians.
This government does not care about the democratic process because it does not know how to manage power in a democratic situation.
Recently we heard the Prime Minister make presidential style announcements from Los Angeles and the Far East instead of in this House of Commons. This Tory government has obviously decided that the parliamentary process is a nuisance to its dictatorial desires. The truth is that this Tory government has become a nuisance to the Canadian people.


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


RADIO CANADA
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has said many times that it is in favour of bilingualism in Canada.
Why does it not follow up the request of Northerners who want access to the CBC's French programming?
In the past several years, the Yukon Francophone Association and the Francophone Cultural Federation of the Northwest Territories have met the Secretary of State and the former President of the CBC on various occasions. They made a proposal to install and maintain affordable broadcasting services.

October 19, 1989
In 1987, the CRTC said that of all regions, the least well served, even in the CBC's opinion, is the North.
I ask the Minister to have the Government keep its promises for once.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the time seems right to me, on the occasion of National Universities Week, sponsored by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to remember the importance of our post-secondary educational institutions in pursuing our goals of excellence.
If we want to remain competitive internationally, we will have to rely more and more on our valuable pool of talent just waiting to be put to use.
Mr. Speaker, we have everything it takes to build a strong, dynamic and prosperous country and I am convinced that the present Government will continue its efforts so that Canadians can have access to a post-secondary educational system based on excellence and equal opportunity.
In closing, let me wish all Abitibi-'Temiscamingue university students good luck and happy studies. I strongly hope that one day they will be able to use their vast talents and abilities for the benefit of our great, beautiful region.


IMMIGRATION LEVELS
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced yesterday that Canada's immigration level for refugees would remain unchanged at 13,000. She increased the refugee quota for eastern Europe to 3,500 although she knows that most of the east Europeans accepted by Canada are not refugees but what the minister usually calls economic migrants. Yet for Latin America where human rights violations and death squads are escalating, the minister cut that quota from 3,400 to 3,000.
The Prime Minister's wife, while visiting a refugee camp in Asia, promised an increase in the refugee quota there which the Minister had already promised at
Geneva. However, the Minister knows that labour unions, co-ops and church activists in Latin America who risk their lives coming to meet our visa officers are too often rejected as not being desirable immigrants or because the quota is filled. Therefore, they try to enter Canada to get a fairer hearing.
I call on the minister to increase the 1990 Latin America quota to 4,000 and the world quota to 15,000.


POLLUTION
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, just one hour ago water intakes were reopened again by the town of Wallaceburg and Walpole Island First Nation, after yet another chemical spill into the St. Clair River.
I cannot begin to describe the frustration and anger felt by residents living downstream from Sarnia's chemical valley.
This government has abandoned us. A pipeline to bring clean water from Lake Huron was denied federal money. The Conservatives said: "It's not their problem".
It is ironic too that yesterday the Federal Court denied Walpole council's injunction to stop a dredging project.
Aided and abetted by the Ministers of Environment and Indian Affairs, the decision says economics outweigh environment and long term health.
A 150-foot dredge continues digging 24 hours a day then dumping 50,000 cubic metres of potentially hazardous sediment into Lake St. Clair.
In my riding we wonder where the federal government's priorities are as we wait in fear, held hostage to the constant threat of chemical spills, while this duly elected federal government says: "It's not their problem."



Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, for my riding of Samia-Lambton and others bordering the Great Lakes, the recent commitment of $125 million in new federal government funds to help clean up and preserve the Great Lakes is a much welcomed announcement.
October 19, 1989

The doubling of federal funds, I believe, constitutes an important step forward in our long-term effort to protect this vital ecosystem.
Today, the Great Lakes provide drinking water, recreation, and to a very significant extent, the economic underpinnings for some 35 million Canadians and Americans.
In the wake of this new action plan, there still remains much to do on many levels. Environmental issues and concerns are not simple problems which can be addressed unilaterally or through a single program or initiative.
While I do recognize that a lot of work has already been done at the provincial and municipal level, much more must be done. Certainly, both have an integral role to play in the upgrading of the current sewage treatment and drainage systems.
At the same time, I call on individual Canadians to actively participate in the clean-up initiative. They too have a vital role to play. Every one of us can and must make a better accounting of what type of waste and by-products we are discharging into the environment. For this to work, Canadians must be part of the solution, not the problem.
In the end, by all of us working together in a constructive and concerted fashion, I strongly believe that we can protect and upgrade our Great Lakes.


DROUGHT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the deadline for appeals under the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program has now passed and the producer review committees are looking at those appeals. There are more than 200 in the province of Saskatchewan alone.
The whole program is a farce and the rural municipalities across the prairies are being forced to carry the load for the federal government and they are now reacting.
Earlier this month, the rural municipality of Douglas in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency passed a resolution critical of that program. I would like to read that into the record. It states: "That we express our dissatisfaction with the CCDAP because it does not
recognize lands and producers that should receive assistance due to the actual drought, and it does allocate assistance to lands that do not individually qualify but by the fact that they just happen to fall within certain township boundaries. Furthermore, that the Producer Review Committees allow and allot adjustments of payments to farmers who appeal on an individual rather than a township basis, also that disclosure of past farm financial records be waived".
I call on other Saskatchewan rural municipalities to add their voices to the growing list of groups opposed to this very flawed program.


CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, this week we observe National Co-operative Week. The purpose of this annual event is to remind Canadians of the role co-operatives have played and continue to play on our society and our economy.
All together Canadian co-ops have some $70 billion in assets and conduct about $14 billion in annual business. Twelve million Canadians are members of one or more co-ops. Co-ops are good citizens. They are involved in such things as famine relief overseas and helping the needy at home.
Co-ops are major players in the grain trade, the dairy industry and the poultry sector. They are also involved in almost every other part of the economy from Inuit handicrafts to computer software.
Our government created the co-operative secretariat in 1987 to act as a focal point for the government's role in the sector. Then we set up the advisory committee that gives co-ops an opportunity to advise the government on the potential impact of government policies on co-operatives.
We have also set up an interdepartmental committee to ensure that all government departments are aware of the concerns of the co-op sector and to take them into account in drafting new policies.
I am sure I speak for all members of Parliament when I offer my best wishes to the Canadian co-op sector.

October 19, 1989


LE VILLAGE QUEBECOIS D'ANTAN
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, another successful season has just ended at Le Village quebecois d'antan, an historic site in Drummondville, that gives us a taste of daily life in Quebec between 1840 and 1910. Now over ten years old, Le Village received 180,000 visitors in 1988-89. During the summer, when Le Village is open to the public, 102,000 tourists visited this centre which is unique in Quebec. This was 11 per cent more than last summer, with admission fees raising nearly $600,000 for Le Village.
Mr. Speaker, the charm and hospitality of Le Village quebecois d'antan are a household word. Many Canadian, American and foreign directors come here to make film sequences. The success of this venture is due to the tireless dedication of a group of employees and volunteers, under the direction of Mr. Claude Verrier.


RIDEAU CARLETON RACEWAY
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the Rideau Carleton Raceway which is located in Carleton-Gloucester, will close down if the federal government's goods and services tax is passed as proposed. That promise was made by Dr. Roly Armitage, the president and general manager of the race track.
We all know that horse racing is a popular recreation that attracts 200,000 fans a year at the Rideau Carleton Raceway alone, which employs over 250 persons and which encourages local industries.
The total annual net profit of all race tracks in Canada is $7.4 million, and the government is already taxing them $19.2 million, through a complicated taxing system.

The Government is about to sound the death knell for a sports activity that is popular in the Ottawa area and elsewhere in Canada. In doing so, it will destroy an entire agricultural industry.


POLLUTION OF THE SEAS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, at noon yesterday in Copenhagen, representatives of the parliaments of 16 countries adopted a far-reaching document on the prevention of pollution of the seas.
Canada was represented by all parties in this House and we undertook to urge the Government of Canada to establish environmental protection as a priority, to strengthen our national efforts in the battles against marine pollution and to express this through legislated plans which contain short and long-term targets and timetables, including a goal of zero discharge of persistent and bio-accumulative pollutants; a free and public release of information on all point sources of pollution; to strengthen our co-operation within existing and developed conventions; to comply with the adopted recommendations of the Nordic Council's International Conference on Pollution of the Seas, which ended yesterday, including a demonstration of political will and the provision of economic funds to achieve these purposes.
At the urging of the Canadian all-party delegation, some eight amendments to the international document were accepted, including, for the first time, the protection of our fragile Arctic Ocean and seas.


BROCK UNIVERSITY ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, this is National Universities Week in Canada. Today, I would like to particularly congratulate Brock University of St. Catharines as it begins its twenty-fifth anniversary celebrations.
From its inception in 1964, Brock has contributed greatly to the educational, cultural and economic life of the Niagara Peninsula. Individuals associated with Brock can be found involving themselves in all aspects of life in our communities, helping them to become better places to live.
As they celebrate their silver anniversary, I congratulate President Terry White, students, faculty and staff, as they continue to make Brock University a cornerstone of our communities.
October 19, 1989


INTERNATIONAL SAVINGS AND CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE DAY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate international savings and credit co-operative day. Canada's credit unions go back to 1900, when Alphonse Desjardins founded the Caisse populaire de Levis with 130 members. Since then, the Federation des caisses populaires Desjardins has become Canada's sixth most important financial institution. It has over 4 million members and nearly $40 billion in assets.
Today, there are credit unions in every province and in almost all communities in this country. Each one is an independent agency that belongs to its members and is managed by them. In addition to their economic role, credit unions, like other co-operatives, play a vital social role in the communities they serve. Through the Co-operative Secretariat and the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Co-operatives, the Government works together with all co-operatives to ensure that its policies and programs do not have a negative impact on this sector. Congratulations and keep up the good work!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today in accordance with Standing Order 31 to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to show some leadership and direction in reference to an issue which is having deep-rooted effects on the unity of our country. I am speaking, of course, of the French-English language issue.
On December 19, 1988, Mr. Mulroney said: "We showed leadership with Bill C-72 and the Meech Lake Accord."
As the Prime Minister knows, the Meech Lake Accord is now floundering in most parts of Canada. More and more Canadians feel that it is time the Prime Minister renewed his commitment and showed some renewed leadership.
I urge the Prime Minister to make an immediate appeal to the Premier of Quebec to protect the rights of minorities wherever they are and encourage Mr. Bouras-sa to introduce new legislation immediately which will
be in keeping with the Supreme Court's decision and the Quebec Charter of Rights, before the effect that Bill 178 is having on the minds of many Canadians becomes irreversible.


COMMITTEE SYSTEM
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, my colleagues and I witnessed a startling abuse of the committee system on this very day. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities submitted that the Standing Committee travel this country to hear the views of Canadians on VIA Rail.
Well, a colleague of mine moved a motion that we do precisely that, travel the country. All this prompted a flurry of activity at the clerk's table as Conservative members, new bodies, whom I have never seen at a meeting of the committee and who have not heard a single scrap of evidence, sat in and ultimately defeated the motion.
While procedurally correct, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this action by some government members was morally irresponsible, and only demonstrates further that this government is doing what it wants and when it wants not giving Canadians their right, at the very least, to be heard.


SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, since 1984, over 1.5 million new jobs have been created in Canada. The largest source of these new jobs has been the small business community. The government has recognized its contribution in several key ways. The lifetime capital gains exemption of $500,000 for investment in small business shares has been accelerated; RRSP regulations have been relaxed to allow more flexibility; government procurement policies are being revised to simplify the supplier registration process and to improve the participation of western and Atlantic firms.
The Ministry for International Trade is working hard to expand Canada's export markets, creating new and secure jobs in our export-driven economy. Tourism, one of the largest generators of small business jobs, is being promoted throughout the world by our government. The success of western diversification and the Atlantic Cana-

October 19, 1989
Oral Questions
da Opportunities Agency cannot be overlooked in our efforts to develop small business.
The record is clear, 1.5 million new jobs and a healthy small business sector. Our policies are working, in every sense of the word.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, now known in the Atlantic as "Mike, the spike,'' because he has driven the final nail into the container in which the Atlantic provinces are going to be shipped out.
The first nail was the complete mismanagement of the fish stocks leading to massive layoffs. The second nail was the wiping out of VIA Rail. The third nail was the gutting of the unemployment insurance system.
Isn't the policy of the government for the Atlantic area really a resettlement policy? Isn't the goods and services tax which will savage the economy of the Atlantic area just the last nail in the box in which the government is going to ship us out? In fact, isn't that the reason why Tory support has plummeted in the Atlantic provinces to 17 per cent while Liberal support has climbed to 61 per cent?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously concerned about the economy in Atlantic Canada, as we all are on this side of the House. But I do not think it serves anybody any useful purpose to listen to the types of exaggeration that the hon. member has mentioned here.
We have brought about some changes in our fiscal policy because of the very important concern that we, and many, many Canadians have about the size of our deficit and the size of our government debt. We must get this under control and we are trying to do this in the most balanced way possible.
If the hon. member is honest with himself, he will see that the application of the changes to VIA Rail, unemployment insurance, and the goods and services tax as
well, the impact is either greater in the negative sense in other parts of the country, or more positive in Atlantic Canada-in the case of the goods and services-than is the case with Ontario and Quebec. Atlantic Canada will benefit more from the goods and services tax introduction than will the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Atlantic do not believe that and neither do they believe the models that are being used. They are inaccurate and they do not apply to the regions of this country.
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Why is it that he has called the Newfoundland Minister of Finance deceitful when he suggested that Newfoundland would have to raise its sales tax to 25 per cent from 12 per cent? The federal minister says he is deceitful, just playing politics. Of course, that is the same attitude of the chairman of the finance committee now known in Newfoundland as"Chairman Blaggard" who said that it was not worthwhile going to the Atlantic in the first place.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


Bill Rompkey: They are spending two and a half hours in each province. The Conservative members on the committee have been called rude, ignorant, belligerent. Instead of calling the Newfoundland Minister of Finance deceitful-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I used that adjective in anything that I said about the Newfoundland Minister of Finance. What I did say is that I think that it is quite wrong for him to suggest that the sales tax rate has to go to 26 per cent in the province of Newfoundland simply because of the goods and services tax.
The numbers that we have on the impact of the goods and services tax on the provinces will be positive to their fiscal position. I say it is quite wrong for any province to say that it going to have to increase its sales tax because of the introduction of the goods and services tax. I suggested in the House that if the hon. member from

Newfoundland wished to discuss this with me, if he has any questions I would be happy to talk to him.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, 12 and 9 in any mathematics comes to 21, as far as I am concerned.
Groups from the Atlantic have pointed out that the goods and services tax in our area will actually be 10 per cent because we buy everything we get from central Canada and we have to transport it over long distances. In P.E.I. it will be disastrous for the tourism industry and the potato industry.
I want to ask the minister again, will he listen to this final cry from the Atlantic provinces, and will he now do away with this goods and services tax which will destroy an already crippled economy?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that this government is committed to moving ahead with a change in the sales tax system in this country. We are doing something that has waited for many, many years to do.
The Minister of Finance in 1981, who sits in the other place now, tried to make a change. It did not work. The change did not work, but this change is a change that is consistent with what is being done in 48 other countries.
I want to just draw to the hon. member's attention that he said this would be disastrous for the potato industry. We had the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture saying, when asked by a Liberal member if it wanted the government to scrap the GST, "No, absolutely not, then we would be stuck with the existing manufacturers' sales tax. We think that the GST will be good for Canada".


Bill Rompkey: That's not what they said in P.E.I.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I raise that point because the impact on the agricultural sector I think is a positive impact whether it is Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan or Ontario. It is important that we do not put out misleading information when clearly many people in the agricultural sector say that moving from the old tax to the new tax is a good thing for Canada.
Oral Questions


SOUTH AFRICAN FOREIGN DEBT
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on my way in to Question Period I received a wire that says that South Africa has reached an agreement with western banks to reschedule part of its foreign debt, a deal that frustrates plans by Commonwealth leaders to try to influence that rescheduling and increase economic pressure for apartheid reform in the country.
Zambian President Kaunda called the banks "bloodsuckers". Our Prime Minister said that South Africa's economic problems have not ended. "The best is still there. It has to be paid for and has to be financed."
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. To what extent were our Prime Minister and the Canadian banks involved in the rescheduling of this $20 billion debt of South Africa, of which we picked up $8 billion, while at the same time saying that sanctions work?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can inform the Hon. Member that the measures taken by the Commonwealth in 1985 have had a snowball effect. Other countries have also started enforcing sanctions against South Africa. We are on the right track. Although there are still some mechanisms that prevent apartheid from being dismantled, I think there are some promising signs in South Africa. However, we will continue to enforce sanctions until apartheid is completely dismantled, and that is a promise, Mr. Speaker.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, Canada is being embarrassed at the Commonwealth Conference because of contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Secretary of State says that further sanctions on South Africa at this time will not have any effect. Then we have the Prime Minister saying that it is because of sanctions that changes seem to be taking place.

October 19, 1989
Oral Questions
What is the government's position on sanctions? Do they work or don't they? If they do, why has the government chosen at this time, when there is pressure on the South African economy, to freeze further sanctions?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, this government has only one position. It will keep putting pressure on until apartheid is dismantled. That is our position.
I would like to quote from statements that were made by the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday in the Commonwealth meeting. He is referring to his meeting with Rev. Alan Boesack and he stated:
"Because there have been confusing press reports I should make it clear that at no time did Mr. Boesack suggest it would be appropriate to relax Commonwealth pressure on South Africa now. He believes it is essential that pressure be maintained and that the mere promise of reform should not be rewarded by any relaxation of pressure."
That is our position. We are continuing to put pressure on until apartheid is dismantled.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. I doubt that the minister can deny that the amendments to the Railway Act which he announced today run roughshod over the spirit of the Supreme Court decision which explicitly recognized the Crown immunity of the three prairie phone systems. I would like to remind the minister that on August 14, the minister promised to consult with the provinces to evaluate the consequences of that decision.
Why then, rather than consulting with the provinces, is he holding a gun to their head by stripping away this immunity which the Supreme Court clearly recognized? Is this his idea of fostering national unity?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's decision with respect to AGT is very clear and specific. It makes the Canadian
Government responsible for telecommunications. However, the decision raises the point of Crown immunity, and the bill tabled today puts all telephone companies in Canada on the same footing.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. There might be some of his back-benchers who are happy with that answer, but the reason the government can expect such a fight on this issue is that all kinds of studies, including one done by Bud Sherman for his own department, clearly indicated that the local phone rates will go up between 50 per cent and 131 per cent if these companies lose the ability to cross-subsidize from long distance rates.
Why should the senior citizens of Vegreville, the ranchers in High River, the small business people in Steinbach, and the welfare mothers in Prince Albert have to pay more so that Conrad Black and Ted Rogers can get richer?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that today, the CRTC is responsible for 70 per cent of Canada's telephone users, and that since 1983, no increases have been approved for local networks. In fact, the only place in Canada where there was an increase was in Manitoba.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this policy represents one of the most massive attempts to centralize control over a major portion of Canadian life into the hands of the federal government since the Second World War. It strips western provincial governments of their regulatory authority, and it was done without any effective consultation. Indeed it was done in the teeth of substantial and sustained provincial opposition.
Will the minister now admit what all western Canadians can see, that this policy is nothing less than the biggest federal raid on the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the provinces since the NEP?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, after the Supreme Court released its decision, I met all my provincial
October 19, 1989	COMMONS DEBATES	4875
counterparts who were available. We discussed these issues, and today the Government has released its policy.


LAND CLAIMS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John MacDougall (Timiskaming:) Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Earlier today the Supreme Court granted leave for appeal to the Temagami Indian Band on a land claim for 125 townships which dates back to 1973. The Ontario Supreme Court has rejected the land claim twice.
Can the minister tell this House and the riding of Timiskaming what exactly will happen next with regard to the Supreme Court and when possibly leave would be given?
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, leave has been granted by the Supreme Court for the applicants to appeal. At the present time the federal government is not a party to the action.
I will have my officials review the judgment to see if if there is a position for the federal government to take, but at the present time there has been no decision as to whether or not to intervene.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Two weeks ago Canadians were told that an non-partisan, expert royal commission on transportation would be appointed to examine Canada's transportation infrastructure. Canadians will understandably be suspicious of a commission comprised of three former Conservative politicians, including the chairman of the royal commission.
Why did the Prime Minister find room in his royal commission for the participation of two former provincial Conservative cabinet ministers and a former Conservative MP but could not find room in the royal
Oral Questions
commission for a representative of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities which represents Canadian towns and provinces right across the country and is on the front lines in determining the severe impact of the VIA cuts?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the political affiliation is of most of the members of this commission.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Peterson:: We will tell you.


Mr. Ailmand:: How can you keep a straight face, Don?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I might ask the hon. member in a rhetorical way whether he is concerned about the appointment of Mr. William Patrick Kelly, a very distinguished public servant who has served this country in labour and industry in a most exemplary fashion.


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is he complaining about John Forbes Helliwell, a professor and head of the Department of Economics at UBC?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is he concerned about Marc Gaudry, a professor of Economics at the University of Montreal?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is he concerned about James D. McNiven, who is currently the Dean of the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University?


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!
Mr. Mazankowskids he concerned about Marie-Josee Drouin, an economist who has been an executive director of the Hudson Institute of Canada since 1978?
Is he concerned with appointments from the board of Concordia University, the Research Institute for International Change at Columbia University, or the Canadian Bank of Commerce?
Is he concerned about Maurice LeClair who was the former president and chief executive officer of CNR?
If he finds exception with all those, then he better go back to the drawing boards.

October 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about is the government that promises to maintain VIA Rail before and during an election, dumps it after an election, and establishes a royal commission after the fact. We are concerned with nonsense being spewed across the way. And, yes, we are concerned about a royal commission that has room for three former Conservative politicians, for three card carrying members of the Conservative party, but no room for a single representative from the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. You are damn right we are concerned that justice is not being done in this country on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a straightforward question.
Given that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities represents every community and every region in every province of Canada where some two million Canadians are being displaced, why was there not a single seat for that important body on this royal commission?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the royal commission, if the hon. member reflects, represents a broad section of Canadians from coast to coast. They are very competent people.
If the member has something to say about the former provincial treasury of the government of the province of Alberta, he should stand up and say so.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I just did.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He should tell the House what you have against him, a very distinguished public servant, a very distinguished lawyer, a loyal Canadian and an outstanding Albertan.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The general manager of the Ontario Pork Producers Board states that the powerful mid-west pork lobby in the United States now views that almost anything Canadian pork producers do, including going to work in the morning, makes them guilty and subject to yet more countervail duties.
Now that pork producers have been advised to start their own funds in order to pay this duty themselves, what is the minister going to do to live up to his promise to create greater access to the U.S. market, a promise that was made by the free trade agreement but which is obviously not being lived up to?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question because just this morning it has been reported by the agriculture department of the United States that in the area of Canadian vegetables there is an anticipated increase of 80 per cent from today's levels to be exported to the United States. That is a pretty good figure.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Pork!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He was also talking about agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Pork, oink-oink!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Not the kind you find in the patronage barrel


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a lot of respect for the hon. member. He is not heckling, by the way.
I listened to his question very carefully. He talked about pork and he talked about agricultural products and asked what we were going to do about access. I just pointed out that the access in the area of vegetables would increase, according to an American observer in the agricultural industry, by 80 per cent.
With respect to pork, the hon. members knows, and he and I
With respect to pork the hon. member knows-he and I have had discussions about this-that we have taken action under the provisions of section 19 of the free trade agreement which provides for an objective disputes resolving mechanism that represents both countries. We believe that we will get a fair hearing.
Furthermore, in so far as the other elements of it are concerned, because this is a GATT initiated process we are taking action in the GATT. We are working with the pork council, the meat council and the producers. We have every confidence that this process will work.
October 19, 1989


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the minister. I wish he had referred more to the pork than to the vegetables. There is a difference, and I am aware that he is aware of that.
He has not convinced Canadian pork producers of his enthusiasm as yet. I would like to ask him a few questions that I am being hit continuously with from farmers across Canada. They are maybe very simple ones, but I would like him to give us answers to them.
Why do Canadian farmers have to continuously do as the American government says and not as the American government does?
Where is the government support to protect Canadian farmers from the unfair, bullying harassment of the United States? I believe those are the words that he has used.
Where is our intestinal fortitude to stand up to the United States?


Some Hon. Members:: Guts!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree that vegetables are part of the agricultural industry. He did talk about agriculture in its totality, as well as pork.
I said before that we now have a provision under the auspices of the free trade agreement to settle disputes through an objective process, a binational disputes resolving mechanism, something which we have never had before. The dice are not loaded against us. We intend to use that provision.
We intend to use the provision of the GATT. The pork producers of Canada with whom we are working very closely know that. The Meat Council of Canada with which we are working very closely knows that. I have every confidence that this process is going to work.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Environment.
In 1988, Canada along with 34 other countries signed an International Protocol that commits this country to eliminating its nitrogen oxide to 1987 levels. Yesterday
Oral Questions
the transport committee was told by Transport 2000 that the shift of passengers from VIA Rail to 1.9 million more car trips would lead to an increase of 2.1 million additional kilograms of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.
In light of the breach of both the intent and the letter of the Protocol and the fact that the royal commission does not have a single environmental expert on it, will the Deputy Prime Minister place a moratorium on VIA Rail cuts until a full, independent, environmental assessment has been completed?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I am told that Transport 2000 submitted some figures yesterday to the committee. It is not the first time the figures of Transport 2000 and those of Transport Canada do not coincide. However, the Minister of the Environment looked at all the available figures on emissions and pollution. He also concluded that considering the shift of passengers to other modes of transportation, the impact would not be as substantial as the Hon. Member would have us believe.
That is why the Minister of the Environment felt that the report tabled last week was conclusive in this respect did not warrant further studies and obviously in no way warranted a moratorium on VIA Rail cuts.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's comments unusual because he knows full well that in the 7-page environmental assessment, which is really a joke, there was not one statistic showing the level of increase in atmospheric pollution.
Yesterday the minister told the Canadian Industrial Transportation League that the reduced rail subsidy would mean more government money for highway and airline services. Money cut from VIA Rail will not be saved. It will be spent to replace VIA Rail services.
Given that rail is the most environmentally friendly form of transportation and that no money will be saved, the same argument that the FCM made earlier today, will the minister admit to this House that he has made a mistake and agree to a moratorium on VIA cuts until its full environmental and socio-economic implications have been examined?

October 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will say what I said yesterday and he will well understand why I am here today.
I said that the government has to put money not only on rail services and highways but it also has to put money on air transportation.
I did not say that we will move the money from VIA Rail to air or highways. I said here a couple of times that we will save more than $1 billion for the next five years in terms of the deficit. It is what I said, it is what I repeat, and it is what I will always say.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Although the Government of Canada has welcomed Pakistan back into the Commonwealth, it has yet to raise pressing questions on human rights. Millions of Ahmadis Muslims are at risk because of the brutal suppression of their rights.
Because of the urgency of this situation, will the Deputy Prime Minister take the unusual step to contact the Prime Minister immediately on behalf of the House of Commons to, first, bring the questions of these horrendous human right violations to the attention of the Commonwealth and, second, to seek personal assurances from the Government of Pakistan that action will be taken to protect the lives of the Ahmadis Muslims who wish to practise their religious beliefs in peace and quiet?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after our colleague the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park advised me of his concerns, I immediately asked officials at External Affairs to get in touch with our embassy in Pakistan and find out whether there were any new developments in the case of the Ahmadiya Muslims.
In fact, yesterday one of the senior officials happened to meet several leaders of the community, and they did not mention any particular problems.
However, I agree with the Hon. Member that we often hear reports of threats to this community. As in the past, we will continue our representations to the authorities, either through the ministers or through departmental officials.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for External Relations.
Over a year ago, in September 1988, a bill was passed in this House to establish an international institute of human rights and democratic development. To date there has been no government announcement.
Given the seriousness which even CIDA acknowledges that Canadians give to international human rights issues, the procrastination or the lack of action represents nothing more than negligence.
When is the minister going to attach some action to her words of commitment to human rights and do something?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the decision to create an International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development was made because of our concern for and our interest in defending human rights throughout the world.
We will, of course, consult with the leaders of the Opposition, as provided in the Act, when deciding who will run the Centre, and of course the money, $1 million, will be made available to the Centre as soon as the official announcement is made.



Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Another 200 jobs have been lost in Montreal. Employees with Eastern Airlines have received their pink slips and will be laid off on October 31.
Our labour legislation provides that the company must sit down with its employees to discuss the details of a shutdown. The Minister has been aware of the problem for four months, but no meeting has as yet taken place, and the company is waiting for a reply.
October 19, 1989

When will the Minister give 200 Canadian employees at Eastern Airlines an answer with respect to then-future? Or is he going to let Eastern Airlines circumvent Canada's labour legislation?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour takes action in these situations as soon as he has been officially informed by the employer of any plans to lay off employees.
So far, the Department of Labour has received no notice from Eastern Airlines. Obviously, the Department cannot take any action until it has been officially advised of what Eastern Airlines intends to do.
I can assure the Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent- Cartierville and all Members of this House that as soon as we are advised by the company, the Department of Labour will ensure there is full compliance with every provision of the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is just another example of the Government's flippant attitude to the loss of jobs in Montreal. Last week, we heard that over 11,000 jobs were lost in Montreal during the past 18 months. Now we know the answer. The reason is quite obvious, and I would like to quote the Hon. Member for Rosemont, a Government Member, who said that many ministers still showed a lack of awareness of the situation in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Does the Minister agree with the Government Member's analysis, which accuses the Minister and his colleagues of ignoring the hardship of Montreal's workers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think I can sympathize with the concerns of the Hon. Member for LaSalle- Emard, who probably has other things on his mind, aside from the employment situation in Montreal, and I hope his prospects are promising. I may remind him that from 1980 to 1984, when his party was in power, the number of jobs created in Quebec was minus 4,000. In other words, Quebec lost 4,000 jobs during that time. In the five years since this Government came to power, Mr. Speaker, more than 145,000 jobs have been created in Quebec,
Oral Questions
including 125,000 in Montreal, and I think this is an excellent record which he should look at more carefully.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the report commissioned by the Commonwealth Heads of Government entitled Engendering Adjustment for the 1990s.
The report points out the severe and disproportionate impact of structural adjustment policies on women in the developing world and concludes that a new approach is required which will take into account the majority role women play in those countries.
Does the government intend to follow the recommendations of the report and speak clearly at the IMF and the World Bank on the detrimental effects of these Draconian economic measures on the women of the world?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things this government has done very actively is work on behalf of women in the Third World.
At the Commonwealth Status of Women Ministers' meeting last year we developed a work plan involving all these countries, because it is clearly more serious in the Third World where women do nearly 100 per cent of the work in the home and about 80 per cent of the work outside the home. That was the subject of quite a long discussion, and there is a work plan in place in the Commonwealth that we will be pursuing.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in September the Minister of Finance said structural adjustment and not increased aid was the key to the debt crisis in Third World development.
This report is a clear indictment of the minister's position. In light of the previous speaker highlighting that women pay a key role, will the Minister of Finance and his government undertake to ensure that women's concerns are clearly incorporated in the implementation of adjustment policies? Will the minister undertake that?

October 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has just said is precisely the position that this government has been pursuing and encouraging in the discussions that we have had on the effect of adjustment on women in less developed countries.
The point I made which she has taken somewhat out of context is that there must be structural adjustment in these economies if they are to be able to move ahead and take advantage of better opportunities.
However, as that structural adjustment takes place it is important to acknowledge, recognize and plan for the impact of that on women, as has been set out in the Commonwealth study that has been referred to by my hon. colleague.


TRANSPORTATION
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
In light of the recently announced cuts to VIA Rail affecting the Calgary-Banff-Vancouver rail line, and because tourism is a major industry surrounding this route and it is essential to maintain a year-round service to accommodate skiers and sightseers, will the minister please tell me what his department is doing to promote the privatization of this most vital transportation link in my riding?
Further, will the minister also assure me that his department is doing all that is possible to guarantee that year-round service on this route will not be disrupted?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good question.
I would like to refer my colleague to what I said on October 4 when I announced the VIA Rail decision. I said that the private sector would be encouraged to take over any service in the country where services could be given to Canadians.
Of course this Rocky Mountain route is obviously the most profitable route that we have in the country. If the private sector wants to take over, of course VIA Rail has been given all the rights to receive the proposals and to consider those proposals in the best interest of travellers in this part of Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration. Yesterday the minister claimed that the cornerstone of the government's immigration policy was family class, yet this level has not increased dramatically from the 30 per cent range of all immigrant applications under this government.
Does the minister not understand that this is making it more difficult for family members in Canada to be reunited, that it is causing a great deal of frustration? Why not return to the days when the family level of the whole immigration policy was upwards of 50 per cent and more.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member who keeps hammering at this subject that when the family class constituted 50 per cent of total immigration it was because his party had put in place policies that caused some of the lowest immigration levels of the post war period. I do not think that we have anything to be ashamed of in this regard.


William Warren Allmand: When were they the highest, Barbara?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me say that they are the highest right now. The family class is the highest level in this decade.


William Warren Allmand: Let's look at the fifties and sixties.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I should say that the hon. member knows very well that the family class is demand driven. To the extent that people come forward and sponsor family members who qualify, then those numbers will be
exceeded.
This is the highest planning level in a decade. I would also point out that this is the government that expanded the family class and increased the points for the assisted relatives.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could check with Canadians from coast to coast who cannot sponsor quickly enough or successfully enough and then perhaps return to the House of Commons and check the statements she just made.



My supplementary is directed to the same Minister. Yesterday, for the third consecutive year the Minister of Employment and Immigration did not see fit to increase the number of government-sponsored refugees. However, during his trip to Kuala Lumpur, the Prime Minister contradicted the Minister, saying that we admitted more refugees each year and that we were not doing enough to help them. I therefore want to ask the Minister to explain this contradiction. Why say one thing on the international scene and do another in Canada? Why?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the number of refugees who come to Canada for humanitarian purposes has increased every year. Let me say that the number of government sponsored refugees will remain at 13,000 next year. When we look around the world we see many changes in eastern Europe and other areas, and some greater normalization of exit permits and so on. That means we are dealing with a changing situation.
The number of privately sponsored refugees will increase by 3,000. Their settlement is not cost-free to the government, of course, because we pay a part of the services and we do it on an on open-ended basis, and we are proud to do it. We are increasing the number of refugees from southeast Asia by 500 in the coming year and we made commitments in Geneva in June that put us ahead of all other countries. The Prime Minister is right. We are increasing and we will continue to increase.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that there will be a single question from the hon. member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk, a single question from the hon. member for Yukon, and a single question from the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and that will close off Question Period.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Recently released Statistics Canada figures indicate that since the
Oral Questions
signing of the free trade agreement there has been a sharp decline in our trade surplus with the United States. Our exports to the United States have increased only 3.4 per cent, while U.S. imports to Canada have doubled to 7.5 per cent. The Prime Minister said that the free trade agreement would be the cornerstone of prosperity. It was going to protect Canada against U.S. trade measures. Ever since we signed the deal we have seen American harassment of our pork, steel, dairy, and fish industry. Now we are seeing trade figures that show it is not working.
Will this government now admit that the free trade agreement is not working, and that the free trade deal has cost Canadians more than they have gained?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a report here from The Financial Post of yesterday which says, "U.S. trade deficit figures were bad news for United States policy makers, but good news for nimble Canadian exporters who appear to be taking early advantage of the free trade agreement."
That is not a government statement. That is an analysis by The Financial Post of what is happening.
The hon. member refers to the larger increase in imports relative to exports. That is a very simple thing to understand when you understand that there is a considerable increase in investment in this country and that leads directly to an increase in imports of machine goods and machine tools. A large part of the increase in our imports in those figures is because of the increase in the machine tools.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The goods and services tax is the most profound change to the tax structure since income tax came in temporarily 72 years ago. Despite this, the government has limited hearings to approximately 10 hours for the entire Atlantic region, no hearings at all in Quebec, and today the minister says that poorer regions in Canada are going to be better off. Well, that is laughable. I want to ask the Minister if he will be up front, finally, with Canadians and confirm that more than half of poor Canadians living below the poverty line will in fact be worse off after the

October 19, 1989
Business of the House
goods and services tax is implemented even with the goods and services tax credit?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the government has limited the hearings. The government does not tell the committees what to do. The committees decide themselves what they should do. That was a decision taken by the committee in consultation with members from the Liberals, NDP, and the Conservatives.
The essential question the hon. member is asking is: will lower income Canadians be worse off or better off as a result of the goods and services tax? I can answer quite categorically, lower-income Canadians will be better off after sales tax reform because of the fact that they will receive a cheque every three months, in advance, through the goods and services tax credit, $275 per adult, $100 per child, income tested and it will be phased out as their incomes increase. But, families with incomes of $30,000 or less will be better off after tax reform.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Recently it was announced that a GATT panel had delayed the approval of a report that says Canada cannot limit imports of ice cream and yogurt. Reports stated that Canada violated its obligations under Article 11 of GATT in January of 1988 when it put import quotas on ice cream and yogurt to support the country's $7 billion a year dairy industry.
Given that the United States obtained a waiver from GATT in 1955 which allowed it to maintain its import restrictions on ice cream into the U.S. market, can the minister indicate what steps are being taken in order to ensure the same protection for our Canadian dairy industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a number of actions are being taken. First, as the hon. member indicated Article 11 is the provision under which supply management systems are set up and operating in this country. The wording in Article 11 dates back to 1947. As a result in the current multilateral trade negotiations we are seeking to clarify
and strengthen that article and update it to current agricultural realities and that process is ongoing. As well we consider the GATT waiver to be grossly unfair and we have served notice on the Americans that we intend to pursue this. As well we are pursuing this in the MTN negotiations and it too is on the negotiating table.
I can tell the hon. member, and he can assure the producers that he represents, that this government stands firmly committed behind the principles of supply management. We will do everything in our power to defend it vigorously.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton East on a question of privilege.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with reference to Beau-chesne's fifth edition, Citation 16, which states:
Privileges are enjoyed by individual members, because the House
cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of
its members.
As well, Citation 18 states:
Privileges involve a member's capacity to serve the people who have
chosen him as their representative.
Several times since coming to this House I have heard it alleged that the New Democratic Party supported the NEP. This is absolutely false and I wish to draw it to the attention of members opposite so that they may better do their job, better serve their constituents-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a question of privilege and he has referred to Beauchesne and certain citations which do in fact set out very clearly what privilege is. But the complaint that seems to be emerging is a matter of debate. Somebody has said something about somebody else as to whether or not they support something. That is a matter of debate and that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member may have a complaint but he will have to take the complaint elsewhere.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West on the usual point of order.
October 19, 1989


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: I want to ask the government House Leader for a statement of business that the government intends to call for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to my hon. friend. Tomorrow we will continue with second reading debate on Bill C-36, that is the Agriculture Advance Payments. There is an understanding among the parties there will be no dilatory motions proposed. My hon. friends will understand that the opposition has been filibustering this bill for some time and we intend to push forward in order that the farmers of Canada will receive those very important payments.
If the opposition parties should discontinue their filibuster tomorrow and there is sufficient time, we would be pleased to revert to concurrence in motions in order that the House may have an opportunity to consider, in debate, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure vis-a-vis television.
On Monday, we will call for third reading of Bill C-20, the excise tax bill; on Tuesday, October 24, we will continue debate at report stage on Bill C-21. Those are the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: The Government House Leader has indicated that the opposition has filibustered on Bill C-36. I wonder, in making that particular comment to the House, if he could inform the House how many hours of debate there have been on this very important piece of legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There have been endless hours of debate. I do not have the exact time but I do want to point out to the House that the government is very anxious to pass this legislation in order that the farmers of Canada will be paid. We are moving ahead on this as quickly as possible. We would hope that the opposition will stop their filibuster.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Government House Leader, when he is speaking on House business, should state facts. It is my understanding that there have not even been eight hours of debate on this legislation at the present time. Certainly on most pieces of legislation, we go through at
Business of the House
least the full eight hours of debate before the government threatens closure.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is a bill which is good news for the farmers of Canada. We do not want to threaten closure but I want the farmers of Canada to know that if it is necessary to put closure in order to pay the farmers of Canada the advance payments, we will do so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to respond to the statement by the Government House Leader. He has not got the week's business off to a very good start by referring to the efforts of members of this House to do their duty in debating issues of importance to the country as filibustering. Even in the Eastern Bloc countries they are moving away from the traditional one-party state, no-debate approach that they had for 40 years. My hon. friend seems to think that we should move in the opposite direction. I do not think that Canadians agree with that, especially the farmers of Canada who, through their national organizations, have called almost unanimously for the bill that we are talking about to be withdrawn.
If the minister is interested in the farmers of Canada, then he will listen to what they are saying through the intermediary of the voices of the Liberal party and other members and withdraw this bill. That is the way to listen to the farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Algoma.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: On a point of order. I would like to point out that the Minister of Justice and the House Leader for the Government is really threatening Canadian farmers by saying that he is going to use closure. What the farmers want to do is to have cash, interest-free cash advances. What the government should do is just withdraw the bill and pay the money, the estimates of which are going to be approved tonight, to those farmers. That is what they want. They do not want this bill at all.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am pleased to have this debate continuing on an opposition day. Normally on opposition days we try to vacate the floor and allow the opposition to debate the matter that they brought up for debate. Since they insist on continuing this debate, I would respond to my hon. friend by saying this: Yes, we intend to threaten the Canadian farmers by paying them money and yes, we intend to override the filibusters by the opposition

Supply
parties, the Liberals and the NDP, who do not want the Canadian farmers paid. We are going to do it as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Robichaud:
That this House condemn the government's mismanagement, lack
of leadership, incompetence and negligence that has placed Canada's
fishing communities and workers in unparalled jeopardy.
Roger Simmons: The
fishery is of vital importance in almost every single community, 158 of them, which make up the great riding of Burin-St. George's, along the south coast of Newfoundland, along the southwest corner and up a bit of the west coast.
It is for that reason, among others, that I am delighted to rise and support the motion put forward by my colleague from New Brunswick, from the riding of Beausejour, which calls on this House to condemn the government's mismanagement, lack of leadership, incompetence and negligence that have placed Canada's fishing communities and workers in unparalled jeopardy.
First of all, I could not have said it better myself. I believe when members of this House reflect on what the gentleman from New Brunswick has asked the House to concur in, they will rush to his support because this government, as the motion implies, has been lacking in leadership, has been incompetent, has been negligent and has placed Canada's fishing communities, including many of dozens of such communities in my own riding, in unparalled jeopardy.
I can say to the Minister of Fisheries I can support that resolution with great relish.
I listened to the Minister of Fisheries earlier in the debate. In response to my good friend from Gander-Grand Falls, in talking about the issue of overfishing, he used this tell-tale phrase: "We fixed that". Yes, he certainly fixed that, and I will show you how he fixed it.
I have here a document from the Government of Newfoundland, published last week and given to the Government of Canada some weeks ago, entitled "Resource Crisis in the Newfoundland Fishery". On Page 5 of that document, the Government of Newfoundland shows just how the Minister of Fisheries here in this House fixed the question of overfishing. I will give you a couple of quick figures.
The NAFO allocation for the European Community in 1986 was 26,295 metric tonnes. Those same countries in the EEC took in that year 160,000 metric tonnes or about six times what the catch was supposed to be. The next year the quota was 25,205 metric tonnes. The EEC countries, particularly Spain and Portugal, took 134,000 metric tonnes.
I say to the Minister of Fisheries that he fixed it all right. He, together with the Prime Minister, the member for St. John's West and the Minister of Trade, allowed Spain and Portugal to walk all over us during those years and he brags today that he fixed the over-fishing issue. He tends to be very selective when he is quoting statistics, when he is quoting from newspapers, just as he was this morning on the west coast issue. I wish I had time to talk about that because although it is the west coast of Canada, the trade ruling of a few days ago has a lot of implications for the fishery on the east coast of Canada, including the one in Newfoundland.
Just in passing, to make the point, the minister this morning told us that the ruling was being welcomed with open arms by everybody out there. He is being very selective. Why did he not read all the headlines? Why did he not read the one in the Ottawa Citizen of October 19, which said: "Fish Industry Slams Trade Ruling". Why did he not go to the newspaper in Quebec city, Le Soled, which declares "Le saumon fait hurles". A rough translation, I believe, is "This ruling is an outrage". That is about the ruling the minister told us this morning was the best thing since sliced bread. It is only a matter of time before that kind of ruling, where the Americans can do what they want with our fish, begins getting applied to the east coast fishery, including the fishery in Burin-St. George's.
I listened with great interest this morning to the Minister of Fisheries. One of the things he said about me during his debate was that I am exaggerating the problem
October 19, 1989

that I am spreading fear among the fishermen. He thinks everybody out there is wrong except him.
Let us look again at the report prepared by the Government of Newfoundland after a lot of research, where the Government of Newfoundland tells us and I quote: "The potential direct employment losses anticipated in the fishery in Newfoundland in 1990 are as follows: Offshore sector, 1,400 jobs; inshore sector, 800''. The Newfoundland government is projecting losses of 2,200 jobs next year alone in the Newfoundland fishery.
The minister says, "There is no crisis, nothing to get worried about". Again, of course, the Newfoundland government finding was quite different. It continues: "The Newfoundland fishing industry is facing a resource crisis which will displace thousands of workers and undermine the economic base of whole communities".
Now how graphic does this minister need it painted to him before he begins to understand?
He then makes this brave phrase: "No government has managed the fishery likes this one". He is right now. He is dead on now. No government ever managed the fishery like this one. Finally he is dead right. He is not out even a whit. He is dead right. Nobody, not even a drunken sailor, could manage the fishery the way this crowd has managed the fishery. Who, in their right minds, supposing to protect the interests of Atlantic Canadian fishermen and plant workers, would say to the European community, "You are only allowed to take 20,000 but even if you take 160,000 we do not mind. Rape our fishery, as long as you smile at our Prime Minister. As long as you like our Prime Minister, as long as you wine and dine him when he goes to the foreign summits, we do not really get too upset about how much fish you take".
Now the gentleman from St. John's West is traipsing up and down Europe. He is going to solve the problem.


An Hon. Member:: At the taxpayers' expense.


Roger Simmons: Oh, yes. He is there now. He is going to educate the European community. Well I say to him, welcome to the club, Johnny Boy. Where have you been for the last four years? Spain and Portugal, I tell you,
Supply
have been overfishing for four years. Finally he has discovered overfishing. Johnny has discovered another excuse to take a trip. I wish him well because he is over there at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers, including the fishermen whose jobs are being lost thanks to his inaction during the last four years.
I would hope, if the Minister of Trade, the Member for St. John's West, ever figures out which end of the fish is the front end, I hope he does get the message through to the Europeans even though he is four years late starting to talk about it. He has never been known in Newfoundland as one who is veiy shy to talk. So one wonders why he has not been talking before. Of course, the answer is simple. It was not part of the agenda of the Prime Minister to talk about overfishing until now, 1989. They discovered the problem four years late.
I heard the Minister this morning talking about unprocessed fish being taken into the American market and what a lament that is and how terrible that is. He is right, of course. But I want to know who told him? How did he find this out all of a sudden? Mr. Minister, where have you been? This is a problem we have had for some time in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia.
Of course, in what must be the juiciest bit of his speech altogether, he tells us that foreign overfishing is a priority of this government. Well, you would never know it when you look at the way that the Europeans and the French, in particular, in 3PS have been walking all over us, taking four times the quota for 3PS in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.
I could talk for a long while about this, but I realize that my time is up. We have agreed to limit ourselves to 10 minutes so that all members can participate in this debate. There is a need for a remedy for those people who are hurting out there and there are many thousands. I say to the minister and to the Minister of Employment, who will speak later in the debate, that the established programs are not the answer here. The UI is not the answer. Welfare is not the answer, although that is what is happening to some people right now, thanks to this government.
The special response program, at least the one they put in Rose Blanche-Port-aux-Basque is not the an-

October 19, 1989
Supply
swer. They have got to do better than that. If I had time I would elaborate, but perhaps on another occasion.


Mr. Reid:: Madam Speaker, I really do not know where to start. I will have the opportunity later today to respond in more detail. I think, though, I cannot let pass the comments that the hon. member across the way made concerning overfishing, and 3PS I hope I do not have to remind him who signed the agreement in 1972.1 hope I do not have to remind him that to try to resolve what emerged from 1972 this government went through a lot. I would use words that would probably have him on his feet to have me condemned for being out of order. This government managed to get the Government of France to a table, to arbitrate an agreement, to resolve the very difficult problem of management and deal with an arbitration in terms of the disputed boundary. This government managed to do that and was able to ensure that the fleet out of France took 10,000 tonnes less in 3PS on a declining scale. I know the Minister is going to pop up and say, yes, we gave them northern cod to do it. Yes we did, less than 1 per cent of what is there. The government said they could have that. But what it does not give our fishermen, what we in this country take less of, they will take less of, too.
As well, we have an arrangement that if they fish outside inappropriately, they do not get what is inside. What we have given them inside is gone. But we continue down the road to working out an agreement. I just wanted to remind my hon. friend across the way of that.


Roger Simmons: I say to the member for St. John's East that the government did not bring the French to the table. They got this government on the mat. In 1985, 1986 and 1987, the quota, as the member will know, was of the order of 6,500 metric tonnes. They stole 26,000 metric tonnes. Then our brain from St. John's West goes over there, aided and abetted by the gentleman from St. John's East-and I do not know why he is involved in this, he is such a decent chap-they go over and get the French to agree not to take 26,000 tonnes. They were only supposed to take 6,400 tonnes. So they talk the French down and they agree not to steal 26,000 tonnes, but to steal only 17,000 tonnes. The Minister comes back and says, "What a victory. We actually convinced them that instead of taking 6,400 tonnes, they would take only 17,000 tonnes."
The member asked who signed the 1972 agreement. The Government of Canada under a Liberal regime signed the 1972 agreement and the was successful in administering it as follows, between 1972 and 1984 did the French overfish in 3PS. Not once. I challenge the member to contradict me.
Starting in 1985, after the change of government to the gentleman from Baie-Comeau, they overfished four to one; they overfished in 1986; the French overfished in 1987; they overfished in 1988; and now, in 1989, they are overfishing to the tune of three to one, 17,000 tonnes instead of 6,000 tonnes, aided and abetted by these members from St. John's East and St. John's West, who now want to take credit for allowing the French to steal three times as many fish as they were allowed to steal in the first place under, the 1972 agreement.
The member states, yes, we signed that agreement and we are proud of it. The difference between the Liberals and that crowd is that we kept the French from overfishing and they cannot do it or will not do it.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I realize that there are so many in the Liberal party who want to speak on this and our time is very short.
This problem is not just one of today; it comes back to the fact that the Department of Fisheries has not had the foresight under this minister to have optimism in the east coast fishery. It does not have optimism on the west coast fishery. The minister can stand up in the House and say that we have sovereign rights over our natural resource of fish, and yet he will continually say he will do nothing to protect us or help us establish the presence that we need in the market-place.
We have a natural resource. We have the capacity inshore and offshore on the east coast to catch everything that is within our 200-mile limit. Yet this minister says we do not have a right to it. Our fishermen have not fished for two seasons in a row because he has allowed foreign overfishing.
Who supports me on the foreign overfishing issue? The premier of our province says that this minister should stop listening to his armchair fishermen here in Ottawa and his scientists and managers. I do not know why they are managing, there has been no fishery to manage for the most part for the last six months. They are paying people to do nothing, certainly not to have new ideas. But this minister is even against Premier John

Buchanan who says the minister has no credibility because he will not look at the problem of foreign overfishing.
A few weeks ago in this House, the minister said there is no hardship, and in the summer he met with the minister for ACOA from Pictou. He was one of the ministers who brought a group of people from Nova Scotia to meet with the minister in July. They had a marathon session one evening and the minister, according to the paper, asked dragger officials to give him some qualifications of the economic impact.
One fishermen whom I met received an answer last week to a letter he wrote. He had his books looked at for two years in a row, and he got a letter back saying, "The federal government does not have a special program set aside for this purpose, to help the east coast fishermen."
In fact, on July 26 the minister said, "Give me the evidence that people are hurting." This fisherman has fished for 30 years. He has never experienced the conditions that we have seen on the east coast in the last two years. It is so bad. The credibility of this minister is so bad and so damaging to our sovereign right over fish that he is helping the foreigners continue the bad practices they have established.
This minister has not managed the fishery. We are in the same place we were 10 years ago. The foreigners are still fishing. We have the capacity to take everything they are taking. We have the capacity to have established markets. We have not done anything. He has sat there and pompously told the people of Canada that he knows what fishing is about. He has not moved out of his comfortable armchair, with his people telling him what they should do. He does not talk to the people who are concerned. He does not come down to talk to the fishermen. He has not even come down to tell them anything except that the problem is over-capacity.
The fishermen will tell you the problem is not over-capacity. It is lack of quotas. They will tell you there has not been haddock and they will accept that, but they will not accept that there is not fish there that they could have been able to fish this fall.
Supply
Management has been management by quotas. Quotas require enforcement and supervision, something this Department of Fisheries is not able to do. Fisheries management has not worked in any of the sectors. The livelihood of people who have existed by fishing for years is slowly dwindling. This minister does not care.
An example of his improper management is that fish is being dumped by the inshore, the offshore, and the foreigners. Management has even allowed unused quotas. The other day in the House, I said that the sectors of the inshore fishermen had looked at what was left between here and the end of the year for quotas. Sure enough, there was 43,000 metric tons and another 20,000 metric tons in 4BWX and 5 in particular, some of which are not going to be caught by the offshore fishermen. Yet this minister will not allow the transfer committee to transfer the quota. He will allow it to stay there and not be caught, even though his management plan shows it is allowed to be taken. Because the offshore cannot take it or the Cape North cannot take it, he will not allow the inshore communities who are so dependent on the fishery to take it.
Time does not allow me to talk about everything I want to talk about, but this week in one of the local papers, the Digby Courier, there was a letter written by a fisherman who fishes there. I would like to put it on the record because I think it is an excellent letter. I would like to know what the minister is going to say to this letter which reads:
Dear Editor; the following is a letter I have written to Fisheries Minister, Tom Siddon.
The headline is "Captain Hears Wolves at Wheel-house Door". It reads:
Dear Tbm Siddon;
I hope you will take time from your hectic schedule to read this letter from a humble peasant fisherman down in Digby, South West Nova Scotia.
I want to make it clear from the start that we fishermen down here in good ole' Sou'West Nova have clearly decided that you have won, you are the master and we are your peasant fishermen, the fight is gone out of us and we will rebel no longer. We are prepared to give you all our support.
From articles we have read, we realize that you are upset that some of our incomes could possibly match your own six digit income, and this of course is wrong. We assure you that due to some of your latest actions this will never happen again. Shutting down the ground fisheiy for the past three months has been a great step in this direction and

October 19, 1989
Supply
your latest plan of taking fishermen's licences will certainly ruin a lot of good men's lives and with any luck our incomes will soon be as insignificant to you as we are.
As fishdraggermen, we realize that it is the honourable thing for us to step down. We have repeatedly proven that we are much more efficient and productive than your friends at Nat Sea. But we realize that friends are very important in life and by continuing to give them the bulk of the quotas and letting them fish while we are shut down, they may even become self-supporting someday, and make you proud. Doing our part to achieve this is certainly making us proud.
I am a fortunate peasant because by your good graces I am allowed to fish for scallops as well as groundfish. Recently our awaited fall inshore scallop fishery opened and as you've heard, all the scallops have died. I read your press release that we exaggerated the extent of this disaster but I have good news for you, we did not exaggerate one bit. Millions of pounds of previously healthy mature scallops have died and the repercussions on the thousands of people involved in this industry will be devastating. The mortality rate of the scallops is 80-100 per cent in the productive zones and the dying process is still continuing.
In the non-productive zones damage is less but don't worry, these areas will only support the fleet for a few weeks. The loss is easily in the tens of millions of dollars directly to the industry and untold amounts in spin-offs. I feel as a faithful seivant it is my duty to give you and your biologists these figures because I'm sure you all have much more pertinent matters to attend.
You have said upon several occasions that your primary concern is to maintain and preserve the stocks. Well everyone makes mistakes and although you allowed the largest scallop beds and the biggest economical boost this area has ever seen to go to ruin, you are still in our good graces. We figure that with the help of you and the Dept, of Fisheries, our inshore zone should recover easily within 10 years.
There are a few of your chosen people I'd like to give a few deserved words of praise.
First and foremost your fisheries officers. These gallant men kept us out of the inshore zone all summer and allowed the poor scallops to die in peace. Even to the last minute before the opening they were on hand to ensure as many scallops as possible could die before we started fishing.
These men are the guards of your marine kingdom and since they now have salaries which double most fishermen they are working even harder to make you proud. Hats off to the gallant men and women in green.
I realize my time is up and I know I will not get agreement from the other side to extend my time to finish the letter. I can only say that it was a good letter and I am sure the minister will be answering it.


Mr. MacLellan:: Madam Speaker, the concerns raised by my hon. friend are really of tremendous importance to all of us in Atlantic Canada because the fishery is not only an industry that applies in her constituency but touches on all 32 constituencies in Atlantic Canada. The prospects are bleak. It is something the people of Atlantic Canada are not looking forward to. They know bad news now. They are largely waiting for another shoe to drop. It is not a pleasant experience.
In addition to the other problems we have in Atlantic Canada, we feel let down. We feel betrayed by this government first and foremost because it refuses to admit there is a problem. The government continues to say that the fishery is in a good state of health, that there is no problem with the Atlantic Canadian fishery.
I would just like to ask my hon. friend, the member of Parliament from South West Nova, exactly what she has been able to hear and experience in her riding about the state of the health of the fishery.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking me about what I have been able to hear. I certainly have tried to tell this minister and the people down there have tried to tell him as well as the premier that this minister is on a collision course with the fishery. I thought that the letter that I was reading showed exactly what was in the minds of everybody.
The fisherman went on to say that:
Likewise to your biologist we bear no malice. We realize that the research needed to warn of this impending disaster could never be justified in face of the huge enforcement costs to protect the dying scallops. As far as groundfish goes, proper assessments of stocks could only be made by true fishermen and this is never done-who needs accurate assessments on which to base quota anyway? Not us, we're always tied up.
Also your media men deserve praise. The way they faithfully print distorted truths about the Fisheries and live with themselves after must take amazing strength and courage. We all realize the public must be deceived on matters of the fishery. It is the only way things will run smooth in your government.
Praise last but not least should ought to go to the justice system-
I will not go through that. He goes on:
October 19, 1989

If I left anyone out who is helping to further your cause I apologize, but the good news is, to anyone out there who wishes to see hard times and poverty for the fishermen and people of Sou'West Nova, rejoice, it's well on its way.
Well I'd better go. I think I hear the wolves at the door. I'll keep you up to date on any new disasters or bankruptcies in the fishery and you keep up the good work on your end. You know I did hear the wolves at the door, my wheelhouse door, and they're wearing green suits.
Fisherman
Jamie Theriault
That explains exactly what is happening to the many thousands of people in communities throughout Scotia-Fundy, whether it is Lockeport or whether it is in Digby Neck or anywhere. This Minister of Fisheries will virtually erase the whole inshore fishery. The best will be gone unless he decides to start listening first to the fishermen, to the people who represent the fishermen and the fish plant workers, to the companies, to the premier and perhaps even to the minister from the province of Nova Scotia who must have some concerns at least about the lobster size that this government is going to allow without anything but political, diplomatic talk.
I can only say that this minister has done a great disservice to a natural resource that we have been given for the use of all people.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate with my friends from Nova Scotia. The member for South West Nova looks charming today in black. It is appropriate that she is wearing it, because she has given us nothing but a litany of gloom and doom.
My colleague from Beasejour has a very constructive resolution, in part.


Coline M. Campbell: What's he wearing?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Where is he? Oh, there he is.


Coline M. Campbell: Talk about inanities and not the fish. Talk about the colour of my dress.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I was hoping we would have some kind of constructive solution.
The member for South West Nova and my good friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys have indicated that
Supply
this government does not recognize there is a problem. That is not true. There have been problems in the Atlantic fishery for 100 years, and there have been 100 studies in the last century. This is not an isolated phenomenon. The fishery, as the hon. member knows, being a knowledgeable person, tends to be cyclical in nature. The fish are not here. The fish are not in the waters where they used to be.
Those of us who remember back when a former government commissioned Senator Kirby to study the east coast fishery will remember that Senator Kirby made some recommendations. I will read for the edification of the House one of Senator Kirby's recommendations. This is Liberal policy, and there is nothing wrong with it. This is what he suggested at the time:
The Atlantic fishery should be economically viable on an ongoing
basis, where to be viable implies an ability to survive downturns with
only a normal business failure rate and without government
assistance.
I say to my friends opposite, was that Liberal policy that this fishery should survive normal business downturns without government assistance? It is not our policy. We try, whenever possible, to assist this sector. I would like to put on the record in a few moments some of the things that ACOA is doing to try to alleviate what is admittedly a situation that needs help.
Instead of getting some kind of assistance from the members opposite who are knowledgeable and concerned we get nothing but rhetoric. They cling to these rhetorical arguments like a drunk clings to a lamp post, more for support than for illumination. They do not put anything forward that seems to help the situation. We got nothing but a blanket condemnation of the minister of fisheries, who I think most members would be fair enough to realize is coping with a difficult situation in a conscientious way. He has a tough job.
I made a few notes about the statistics and I believe they are correct. I will refer to my friend opposite's constituency in South West Nova. In the Scotia-Fundy region, lobster landings have more than tripled and the landed value of lobster increased more than five times, from $28 million to $143 million. In the scallop industry, this year's catch looks like it will exceed last year's record levels and there are still three more months of fishing left.

October 19, 1989
Supply
This industry is not a simple one. The late Don Jamieson, if he were here today, would probably describe it as a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, multipurpose industry, and he would be right. But the members opposite do not seem to take into account the vagaries of nature. They think that just because fish swim around in schools, they can be educated to come whenever they are required. That is not so.
Back in those years Senator Kirby and the DFO managers, some of whom are still available, were projecting what they thought would happen around 1990. My colleague for Cape Breton-The Sydneys will remember that they were saying that in 2J3KL, which is the heart and soul of northern cod off Newfoundland, it was quite possible that by the early 1990s you could get 400,000 TAC without any problem. Well, that is not the case.
The marine biologists and oceanographers are the first to concede that the vast oceans around this continent are hiding a lot of data that they do not have. Nobody can foresee with certainty what mother nature will do from one year to the next.
I want to take a bit of time and simply put on the record some of the things that my ministry is attempting to do through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to alleviate this difficult situation. I would like to put this on the record. My colleague from South West Nova read a very interesting letter into the record. I think this would be at least as informative as the letter that she read, although I have a great deal of sympathy with what her constituent said.
We have, through ACOA, contributed in excess of $50 million to alleviate some of the problems inherent in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. We have done so in different ways. We have contributed to a national centre for fisheries innovation which is a joint venture in Newfoundland between Memorial University and the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology. This is something that is very useful for the future of the fishery. This centre's mandate is to focus intellectual and technological resources from the university, the institute and the private sector on the particular problems of the Atlantic fishery so we will understand more of the root causes that make this such an important industry to control, to the extent that this is
possible. This is with the goal of making the industry more productive and profitable. Also, the centre will assist in creating markets for traditional under-utilized species by emphasizing quality control, packaging and productivity, something that will allow us to get value-added and other attributes that are necessary to keep this industry productive and to enlarge it.
ACOA's action program also provides operating funding to the Canadian Centre for International Fisheries Training and Development which was established in 1986 to market Canadian fisheries expertise world-wide. ACOA has contributed $7.5 million of its action program funds to the creation of the Canadian Centre for Marine Communications which will provide the first applied research and development facility mandated to help marine communications industries in Canada. This centre is committed to market-driven research and development work. It will benefit the small and medium-sized high technology firms in Atlantic Canada which are already seizing opportunities to develop marine communications products that can be manufactured in the Atlantic region for sale to world markets.
As these three centres gain impetus, they will focus the attention of international markets more and more upon Atlantic Canada as a region to be reckoned with. The gain of small fishermen is multiple. They will receive access to first-rate technology equipment and training, exposure to sophisticated marketing techniques and participation in a dynamic, multi-faceted industry.
I think again it is only fair to point out that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for International Trade are together taking every step that is possible in a reasonable way to find ways to enhance, improve and foster the prosperity of the fisheries on both coasts of this country. For my hon. friends to say that the minister of fisheries does not care or that he is not faithful in his duties or that he does not visit the regions is patently false. She knows that. I know that when you are getting into partisan debate on something as important to Atlantic Canada as fisheries, there is always the temptation to get into these similes and metaphors.
Perhaps, to paraphrase the late Ogden Nash, one thing that Canadian politics would be very much the better for would be a more restrictive use of simile and metaphor,
October 19, 1989

particularly when it comes to dealing with something that is as important as fisheries is to Atlantic Canada.
As my colleague from Burgeo pointed out, there are literally hundreds-I believe 1,300-communities in Atlantic Canada which are essentially dependent on fisheries. They are, in effect, a special kind of one-industiy towns. It is more to these people than just an industry in the classic sense, it is a way of life. They have seen these cycles happen before. Many of them are frustrated. Many of them think that their government does not care. This is not true.
This government does care. The minister of fisheries cares. We are doing everything we can to cope with a very difficult situation. As more support is required, this government will come forward and provide that support as we have in the past to other sectors in Canada which were falling on difficult times.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, as the hon. minister knows, being the minister responsible for ACOA, other than the funds that he has, there are a great many other things that need to be done and can be done in Atlantic Canada. One of those things is funding for small craft harbours.
The lack of fish is one very serious problem, but it is not going to be a problem for the fishermen in northern Cape Breton and Dingwall, Pleasant Bay and Bay St. Lawrence if some dredging is not done because they are not going to be able to get their boats in and out of the harbours. It is really becoming critical. Unless these fishermen can fish with catamarans, in another year or two they are going to be completely out of luck.
I would ask for the minister's comments on what I think is a very important concern about a service that must be provided.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it is imperative that the proper infrastructure and assistance be given to fishermen so they can bring their catch ashore and have a safe place to anchor their vessels. He knows there is never enough money for this sort of thing, but I remind him that in the not too distant past, this minister of fisheries spearheaded an attempt to raise an extraordinary amount of money, I think close to
Supply
$100 million at the time, to do a lot of this kind of dredging infrastructure that was required.
I understand what he is saying and I undertake to him that I will see what can be done to work to allocate more funds. This is something that is very worth while, and to the extent that our resources will permit it, I will make an extra effort to see if we cannot be of further assistance.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, the minister has talked about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the number of tremendous things that have been done in support of the development of the fishery.
One of the things that I frankly had some difficulty with in dealing with ACOA on, and one of the very few, I must admit, has been my attempt repeatedly to find support for resources to develop fish plants. Quite a number of times, I get asked for my support and obviously I give it, but there have been a number of occasions and I think of one in particular in the community of Marysvale where a young couple had put together a proposal and were prepared to do a tremendous amount of work in developing this fish plant.
I wonder if the minister could comment a little bit about ACOA's role in the development of fish plants and some of the things that they have had to contend with in this area.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to decide sometimes whether it is feasible to support further capacity in an industry where there seems to be a shortage of supply, but we like to look at these things in our ministry on a case-by-case basis. I understand the frustrations of my colleague and other members who would like to see more ACOA assistance and the mandate of ACOA widened and extended. I will take that as a representation and see what can be done.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister pays that much attention to everybody's clothes. I am sure that was not the most important thing that I said here today, the statement made by my clothes. I think that it was so inappropriate. I say there are people hurting, never mind what people are wearing.
I would like to ask the minister how he relates to Premier John Buchanan's statement on Friday last that

October 19, 1989
Supply
this minister is focusing on the wrong thing, he should be focusing on the foreign overfishing as well as listening to fishermen rather than to his scientists.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, Premier Buchanan, naturally is concerned, as my colleague is, about the fishery in Nova Scotia. He too is reacting to some extent out of frustration, I believe. No one cares more about the fishing industry or the people of Nova Scotia than John Buchanan, but at the same time, the provinces as my colleague knows, control the issuing of licences. I think it is fair to say that the province of Nova Scotia perhaps was a little too generous and may itself have contributed to this problem by issuing licences without sufficient study as to whether the capacity to sustain those licences was there.
I think it is true that many of us, including myself and herself and the minister, at times are not perceived to listen closely enough to the fishermen. I have great respect for them. I can relate to Premier Buchanan's comments in that regard.
I think the fishermen have a better track record by far in producing logical data and observations than some of our highly paid and esoteric marine biologists and oceanographers who are so technically oriented that they sometimes lose track of some of the practical and empirical observations that people in the industry make every day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for St. John's East.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: could happen, and then knowing what we can do, not just the Government of Canada, or just the Department of Fisheries, or just the government in Newfoundland and Labrador, or the government in Nova Scotia, or one company, one union, or one community, but what all of us together must come together to do, what all of us together must realize has to be done. How do we deal with that?
In recognition that this is a national issue, the Prime Minister appointed a cabinet committee of senior cabinet ministers from right across the country, including my colleague who spoke just before, including the ministers who are particularly pertinent to the issue, but chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the former Prime Minister of Canada, to focus the government in dealing with the problem not, as I say, just in terms of fisheries but to bring together all the resources of government. Bring them together and ask, "What have we got to deal with? What are the resources we have in hand to deal with the problem? What resources do we need that may not be there?" On top of that, we should ask, "What are our options? What other things can we do?"
In support of that committee there was a group of very senior public servants appointed from a variety of departments, employment and immigration, fisheries and oceans, a little help from external affairs, a little help from ACOA, and employment and immigration in Newfoundland as well as in Ottawa, to try to deal with the problem and to give ministers advice.
So what did they do? They consulted. They talked to communities, to provincial governments, to unions and to companies. They have had reports and papers and pieces of information from all over. They have gathered their own information which will form the body of knowledge, and the body of advice to which the government will respond in an organized, realistic fashion, in a way that we will know what the problems are, what the approaches must be. It must not be an attitude of just sit by or act all of a sudden out of the blue.
The government has also taken a series of approaches to deal with the serious problem of overfishing, of people from foreign countries taking fish outside the 200-mile limit. This did not start last night. This did not start last month. It has been going on for a period of time.
Supply
In 1986 this government undertook some new scientific studies, Not only did we do that, but we substantially increased the penalties for foreign overfishing. We increased the surveillance. We closed our ports to countries that were not prepared to co-operate and comply.
In international bodies like NAFO we have been trying to make these countries recognize a fundamental point that what we are dealing with here is an ecological problem, that if we all talk about sustainable development around the world, we should look in our own back yard. If we cannot sustain the fish stocks in the north Atlantic that we have all historically depended upon, if we are going to rape and pillage, it is not going to serve our interests and it is not going to do anybody any good.
So we have moved on that. The Prime Minister has spoken not only to individual heads of state and government leaders in Europe, but also to the European community collectively, as has the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister for International Trade, fishing", but "Look, you are threatening us, you are threatening yourselves. We like to think we are both fairly substantial players in this world. You are threatening a very important relationship, and that relationship has been affected by your actions."
We have also gone to the Europeans, and my friend the Minister for International Trade is just returning from Europe. He said to the European public: "Look at what you are doing. Look at what your governments are doing. Look at what effect it is having not only on your friends across the ocean but on the environment that you are so proud of and that you talk so much about."
It is no good to stand up in this House or otherwise and say: "All this is wrong. It is your fault. Look at what you have done." We must be able to stand up and say, as this government has said, that there are problems, and we will together solve them.
In conclusion, I would like to quote from a press conference of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador on October 5, 1989, in which he states:
"I am pleased to note that the federal government is also seized with the seriousness of this problem." When dealing with overfishing in a radio broadcast on VOCM with Mr. Bill Rowe the Premier said: "The European overfishing is still a major problem, but again it would take a whole program to get into it. The government is dealing with it and I must give credit to the federal

Supply
government and to Mr. Crosbie for the effort they are making."
On the question of science, the federal government is taking the matter seriously now. The premier said: "I don't blame the federal government, in the blameworthy sense. Frankly, if Newfoundland and Labrador had had the jurisdiction we would be relying on the same scientists".
The level of co-operation between the two levels of government is exactly the sort of approach that collectively we must all take if we are going to deal with this problem, if we are going to have a viable, professional, long-term fishery for our future. If not, we may never get there.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for St. John's East mentions the co-operation he is getting, or seems to feel the federal government is getting, from the newly elected Liberal premier, Premier Wells. I cannot see that this is happening in Nova Scotia with Premier Buchanan and Mr. Siddon.
We have seen the Hache task force, we have seen Stein task force, we have seen the Harris task force and in all of those we have had hundreds of hours of work put in by people within the community: fishermen, fish plant owners, community leaders and others, who spoke about the problems.
What was wrong with the Hache task force was the fact that the minister thought it should concentrate only on the inshore and only on over capacity. I cannot say that I heard anybody talk only on over capacity. Certainly those from the province of Nova Scotia talked about the management of this minister and his ability to manage the fish.
Premier Buchanan came out last week and spoke about his inability to understand this minister not listening to the fishermen or to the people who work in the industry. I am glad that in Newfoundland you have such a good arrangement between a Liberal government provincially and a federal government. I am glad for the hon. member that he does not have our type of problem and that his fishery seems rosy.
But, I will say this and I will ask the member again, does he feel that the inshore fishing community in Newfoundland, in the Gulf, in Quebec, and in Nova Scotia, Scotia-Fundy-and I say Scotia-Fundy contrary to the impression that the minister for ACOA left that it was only in the southern end, Scotia-Fundy covers most of Nova Scotia except his own area, and it goes into New Brunswick for those figures-has capacity enough to catch and process all the traditional stocks, including some of the northern cod in his area?
Does he feel that the inshore fishery can catch all the traditional stocks, and that a good role for the offshore vessels would be to replace the foreigners who are fishing? If we had any activity out there, we probably would not see the foreigners coming into the waters because it would not pay them to come.
Does the member have it in his mind, because he is parliamentary secretary and maybe he could influence the department, that the inshore communities that are so dependent and the offshore plants in those communities could process all of the traditional stocks, and that the offshore should probably be directed to go and take over where the foreigners are fishing within the 200-mile limit, and therefore, eliminate the problem that is there presently


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before giving the floor back to the hon. member for St. John's East to answer, I would like to explain to people who are watching us what is happening this afternoon, because it has not been put on the record officially. Some members have decided to share the normal 20-minute period so we have divided the normal 10-minute period of questions and comments into two five-minute periods, understand what is happening.
There is but one minute left for the hon. member for St. John's East to answer his colleague who has taken four of the five minutes.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, one minute is obviously not enough. Frankly, it is going to take that long to be sure of the question I was asked.
First, the provincial minister of fisheries in Nova Scotia, the member representing Pictou County in Nova Scotia, has been very co-operative and very helpful, as have been provincial colleagues. I cannot answer the question in one minute-
October 19, 1989


Coline M. Campbell: You were misquoting the Minister of Fisheries for the province who said Ottawa should force quotas against the foreigners.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the problems that we face and it was brought to my attention quite graphically in Bonavista when I participated with fishermen this weekend in dealing with the question is that more and more of what we have called inshore fishermen in Newfoundland have been forced to move farther and farther out in bigger boats with bigger equipment. The question then becomes, are they taking fish that would normally be counted in the offshore quota within Canada? We have seen less and smaller fish on the traditional inshore. That question and that answer have many implications in a number of areas.


Coline M. Campbell: Of course.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Quite clearly it is a problem that we have been forced to confront in Nova Scotia.


Coline M. Campbell: And in Newfoundland.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: As we deal with what we have to deal with in the next little while in Newfoundland we will have to deal with it as well. But to suggest that those boats, the trawlers and others can immediately go over the line, or I think you are saying, catch the fish that is being made available to foreigners inside the zone, considering the process that we go through in terms of offering that fish to Canadian companies, we must ask whether they can take it, whether can they process it and whether they can they market it?
Silver hake is one example. The whitefish from other places have taken silver hake out. There are all sorts of silver hake sitting in Hubbards. We cannot sell it. People cannot get it if they cannot produce it. I could go on-


Coline M. Campbell: Help them sell it. That is your role as a government, to help them sell it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. My best wishes to the hon. member for Cardigan.
Supply


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on a motion that is before the House. As a member of Parliament for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, the issue is especially important since the fishing industry is of vital importance to my constituents and my fellow islanders. Never before has the fishery been in such dire straits. The crisis the Atlantic fishery is currently facing has been brought on in large measure by the insensitivity of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the industry's needs.
It might do the minister good to come to Cardigan or anywhere else in Atlantic Canada and see for himself the hardship this crisis is causing. Perhaps if he would look into the eyes of a lobster fisherman who has no market for his product or into the eyes of a child whose mother or father has just lost his or her job at the fish plant, maybe then he could do something for these Cardigan families.
I see these people all the time during my travel in the ridings. Fishermen are angry, angry at how they have been treated, angry at the lack of action from Ottawa. Fear and nervousness are running rampant among Island fishermen and fish plant workers. All about them they see declining stocks, loss of markets, fish plants closing, cuts to the UI program and increasing taxes. If we do not have enough problems with our own government's policies, now the giant to the south of us is rising to strike what might be the final blow to the industry.
The Americans are threatening us with legislation that could ban minimum sized Canadian lobsters from the U.S. market. The U.S. scored a huge victory this week in the first decision of the binational panel under the free trade agreement on Canadian fish landing rules.
Atlantic Canada has suffered greatly at the hands of this government. The fishing industry is the lifeline of our region. This industry is fundamental to the Prince Edward Island economy. It is the second largest industry in our province, second only to agriculture. It is also, a primary and seasonal resource industry which has taken more than its fair share of punishment from this government.
On P.E.I. there are 2,500 fishermen, 1,400 helpers and about 2,500 fish plant workers. These people account for

Supply
about 10 per cent of the island workforce. The industry injects $200 million into the provincial economy. Fisheries exports make up about 30.7 per cent of the province's total export. This year we have had the most dismal fishery that our island has known for a long time.
It is hard to believe that a person at the helm of this sinking ship refuses to admit that the ship is going down. Everyone knows you cannot deal with a problem unless you admit that you have a problem. Yet, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans sees only blue skies and not a cloud anywhere.
Ignoring the problem seems to be a favourite trick of this minister. Last weekend I questioned him on his department's misleading the P.E.I. tuna fishermen. The government changed the rules of the game after it started. It removed the traditional right from the P.E.I. fishermen to fish in the Atlantic off Canso. The minister admitted his officials misled my constituents. In the next breath he was gloating about the prosperous season these tuna fishermen are having.
To add fat to the fire, the minister then claimed there were no rights written on commercial fishing licences. I have seen these rights on licences with my own two eyes. I have a copy of the licence right here, if anyone is interested. Fishermen in eastern P.E.I. are fed up with this minister. They are fed up with being deceived.
The lobster fishery in P.E.I. represents 70 per cent of the total value of island fishery. This season our lobster fishermen have been plagued by low prices due to a glut in the international market. The Canadian dollar is too strong. Our lobster is not competitive when the dollar is strong. The government could have helped prevent this glut. It could have lowered interest rates and brought down the dollar. Instead, this government has not seen fit to do that.
Lobster fishermen have long recognized the risk of limiting our market to the U.S. The government must assume leadership and develop other markets for this essential export.
Lobsters come second after our world famous potatoes in Prince Edward Island in exports. Now there is a storm brewing on the horizon that could indeed lead to the shutdown of my province's second largest industry.
Currently before the Senate and the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress is a piece of legislation that has proposed to limit the import of Canadian minimum-sized lobsters into that country. This would surely be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Prince Edward Island exports 70 per cent of its canners to the U.S. Where will we send that 70 per cent of canners if this legislation is passed? What will happen to the fishermen, their helpers, and the plant fish workers? Why would the Americans attempt to do this in the first place if they did not see Canada as too weak to fight them on the issue?
Is it any wonder that the majority of Atlantic Canadians voted against this government and the free trade agreement in last year's election. The situation is bad enough right now without predicting what is in store for us. Until last week, there were 11 fish plants in my riding. Now there are 10.
The community of Marry Harbour is still reeling from the closure of the fish plant last week. The plant processed lobsters, groundfish, herring, herring roe and other species. It provided jobs for up to 200 seasonal workers. Now who do the fishermen sell their fish to, and where do the 200 seasonal workers go?
It is unbelievable in the light of such a crisis that the government is proposing to change the UI program, to remove the safety net. People in P.E.I. are not being fooled by the government's fancy reallocation of funds. The truth is that in P.E.I. 1,700 fewer people will be eligible to claim UI and the benefit period for 7,000 people will be cut shorter because of the proposed changes to the program.
Is that any way to treat people who are in a crisis, kick them when they are down? Does the government want to train these people to work in some other industry in central Canada?
The fishery is an integral part of Canadian history and heritage. People in Cardigan are proud to live there. They want to continue to live there and work in the fishery. It is time this government woke up and realized that the people who collect the harvest from the ocean at each end of this country deserve better. They deserve to enjoy the same income security and standard of living as those people in central Canada.
October 19, 1989


Mr. Proud:: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Cardigan for his excellent speech.
I would like to make a few comments. The fishing industry of Prince Edward Island is responsible for 30.7 per cent of the province's exports. Together with tourism and agriculture, it is one of the big three economic staples of our province.
The economic contribution that the fishing industry makes to Canada, particularly on the west coast and in Atlantic Canada, is significant. The fishing industry's contribution to my province's gross provincial product is approximately 13 per cent. In Nova Scotia it is 11 per cent, while in Newfoundland it is the highest in Canada, at about 15 per cent.
In Atlantic Canada, there are over 100,000 fishermen and fish processors. They all depend on a stable Atlantic fisheries industry for employment. Now with lower quotas being imposed by the federal government, these Canadians are looking square into the eye of the storm,"hurricane unemployment". Federal scientists are now recommending even further cuts to an already beleaguered Atlantic fishing industry. They are recommending cuts to fish quotas for next year, while at the same time our federal ministers of international trade and fisheries are having no success in convincing the European community to halt its over-fishing. Once again the EEC is refusing to adhere to quotas set by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
It will not adhere to the conservation measures established by NAFO last month. We have the minister giving assurances that Atlantic Canadians have a right to expect that the European community will reduce its self-appointed quotas.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I thought he was rising on a question or comment on the hon. member from Cardigan's intervention. Is he? The hon. member may continue. The hon. member from Cardigan has a response? No further questions or comments. Resuming debate.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, members on this side of the House have been and will continue to draw the true picture of the present crisis in
Supply
the east coast fishery and the pending disaster in the west coast fishery which will result from the recent bilateral panel ruling.
My colleagues from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, have adequately addressed many of the problems of the off-shore and other particular fisheries. For my part, I will address my remarks to the Atlantic and the Prince Edward Island lobster fishery and the present and future of that fishery.
The many-headed hydra of free trade which has just struck down the west coast fishermen is preparing to strike the east coast lobster fishermen. Yes, the free trade agreement which was supposed to give us assured entry to the great American market is actually going to limit entry to that market-place for the Atlantic lobster fishermen.
This is what is happening. Over the years, Canada has managed its fishery. Anyone who knows anything about fisheries management realizes it is a most difficult task, but it has been one which Canada pioneered, because it realized a long time ago that the resource would disappear if good management practices were not implemented.
As a result of this realization, Canada instituted seasons, quotas, limited entry and minimum size in order to preserve stocks for future Canadians and to ensure the present generation of fishermen the opportunity to earn a good living for themselves and their families.
The Americans instituted no such policy. The American way was to fish a stock to its death and then move on to another stock. Take the Alaskan or king crab, for example. American fishermen fished that stock to near extinction and abandoned the fishery.
The American lobster fishermen who until now had implemented few lobster management practices in the past have had to increase the minimum lobster carapace for size in their fishery in order to conserve their stock.
The Americans now have a minimum carapace size of 3.25 inches. This will give their lobsters a chance to spawn a number of more times before they are fished. This should result in more lobster in the future for American fishermen.

October 19, 1989
Supply
The Canadian minimum carapace size is 2.5 inches which is three-quarters of an inch smaller than the minimum American size lobster.
Fishing the smaller sized or canner lobster does not appear to have affected our fishery. This is due to our history of lobster management practices, our seasons, our licence buy back program of some years ago, the limited entry policy of the fishery, and the superior environment which exists for lobster propagation when compared to the American waters. In fact, our lobster landings have increased steadily over the years.
As the American lobster industry declined our exports into the American market increased to the point where more than 50 per cent of lobster consumed in the United States is imported from Canada. Of course, the Americans do not like this situation. They realize that if they can limit the amount of lobster imported from Canada they will get a much higher price for their own lobster.
During the free trade negotiations Senator George Mitchell of Maine, who is now the U.S. majority leader in the Senate, tried to get import limitations included in the free trade agreement in regard to potatoes and lobsters. President Reagan agreed to the limitation on potato imports under certain conditions but dropped restrictions on lobster imports. The American fishermen and Senator Mitchell were undeterred by that failure or failure to get federal GAIT ruling on lobster imports from Canada.
The American Senate and House of Representatives have now introduced coincidental legislation to make it illegal to import lobster below their own minimum size of 3.25 inch carapace size. In the Senate, Senator Mitchell and others have proposed an amendment to the Magnuson Fishing Conservation and Management Act which states:
-To ship or transport, or cause to be transported, or to sell in interstate commerce or foreign commerce any whole lobster or part thereof, of the species Horarus Americanus (whether fresh, chilled, frozen or otherwise preserved or prepared) that is smaller than the minimum possession size in effect at the time under the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan or any successor to that plan.
This means that Canada's export trade to the U.S. in lobster will be almost totally destroyed if this amendment is implemented.
All our canner size lobster, that is, those in the 2.5 inch to 3 and 3/16 inch carapace measurement could not be
exported to the U.S. and a considerable portion of our market lobster, that is, those in 3 3/16 inch and over carapace measurement, are below the Canadian limit of 3 1/4 inches. This 3 1/4 inches will rise to 3 5/6 inches by 1992. That means that in 1988 more than 60 per cent of RE.I's lobster exports were marketed in the United States. If this new American legislation becomes law, 75 per cent of that total would be affected.
Lobsters constitute two-thirds of the value of RE.I.'s fishery and one-quarter of the total value of all our exports to the United States. In short, if P.E.I. is unable to export lobster to the U.S. as we do now under the present laws, our lobster fishery will be drastically reduced. An overabundance of supply would result in very low prices.
This American action is a thinly disguised barrier to trade. Conservation of lobsters is the excuse. How is limiting entry of Canadian lobster to American markets going to help conserve American lobster stocks? It will not.
It is a red herring. All that will result if American import controls are implemented is an increase in price to the American fishermen and the ruination of Canada lobster fishery. That is why P.E.I. lobster fishermen are so concerned about what is happening in the U.S. Congress. What is the Congress using to legitimize its actions? Nothing less than Article 12 of the free trade agreement, and I quote from American support documents:
In 1988, the Senate Finance Committee recommended a provision for inclusion in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement enabling legislation that would have directly prohibited imports of lobster which did not meet U.S. standards.
The provision was introduced by Senators Mitchell, Cohen, Kerry, Kennedy, Fell and Chafee. The provision was dropped from the enabling legislation signed into law by President Reagan. Although the provision was not enacted, Article 20 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and chapter 12 of the U.S. free trade agreement still protect the right to enact such conservation measures.
This is the legal basis that the U.S. is now using to restrict imports of Canadian lobster.
In the synopsis of the free trade agreement published by this government, GATT Article 20 can justify import and export control measures if a country wants to preserve a commodity in short supply if they do not
October 19, 1989

constitute an arbitrary, unjustified or disguised restriction to trade.
Eventually this action will go before the dispute settlement mechanism of the free trade agreement where, if the west coast fishing dispute results are any indication, Canada will have to look elsewhere for markets or be forced to increase carapace size to meet American requirements.
Not only are we being blackmailed into increasing the minimum size of landed lobster by the Americans. Are we to be subject to American fisheries inspectors in our canneries to inspect lobster meat going into cans destined for the American market? How else will the Americans know what size the lobsters are that go into cans?
There are serious implications for our sovereignty if the congressional amendment becomes law. We will have the U.S. dictating to us what our conservation policy will be after mismanaging theirs. We could have American inspectors in our plants telling us what we can or cannot process.
What is our government doing to head off this impending disaster? What assurances are they giving our lobster fishermen that their interests will be looked after? The indications are not good that the Canadian government can be trusted to support our fishermen.
Let us take, for example, the words of our Prime Minister when he visited President Bush at Kennebunk-port in Maine in September past. Our Prime Minister was quoted as saying that Bush "advanced some persuasive arguments that I have instructed my office to begin examining. This matter which is very important to the United States will be resolved in much the same manner in which we seek to resolve others; in a friendly and constructive spirit." He continued to say: "The President was big on lobster today, I was big on pork."
The Prime Minister did not say: "This matter is very important to Canadian east coast fishermen who stand to lose $100 million." No, he said: "This matter is very important to the United States".
Not only are Canadian fishermen fed up with the minister of fisheries who refuses to deal with our crab fishermen, banned our tuna fishermen from traditional waters, seems incapable of policing foreign fishing quotas which are destroying our northern cod stocks, but
Supply
sadly east coast fishermen cannot rely on the Prime Minister either to look after our interests.
Canadians, it has been said, are the last boy scouts in the international market-place. Canada cannot allow this U.S. move to curb our exports of lobster. GATT should be advised immediately. We won there before and we can win there again. Our Prime Minister and our Minister of Fisheries and our Minister of International Trade must take the initiative now to stand up and fight for our fishermen.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I thought perhaps it would be helpful or appropriate to in fact answer my hon. friend's question about this problem that we face in terms of carapace size and the action in the United
States.
As I think the Prime Minister has quite clearly indicated in this House-I could stand corrected-on October 6, he made it very clear that he had given specific instructions that our ambassador make strong representation to the Government of the United States. Of course that has been done in a diplomatic note as of I think October 10 where we have made it clear that we do not support this action.
There is no justification on conservation grounds for prohibiting the import of lobsters legally caught in Canadian waters. These imports in no way jeopardize U.S. conservation regime for lobster stocks within their own waters. Therefore we feel strongly that we must protest and we have done so. I think we feel strongly that our case is right. I just want to reassure my friend that this government will continue to pursue this matter in the interests of Atlantic lobster fishermen.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear those remarks from the hon. member. The whole basis of the American action to use the excuse of conservation to limit our imports is totally irrelevant. I do not see how it can ever stand. I am very happy that the hon. member has assured us that the government is fighting this and will be protecting and standing up for our fishermen in Atlantic Canada.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. When we deal with the lobster problem-maybe the hon. member can correct me-but I cannot recall that the size of lobsters have changed over the past 15 years as to what is being

October 19, 1989
Supply
caught. Has the supply of lobster in your area decreased over the last 15 years?
I know that this year you had an oversupply of lobsters and a poor price. The actual supply of lobsters, because of the size caught by the lobster fishermen, has it gone down? We have been catching lobsters for a good long time. It has been a good marketable entity for Canadian fishermen into the U.S. and other markets. Has the volume of the lobster catch decreased?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. The volume of lobster in Prince Edward Island has been steadily increasing over this past 10 years, since 1978. Not only has the volume been increasing, but the price to the fishermen has been decreasing. In the fishery sector it is the bread and butter of our total fishery.
This year, because of the stagnant markets and the inventories that exist in Europe, and particularly in the United States, we have been unable to get rid of our present inventories, which has resulted in a depression of our prices. If we had to abide by this proposed American legislation on top of having an overabundance of lobster on our hands now, this would be a disastrous year. Instead of a poor year it would be a disastrous year.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Egmont for his fine message. I am well aware that he was born and reared in a fishing area and is well aware of the role of small craft harbours and repair to harbours.
I was wondering if he is having any of the problems I am having in Grahams Pond and Savage Harbour and MacAuley's Wharf. Along with being a major problem for the fishermen, a place to put their traps and tie up their boats, it has also become an environmental problem. We also have a problem at Sturgeon Wharf. In Savage Harbour we are having major problems with the black wall. If these things are not repaired in my district, it is going to create a major problem. Are there any of those problems in your district?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cardigan for his question. The underfunding of small craft harbours in Prince Edward Island is an ongoing concern to the fishermen. There is more to fishing than just going out and fishing. They
need a safe harbour and wharf facilities in order to do the job properly.
For example, the harbour of Tignish, which is one of the largest harbours in Prince Edward Island, needs about a million dollars in repairs now, which is not going to happen this year. This is causing a lot of hardship to our fishermen.
I just want to say that the budget for small craft harbours, as far as P.E.I is concerned, is really poor. We need a lot of extra investment in our fishery so we can have safe harbour and good fishing facilities for our fishermen.


Mr. Bill Kempiing (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion on the government's record with respect to workers in communities involved in Canada's fishing industry.
The Canadian fishing industry is and always has been an integral part of the country's economic framework. It has been the lifeblood of many Canadians for hundreds of years. Yet, while this industry has a long and proud history in our country, it is, and not for the first time, facing a difficult period created by depleting stocks and changes in international marketing conditions.
Despite these circumstances I want to assure those men and women who make their living from the industry that the federal government is well aware of their situation and is working hard to develop measures to help them through this period. Indeed, this is in keeping with our track record. We were there before when the fishing industry workers needed us. We are there now, and I promise you we will be there in the future.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the fishing industry is a volatile one, affected by weather, market and conditions not under its control. This reality has compelled the fishing industry to be both flexible and adaptable. Likewise, we will show equal flexibility in ensuring that our programs and services meet the needs of the communities and the workers affected.
Any response to that industry must be viewed within a larger international perspective. Change and volatility are the watch words of our times. I might say that I was recently in Manilla in a factory that was making the huge drift-nets for the Pacific. I was trying to dissuade them. I saw their huge nets being made for tuna fishing, three times the size of anything we have seen before, and new

boats being built to pull those nets. The nets would be twice the size of this chamber. They built a special factory for them. That is the sort of thing that we have to look at down the road.
To succeed in this environment we must be open to new ideas and the need for flexible and imaginative responses. We must continue to build our human resources by focusing on long-term employment and skills development. We must also stick to our fiscal principles.
This government has made much progress in improving economic conditions in less favourable regions in the country which affect many areas that count on the fishing industry for their livelihood.
For example, progress has been made through the introduction and the development of the Canadian Jobs Strategy or CJS since it began in 1985. It has helped countless Canadians to get the training and the work experience they need to find productive employment. This program has been well received in the fisheries sector. In the last fiscal year alone, the government directly invested $17.4 million in Canadian Jobs Strategy projects in the fisheries sector.
This strategy's success stems from the fact that its objective is to create long-term jobs and to build for the future. To do that, Canadian Jobs Strategy must take into account the local needs. What may work in a metropolis like Montreal or Toronto may not work in a fishing village in Newfoundland.
While we are proud of what we accomplished with CJS, we know we can do more. That is why we have developed the Labour Force Development Strategy. The Labour Force Development Strategy builds from the Canadian Jobs Strategy foundation. It provides additional clout to those programs and services we already have in place.
The Community Futures Program, which is in place in many fishing communities across Canada, illustrates my point. Community Futures has made great strides in helping small communities adjust to economic change. It employs a wide range of options to help these communities diversify their economies and increase employment opportunities.
One community that has already done well with the program is Port aux Basques in Newfoundland. Through
Supply
determination and ingenuity companies were recruited to open plants in Port aux Basques. One of them, a Norwegian fabricating company, will create more than 200 jobs when this plant opens later this year. Additional employment will be created by several Canadian companies that have also set up shop there.
As well, almost $1 million in Community Futures funding has been used to train 120 residents as high tech welders, pipefitters and sheet metal workers. Seventy of these trainees are now working full time; another 30 are working part time; and the remainder are still in school. They have also assisted 24 residents in starting their own businesses through the program's self-employment incentive.
This entrepreneurial alternative allows people to create their own opportunities and that definitely is one way of addressing the problem of local unemployment. You can see why the Community Futures Program will receive an additional $50 million under the new Labour Force Development Strategy.
We are also doubling funding for the industrial adjustments service from $15 million to $30 million. This program has more than a quarter of a century of success behind it in helping companies to adjust to technological change, preventing lay-offs, and assisting employees when lay-offs are inevitable. The industrial adjustment service has entered into hundreds of agreements such as the one recently negotiated with the National Sea Products plant in Lockeport, Nova Scotia. We are sure that the same measure of success that has resulted from other agreements will be repeated here.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the Labour Force Development Strategy measures for helping fishing industry workers encompass more than enhancements to existing programs. Our government has always taken into account the needs of Canadian fishery workers. In the past, special measures have been taken and we are prepared to act again.
While our government takes measures to ensure the long-term prosperity of the fishing industry, some communities need short-term compensation. They will also need extra protection from situations such as adverse weather conditions that affect their standard of living.

Supply
More than ever before, we realize that increased assistance for affected fishery workers is linked inextricably with the future of many communities. The department is assessing the situation to determine the type of assistance these regions will require this year. Special measures are available to genuine fishermen and fish plant workers. And eligibility requirements for these special measures are tailored to the needs of these people.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate our government's concern for the problems facing the men and women employed in Canada's fishing industry. As you can see, Madam Speaker, this concern has been translated into initiatives that offer them opportunities suited for their particular circumstances. These options are important because we are bound to assist these communities and workers who have contributed so much to this country.


Coline M. Campbell: I believe the hon. member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I am sure that he could send that speech home to his constituents.
In southern Ontario the Canadian Jobs Strategy might work, but I would challenge him to go down to Locke-port or to even speak to his colleague from South Shore and tell him how the Canadian Jobs Strategy or the labour project that he is talking about has helped the people who have lost in Lockeport.
The purpose of this data shows that the government's policy in fishery is not working. The fishery management plan is not working. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary explain to the House how this government has helped the people of Lockeport to earn a living there?


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, this problem that we have has not just arisen this year. It has been with us for a number of years. It ebbs and flows. It is a cyclical problem and what we are endeavouring to do is to find
(a)	industries that will move into the Lockeport area and
(b)	have training programs available to retrain people to accept those industries.
When we undertake a program of this nature we have to count on some initiative at the local level. It cannot all be done by government. We do not know everything and obviously we need local assistance to help us. We have
people in the department looking at that whole fishery situation.
If I may be allowed to point to Newfoundland, which has a worst condition than in Lockeport, Nova Scotia, the job growth in Newfoundland is not just confined to the capital. During the past year the number of people of jobs in Newfoundland, outside the St. John's metropolitan area, has risen by over 9,500. The employment rate in that part of the province has fallen more than 2.1 per cent.
We have undertaken a number of initiatives in the Atlantic area. I know that some of them are going to succeed. I could not help but reflect on the comments of the member speaking before me about lobster. I just read the other day about the huge lobster market that is undeveloped in France. In fact, I read a very learned paper by a professor from the Newfoundland university about this huge market in France waiting for someone to jump on it. I do not know why we are so concerned. If we have a large crop of lobsters in P.E.I, I do not know why someone does not get on an airplane, go to France, and find out where they can sell it.


Coline M. Campbell: We have no airplanes left to take it. Terra Nova can't take it.


William James Kempling: I have seen P.E.I. lobsters in Tokyo, in the big fish market there. I have seen P.E.I tuna. I have seen herring and herring roe in the big fish market in Tokyo. There are many areas beyond the United States, although it is the closest, where we can sell fish. There has to be some local initiative as well to assist the matter along.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, one of the things that my hon. friend said in his comments was that not all programs apply in all areas. He made it very clear that perhaps the Canadian Jobs Strategy is not as applicable in some parts of the country as it is in others. He made reference to some of the very important programs that we have seen and some of the programs that are more suited again to other areas. Specific reference was made to Community Futures in Port aux Basques, which is in the Burin riding, and programs like that that have been developed to utilize local initiative.
As my friend knows, our colleague from South Shore has been very active in developing the local resources and using the people of the area. The initiative that they have developed in helping people to put that into practice and to apply it in responding to some of the
October 19, 1989

problems, be it in ensuring that fish that was exported is now kept in the country and perhaps finding new buyers for facilities, is the sort of thing that our colleague has been undertaking.
I was going to read into the record some figures from previous response programs, but Madam Speaker is telling me I have very little time. I will not go into the $20 million that has been spent in emergency response in Newfoundland in the last three years.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon.
Since the early 1980s, the reality has been unprecedented growth in employment in the fishery sector, both in harvesting and in processing in the Atlantic region. I would like to read you some figures that the minister has made available recently. He said, for Atlantic Canada from 1983 to 1988, landings of all fish species increased by 200,000 tonnes to 1.3 million tonnes. The total landed value increased by $400 million to over $1 billion during that same period. The total value of processed fish products increased by $750 million, to $2.2 billion in 1988.
We do have to face the reality that employment, the commercial activity, the economy of the fisheries resource in Atlantic Canada has, by and large, been at a high level of performance. As well, until recent months, perhaps, over the past year, the resources themselves, the natural fish stocks seem to have been sufficiently abundant to support that exploitation. It is only recently that we have become starkly aware of at least three major resource problems which will no longer sustain the expectations we have placed upon those resources.
First, there has been a gathering momentum of decline for several years in the groundfish stocks, particularly in the Nova Scotia waters, which has come to a shocking realization in recent months. As well, there has been a sharp drop in snow crab stocks, particularly in the New Brunswick and Quebec areas. Of course we are all familiar with the new information which we have concerning the northern cod populations.
Supply
As has been man's custom for centuries, we have continued to increase our expectations and our harvest so long as the resource seemed to be available. Now we confront the reality of the inevitable cycle, too much capacity.
I would like to quote from a report by the capacity committee which the minister, in co-operation with the industry helped to establish. Since 1987, they have been working to develop a proposed plan to cope with overcapacity in the groundfish fleet. Their conclusions state that the groundfish fleet already has twice the fishing power it needs. If the approximately 1,000 vessels licensed for groundfish but now fishing other species should return to groundfish, the fleet would have four times the fishing power it needs. As groundfish abundance has declined, quotas have dropped over the last seven years by about 40 per cent or 88,000 tonnes. That catch, if it were to be increased today, would be worth more than $60 million to the 2,700 groundfish boats in the Scotia-Fundy region.
As well, I would like to read from a quotation from Dr. Harris who did a study earlier this year about the northern cod situation. He says:
We must be absolutely clear that failure to take appropriate steps to reduce current levels of fishing mortality will most probably lead to a significant decline in the spawning population of northern cod over the next several years.
He goes on to say this, and I think this is pivotal:
Whatever management is taken, the panel recommends that the guiding principle must be the imperative necessity for an increase in the size of the spawning population.
What that really addresses is the subject of management of the resource. The government, contrary to the motion, has already commenced to act in that regard and, with specific reference to northern cod, the funding for scientific research will be increased this year by 80 per cent. The expanded research effort will increase from the current $3.8 million budget by an additional $3 million. That is hardly action consistent with the negative implications of this resolution.
I would like to talk for a few minutes about the management of the resource itself and about that phrase that we hear so much about today, sustainable development.
Yesterday I was privileged to be part of a legislative committee that reported a bill to this House which, perhaps, for the first time in Canadian legislation con-

October 19, 1989
Supply
tains a definition of sustainable development. It is taken from the Brundtland report, from what is an international consensus on the definition of that phrase and means: The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
If there ever there has been a Canadian situation which demonstrates the principles of sustainable development, or at least the lack of them it has to be in the manner in which we so frequently have approached our fishery be it frequently on the Atlantic seaboard and on the Pacific coast as well.
The main area of my experience with the fishery has been the Atlantic salmon. There is much to learn from the management history and experience we have gained over recent years with Atlantic salmon that may well be applied to all fishery resources. The salmon story has both domestic and international implications much as is the case with the Atlantic groundfish crisis. It required in the case of Atlantic salmon a demonstration of leadership here at home before we could get the attention of the international fishery organizations and fishery countries. Salmon management involved other domestic conflicts, commercial fishermen in ocean migration routes, sports anglers in fresh water spawning rivers, native Indians at key locations in tidal estuaries, all competing vigorously for a diminishing resource despite clear signals that that stock was in serious trouble.
In the case of Atlantic salmon, Canada did finally start to act when we were just on the brink of disaster. A 10-year ban was imposed on the Maritimes commercial fishery for salmon. Angling limits were reduced first from six fish per day to four and then to two, and now large salmon are not permitted to be harvested at all. The total season limit for all fish, smaller fish only, in fact, is down to 10. What a dramatic action to reduce a daily limit to almost what is now a season limit.
We have introduced catch and release programs to preserve the resource and yet to permit the continuity of the very valuable recreational fishery.
I have the honour to chair National Recreational Fisheries Conference to be held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, two weeks from now in which the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans national action plan for a sustainable fishery into the next century will deal with the recreational component. That is hardly an
expression of management vision that would deserve the negative implications of this resolution this afternoon.
In terms of the Atlantic salmon, if I may go on with the analogy, allowances which were established in 1989 to initiate headland river by river system management received fierce opposition even from those to which the management plan is most designed to help. Those who are most dependent on our fishery resource are frequently, it seems the ones who most vigorously oppose its preservation. This seems to illustrate the reality of our changing perspective when we have abused nature's bounty.
We have been to the edge of extinction with the salmon resource and with our own eyes we have seen it because the salmon resource is spawned and bom in our own rivers. We are able to count and even measure the size of the returning resource and yet we have been unwilling to believe even the reality of our own numbers.
When all is concluded, obviously people have got to be our greatest concern, and those who live by fishing are obviously in great difficulty in many places in the Atlantic region today. But we cannot respond to the circumstances of those people by plundering the resource. I would like to say that as my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, has outlined, there are programs in place, there are actions we are taking to speak to the circumstances in which those people find themselves today. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with its programs and with its mission statement from which I would like to read, has the following goal:
To undertake policies and programs in support of Canada's economic, ecological and scientific interests in the oceans and inland waterways and to provide for the conservation the development and the sustained economic utilization of Canada's fishery resources.
This government, for the first time ever, is committed to sustainable development, to the realization that the resource is the key.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate my friend from Fredericton on his address.
I am not sure his heart was completely in it but I understand that. He and the gentleman before him, my friend and colleague from Burlington, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, have together, during the last 20 minutes, made a number of points that
October 19, 1989

need debating and commenting on. The time is short so I will come quickly to two points.
The first is something that the gentleman from Burlington said, but I want to put a question to the gentleman from Fredericton about it and that relates to job strategy. I say to him let's distinguish between the Canadian Jobs Strategy program and the Community Futures. These are two very different programs with very different results.
Community Futures is a good program as I said to this House before and said publicly. It is a good program. It has a lot of potential. There are some problems with it including the monkeying around at times with who goes on the board, but that is a side issue. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water. The program itself is a good program if it is given a chance to succeed.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy program must be marvellous for places like Burlington and Toronto and so on. What I can tell you is that it is creating unbelievable havoc in the small communities throughout southern, southwestern and western Newfoundland which I know best. I submit to the gentleman from Fredericton that he will know communities where equivalent havoc is being created by the Canadian Jobs Strategy program because the question arises, if you live in Toronto and are working in the beer plant and the beer plant closes, you can go down and get on a training program through Canada Manpower. Then you can go down and get a job putting bolts on the car in the car plant in Toronto.
The problem with Ramea and Belleoram is there is not very many car plants there. To put it differently, what do you train those people for? They have residents in those communities that now have the skills. The have the logging skill, the fishing skill, the homemaker's skill, the carpenter's skill, the welding skill. They have together the aggregate of skills which are required to survive and thrive in those communities. So what do we train them for?
In effect, those programs are denying them training altogether because there is no training that is appropriate or in the other case we are training them to pack
Supply
suitcases to move to Toronto and Fort McMurray. Either of those options is unacceptable.
I say to the gentleman from Fredericton that it is absolutely unacceptable for people who have their roots there-I say to my friends from British Columbia, their loved ones and friends-to have a government whose only objective is to tear them away from everything they stand for, their old value system and everything just to get bread and butter. There ought to be a better way. There is a better way.
The better way is for the government, instead of using Canadian Jobs Strategy money in a way that is year after year or month after month diminishing the requirement for job strategy money because those people in those communities I am talking about cannot satisfy the requirements. But they do have the need. They have the need for jobs. They have the need for something to bridge them over so they can stay among their loved ones, so they can be, on a continuing basis, in the community which has values with which they identify.
I want to ask the gentleman from Fredericton if he would adjudicate the Canadian Jobs Strategy to be the unqualified success that is being portrayed by the minister of employment or is he, in fairness to his constituents, finding that some of his constituents, too, are having some difficulty making ends meet because of the way the rules have been botched in Canadian Job Strategy?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: As I said in my remarks certainly the answer to the job strategy is not the plundering of the resource. I share the hon. member's concerns about the difficult perspective those in small fishing villages face. It is a very difficult question to create and to innovate and contemplate the kinds of adjustment and redeployment that will be necessary. At least the Canadian Jobs Strategy does address those kinds of problems. There is a process at work in this government.
I would like to ask the hon. member the question in reverse. As we have heard so often in this House criticism of this government for one thing after another, what does the hon. member suggest he would do given the state of the resource, given surely his agreement with the fact that plunder of the resource is not the answer. What would he do? How would he cope with the situation in those small fishing villages? What magic would he wrought that is better than is being done here? I would like to have that answer. It was his government and your fisheries minister in the late 1970s and early

Supply
1980s that created the beginnings of the overcapacity we now have, the miscalculation of the resource, the mismanagement of the resource. I could not help but contemplate that as this motion which was put by the hon. member for Beausejour, a Liberal motion, that the House condemn the government's mismanagement, it would surely pertain to the management of the minister of the early 1980s.


Lynn Hunter: I am
pleased to stand in this House today to participate in debate on this motion. The motion states that this House condemn the government's mismanagement, lack of leadership, incompetence and negligence that has placed Canada's fishing communities and workers in unparalleled jeopardy. Well that is putting it lightly.
I would like to focus mostly on the B.C. fishery. Mismanagement has been rampant in British Columbia for generations, but it seems to be an accelerating process in this last while. I am going to focus my comments on four main areas, the first the most recent free trade panel decision; second on fish farming and the effect that has on the fishery the third on the troll fleet versus recreational fishery in British Columbia; and fourth on drift-net fishery.
First of all, let us focus on the free trade panel decision. We have to look at this decision in the context of other government initiatives. For instance, the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The effect on jobs of the free trade panel decision is quite dramatic. The figures that I have, 24,000 full and part-time workers are affected and are now at risk because of this decision. Twenty-four thousand, this is on B.C. fishery. When we talk about the kind of effects on jobs we have to think about who those people are, which people are affected.
My colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby has provided me with figures for unemployment for women generally is 11.2 per cent. Unemployment for native women is a shocking 21.8 per cent. In British Columbia, 70 per cent of the workers in fish processing are women. The majority are either native women or from visible minorities. The kind of jobs that are affected by this free trade panel decision are good jobs, paying benefits. Many of these women who are affected by these job losses are the sole support for their families because, especially in the native communities, often the men have a much
higher rate of unemployment than the women. What other jobs can these people be trained for?
The Minister of Employment and Immigration talks about what alternatives his government has, its long range plans for employment. Well, what is being done for the remote communities of British Columbia that are so dependent on the fishing industry for their jobs? What are the government's initiatives? I propose that it has none, that it is sacrificing these jobs.
On this free trade panel decision, I want to give you the kind of figures we are looking at. In Skagit County in Washington, the rate of pay for the fish processing industry is $5.50 an hour versus Canada where the rate is $13.00 an hour. Certainly if you want to be an ideological purist you can see the rationale for why the jobs are going south of the border. But I contend that the government of our country should be looking after Canadian jobs and should not be following the kind of ideological purity that is going to hurt Canadians. This free trade panel decision hurts Canadian jobs and it hurts Canadian communities.
I would like to remind the House of a quote from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in February of 1988 when he was speaking to the Pacific Gill-netters Association convention. He said that we do not need more fish but we could generate more year-round employment at income by doing more with the fish. What does he mean, if it does not mean processing the fish, packaging the fish. This free trade panel decision does the very reverse. It sends the jobs south of the border.
However, this panel decision not only affects the job. It also affects our sovereignty. How can we control our resource if we do not know how many fish are actually being caught? How do we measure how many fish we have? We are talking about percentages that will have been set at 20 per cent of the fish. Twenty per cent of what? How do we measure it? How do you measure a percentage of an unknown quantity? How do you know logically? Do you not have to count them all to be able to know what the 20 per cent is?
If Americans are buying on the water and paying cash, how will we know what the exports have actually been? It is impossible to monitor escapements without counting on a daily basis how many fish have been caught. This is a conservation issue. I know that some members opposite have been talking about the kind of sustainable development initiatives of this government. We are talking about management here and this government, through its
October 19, 1989

ministry of fisheries and oceans, is not managing this resource. There are five species of salmon and 4,500 runs of salmon, all of which need to be preserved. This government, through its negligence and mismanagement, is allowing that to be totally mismanaged.
We have a major problem on this. We are talking about jobs and about sovereignty. We are giving away our resource to the United States. As my hon. leader pointed out in Question Period the other day, what are the implications for our other resources? Does this mean that we are not going to be able to monitor our resources in other ways? It has vast implications, not just for the fishery but for provinces like British Columbia which is so resource dependent.
This government is not looking after the jobs and sovereignty of our country. Through this free trade panel decision, it is the first salvo of a much bigger picture.
I am now going to turn my comments to the whole issue of fish farming. This ministry has been granting licences, seemingly with little regard for the impact on the fishery. It is almost as if they are giving licences for a separate industry, not understanding it and seeing it in isolation rather than as part of the whole fishing scene, especially on the west coast. There has been an impact on the market because of the kind of prices that wild fishery can now ask versus the fish farming. I have a son who works in the fishery and it is a matter of the market prices going steadily downward because there have been so many fish farming licences granted.
I have no trouble with Canada feeding the world. I think it is a laudable goal that Canada should feed the world. But when it is at the cost of Canadian jobs, when it is taking the kind of money that many fisherpeople have invested in boats, equipment and so on and putting those people's jobs at risk in order to have a fling at what is called fish farming, I question that. There is a whole other aspect of fish farming that has to be looked at, as well, and that is the environmental consequences of granting so many licences for fish farms. There are many horror stories I could tell you about fish farming on the west coast. I could tell you of the kinds of drugs that are introduced into the farms to preserve the so-called health of the fish. I am talking about antibiotics that are
Supply
dumped into the pens. What kind of safety regulations has this ministry brought in to ensure that the high density of drugs in the fish will not contaminate the wild fishery. How is it going to prevent them from escaping?
So, we have at least two concerns with fish farming, the environmental concerns and the effects on the markets and the traditional jobs in the fishery.
I now want to turn my comments to the effect on the troll fleet. My son works with the troll fleet in the summer. I believe he is watching from the gallery or from the lobby this afternoon. I hope he is paying attention, as I am finally talking about an issue that he can agree with.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn Hunter: Well, he is a 16-year-old boy and they never agree with their mothers. For the past two years he has been out off the west coast of Vancouver Island with the troll fleet. Each year things have become steadily worse, according to him. He tells me stories of the overzealous action on the part of the fishery patrol. As soon as the fleet gets over fish and is actually successful in catching fish, they close down, and ask the fleet to move on. This is a kind of harassment because the patrol does not know what is going on. It does not have the ability to know how many fish are escaping or how many fish are coming back, so they close it down. And, what does that do to the fishery? Well, I know what it does to my son's skipper. It makes him very, very nervous, because all of a sudden he has two months to make his income for the year and the fishery is closed down and moved on. As a mother, I can speak of the kind of dangerous working conditions involved here. It is like a little chequerboard out there and they are only allowed a certain part of the ocean in which to do their fishing. All the boats are crammed into one little area and they have their poles going out and it is foggy. This is management? It is not management. It is a patchwork quilt of regulations that harasses the fishery and harasses the people of British Columbia in their attempts to make a living. And it is this government, with its central Canada focus on every policy, that is irritating to those of us on either coast.

October 19, 1989
Supply
I want also to speak about the mismanagement of the recreational fishery because many of my constituents do recreational fishing. You have to have a lot of imagination in order to figure out how tagging of salmon could conserve the resource and whether or not throwing back a dead fish because it is the wrong type is going to conserve it. As I said, you have to have a lot of imagination to see where that is going to get us.
My last area of comment regarding the mismanagement of the fishery relates to the drift-net fishery which so far we have only seen in the north Pacific. This is an absolute tragedy. We not only see the mismanagement of our fishing resources, we also see many marine mammals being caught. There is the environmental question as to whether or not that is a wise tactic.
I know that Canada has expressed its views that it is not a wise tactic, but I would like to say that Canada is certainly not expressing them in loud or forceful enough tones. This government, in negotiating with those who are engaged in drift-net fishery, has agreed to move the boundary northward. That is supposed to be a compromise because the government also said that it was going to allow fishery patrol people onto the boats-six boats- to monitor the situation. This would be laughable if it were not such a tragedy.
We are talking about a major pirating scheme in the north Pacific. What does allowing the movement northward of the boundary, mean for B.C. fishery, the salmon fishery? It means that more salmon, more of our resource that is supposed to be protected under international law, is going to be taken by these pirates. Once again, there is a complete absence of management. There are just not sufficient resources by this government to monitor the situation. If it were serious about putting people on boats, it has to put far more than six people on them.
What we want now is that transponders be put on each boat that is engaged in the drift-net. That is a device to track the boats by satellite. We have the technology. We just do not have the political will. That is what is totally absent regarding the fishery on the west coast. I know the Atlantic fishery has been dealt with from both sides of this House, but on the west coast, there is an absence
of political will to talk about this crisis. Korea has apparently agreed that transponders be put on its boats.
Taiwan, one of the major and most flagrant violators of international law to which we would like to think we are subject is not. What can we do? This government has to stop looking at all of these little things in isolation. It seems to be expert in talking about international trade, but it doesn't seem to be able to get its act together when it actually comes down to looking after Canadians interest in that. We have to be able to put economic pressure on these violators, these pirates. I am talking about major sanctions.
We are not supposed to have recognized Taiwan, but we still get Japanese oranges from Thiwan. Why can't we put economic pressure on this country that is stealing our resource? We should be very clear about that. These are our salmon. It is our tax dollars that have gone to enhancing this market. We are giving it away through this drift-net fishery. We are allowing it to be taken.
Those small filament nets that catch everything are a disgusting display. My colleague from Nanaimo-Cowi-chan calls them curtains of death. I think that is a very apt description of those drift-nets. They are a very efficient killer. Of course you have to kill the fish, but this is killing everything, marine birds and marine mammals, and fish. I want to once again refocus my remarks on the salmon. We have paid for that salmon, and we are looking after it and trying, in spite of many violations in the forestry, to save those salmon streams. Yet this government is allowing the drift-net fishery to occur by making mealy-mouthed statements about the drift-net fishery saying that we will negotiate. Negotiations have to have some punch behind them. We have to have that resource protected. We have to be sure that it is Canadians who are being looked after by this government.
It is all very well to say nice comforting things about international trade being the direction of the future, but in order to save Canadians jobs we have to make sure that this government is looking after our interests. I know in British Columbia, it certainly is not the view of most people that that is what is happening.
It is the people of British Columbia who are affected, it is the women, the native women. They are the ones who are being put out of work.
October 19, 1989

Supply
This is a Liberal motion which I applaud. I like the language though it is a little weak. Mismanagement, incompetence and negligence are not quite strong enough words for me. I think some of the language I would use may be non-parliamentary. I applaud this motion and am sure there are many questions for me.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, just before I pose a question, I have a few observations with regard to the remarks made by my colleague from New Westminster- Burnaby. She indicated at the outset that in western Canada she is finding a great deal of concern being expressed by individuals in the fisheries with regard to some of the management policies of the Government of Canada. I want to tell the hon. member concerns.
In fact, I was somewhat dismayed when I heard on the floor of the House of Commons my colleague from Central Nova extolling the virtues of the present minister of fisheries only to be outdone by my colleague from St. John's East. It seems that at every opportunity, he wishes to support not only the policies of the Government of Canada but indeed, to support carte blanche the activities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We in Atlantic Canada, and I guess it is probably apropos to western Canada, have been suffering at the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who refuses on all occasions to accept the advice, suggestions, the calls and the pleas of fishermen and individuals within the industry. I am appalled to hear that his cabinet colleague would say today on the floor of the House of Commons that it is a tough job being the minister of fisheries. We have a serious problem within the fishery, only to find that the minister of fisheries said in the House several days ago that everything is wonderful, everything is healthy, there are no difficulties within the fishing industry.
I want to address this particular concern to the hon. member who has just spoken. Would she not agree, in her spirit of objectivity, in her non-partisan manner as exhibited in the last number of minutes of her speech, that notwithstanding the fault with the regulations, the management policies that have been put in place by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, there is an added problem, a serious problem which affects west coast fishermen and those in the Atlantic.
That has to do with the arrogance, the unbelievable arrogance of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Would the hon. member not agree that if this particular minister would only accept the reality that there is a crisis within the fisheries and provide a coherent plan, we would then find solutions to what has become a disastrous economic situation for the west coast as well as the Atlantic coast?
While the hon. member is on her feet, would she not want to take the opportunity to share with members of the House of Commons who have listened attentively to her remarks and the remarks of all of our colleagues as to what sort of adjectives the hon. member say that the motion that this House condemn the government's mismanagement, lack of leadership, incompetence and negligence that has placed Canada's fishing communities and workers in unparalleled jeopardy is weak. I want to ask if the hon. member would rise in her place and join with us in this party by adding adjectives to the situation which the minister has caused for fishermen on both the west and east coasts.
While I am on my feet, I thought I would take one more moment-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think that the hon. member will agree that the floor should be given to the Hon. Member for Saaninch-Gulf Islands.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is such a concise question. I just want to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from my perspective in British Columbia, has certainly alienated every aspect of the fishing community, the recreational fishery, the troll fleet, the gill-netters, you name it, they are mad at him because of this mismanagement.
In order to allow other people to ask questions-because I know there are a number of other people who want to ask questions, I can just see them bouncing over there wanting to ask me questions-I think that I will leave the adjectives because they would not be parliamentary. I know that a lot of journalists, in particular, find that some of us women in the House are a little too partisan, and I would not want to dissuade them from that belief.

October 19, 1989
Supply


Mr. Langlois:: Madam Speaker, after listening carefully to what was said by the Hon. Member for Saanich-Guff Islands (Ms. Hunter), I can inform her and indeed remind her that issuing fishfarming licences is a provincial responsibility. About the drift net situation, I may also remind her that Canada has started active discussions and serious negotiations with various Asian countries that practise this type of fishing in the Pacific, and so far, the results have been encouraging, and we are confident that substantial progress will be made in dealing with the indeed disastrous situation caused by drift nets in northern Pacific waters. I have a question for the Hon. Member. How can she claim that the fisheries are poorly managed, when on the Atlantic Coast, between 1983 and 1988, landings increased, landing values increased and the value of processed fish products increased as well?


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I do not think using the old provincial regulations answer is going to go very far. It does not excuse abdication of responsibility. We are talking about taxpayers' dollars going toward enhancing a resource and then saying that we cannot do anything about it because it is provincial jurisdiction.
That is the oldest tactic in the book. There is only one pocket that the taxman can dig his hand into and that is the pocket of the taxpayers of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to orders adopted on Tuesday, April 4 and Tuesday, June 27,1989, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the Main Estimates and all stages of the bill based thereon.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 1, in the amount of $57,154,000 under the Department of Agriculture-Management and Administration-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth.
Supply


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, because of committee duties and a late flight I was unable to be in my seat for this vote. If I had been, I would have voted with the opposition.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Madam Speaker, I was late, and I would like to register my vote with the Opposition.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1 - DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1 in the amount of $51,240,500 under the Department
of Employment and Immigration, corporate and special services,
program of expenditures, in the Main Estimates from the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, first, I think you would find that there would be consent to dispense with the ringing of the bells.
Second, if you would look around the House, I think you would find that there would be unanimity to apply the vote on Motion No. 1 to Motions 2, 3 and 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion from the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 19, 1989
Supply


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I take it you would add to those votes the late arrivals from out east who came from the GST committee to fight this tax all the way.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is noted that the votes of the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer would be added to the nays.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1 - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $38,168,000 under the Department of	Environment-Administration-Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1-DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $52,531,000 under the Department of Finance-Financial and Economic Policies- Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1-DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1 of the amount of $490,517,000 of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1-MINISTRY OF STATE (FORESTRY)
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1 in the amount of $82,641,000 under the Ministry of State (Forestry)-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think you would find a disposition to apply the vote just taken on this motion and on the subsequent motions until we get to Motion No. 10, at which time this caucus would like to stand up for defence matters. Because of the base closures and the importance this has to our constituencies, we would like to stand up for them.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1 - DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $42,470,000 under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Administration- Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1 - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Robert René de Cotret: Anderson
Belsher
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dobbie
Duplessis
Epp
Feltham
Fretz
Gerin
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Horning
James
Kempling
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McDermid
Mitges
Moore
Paproski
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Schneider
Shields
Sparrow
Tardif
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Winegard
That Vote 1, in the amount of $177,963,000 under the Department of Industry, Science and Technology-Industry and Technology-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1-DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Horning
James
Kempling
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McDermid
Mitges
Moore
Paproski
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Schneider
Shields
Sparrow
Tardif
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Winegard
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Horner
Jacques
Jelinek
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Landry
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Masse
Mazankowski
Merrithew
Monteith
O'Kurley
Plamondon
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Stevenson
Tetreault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Himer (Halt on-Peel)
Venne
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy-119
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $111,201,000 under the Department of Justice-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1-DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $7,497,290,000 under the
Department of National Defence-Operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be
concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 11 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).


Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 11
That Vote 1, in the amount of $63,726,500 under the Department
of National Health and Welfare -Departmental Administration -
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent of the House to apply the vote on Motion no. 10 to Motion No. 11, as well as Motions No. 12,13, and 14. However I ask for a recorded vote on Motion No. 15 to protest against VIA Rail cuts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 12
That Vote 1, in the amount of $435,015,500 under the Department of National	Revenue-Customs	and	Excise-Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.
The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 83)
++YEAS
Members
Anderson	Atkinson
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Bourgault
Brightwell	Browes
Cadieux	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Chartrand	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Collins
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dobbie	Domm
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Gerin	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Homer	Homing
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Kempling
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Malone
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDermid	Merrithew
Mitges	Monteith
Moore	O'Kurley
Paproski	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Roy-Arcelin
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields	Siddon
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard
 NAYS Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Baker
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Bevilacqua
Black	Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria	Brew in
Caccia	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Comuzzi
Crawford	Dingwall
Duhamel	Finestone
Flis	Foster
Funk	Gaffney
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Harb	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hunter
Jordan	Karpoff
Keyes	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLellan
Maheu	Manley
McGuire	McLaughlin
Mifflin	Milliken
Mills	Mitchell
Murphy	Pagtakhan
Parent	Peterson
Phinney	Proud
Prud'homme	Robichaud
Robinson	Rocheleau
Rompkey	Simmons
Speller	Stewart
Taylor	Vanclief
Volpe Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-69	Walker


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 13
That Vote 1, in the amount of $48,674,000 under the Privy Council -Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 14
That Vote 1, in the amount of $25,716,000 under the Department of the Solicitor General-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $623,486,000 under the Department of Transport-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells.


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Moore Paproski	O'Kurley Plamondonmotion carried.	Plourde	PorterPronovost	RedwayReid	Reimer


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think you will find	Ricard Schneider	Roy-Arcelin Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)there is unanimous consent for applying the results of	Shields Sparrow	Siddon Stevensonthe vote on motion No. 15 to motion No. 16.	Tardif	TetreaultTremblay (Rosemont)	Turner (Halton-Peel)Vankoughnet	VenneThe Acting Speaker	(Mrs. Champagne): The next	Vezina Vincent	Vien Whitequestion is on	motion	No. 16 in the name of the	Wilbee Assiniboia)	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).	Winegard	Worthy-111Hon. Robert	de Cotret (President of the Treasury	NAYSBoard) moved:	MembersMotion No. 16	Allmand	AlthouseThat Vote 1, in the amount of $63,508,000 under the Department	Angus	Arseneault Bakerthe Treasury Board -Central Administration of the Public Service	Belair	Bellemare
October 19, 1989

Benjamin	Bevilacqua
Black	Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria	Brewin
Caccia	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Comuzzi
Crawford	Dingwall
Duhamel	Finestone
His	Foster
Funk	Gaffney
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Harb	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hunter
Jordan	Karpoff
Keyes	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLellan
Maheu	Manley
McGuire	McLaughlin
Mifflin	Milliken
Mills	Mitchell
Murphy	Pagtakhan
Parent	Peterson
Phinney	Proud
Prud'homme	Robichaud
Robinson	Rocheleau
Rompkey	Simmons
Speller	Stewart
Taylor	Vanclief
Volpe Young (Beaches - Woodbine)-69	Walker


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES
Robert René de Cotret: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, laid upon the table, Friday, April 28, 1989, except the items disposed of earlier this day and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-42, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, be read the first time.
Supply
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-42, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
On clause 2-
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Chairman, I have a question I want to put to the President of the Treasury Board. I would like to have his attention. It is a very important bill and he may want to familiarize himself with it because I want to ask him if he would give the customary assurance to this House that this bill is in the usual customary form and does not depart from that form.


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Chairman, I would like to assure hon. colleagues that the form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous years.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the schedule
carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
October 19, 1989
Supply
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to orders adopted on Tuesday, April 4 and Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the next question is as follows:


Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-42, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums for the Goverment of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.54 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 20, 1989