1989-12-18

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 16 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, with amendments.
I wish to express my appreciation for the co-operation of the members of the committee, and as well to the staff of the committee who performed a great service.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTEGRATED CIRCUIT TOPOGRAPHY ACT


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-57, an act to provide for the protection of integrated circuit topographies and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister should have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

['I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes, beginning at 1 p.m. today.']
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for women in Canada and around the world. On the one hand, it allows us to reflect on the progress we have made towards equality, as we celebrate the tenth anni-verary of the adoption by the United Nations of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

At the same time, we are reminded that we have barely scratched the surface of our understanding of the

December 18, 1989
Routine Proceedings
root causes of discrimination against women, and we are profoundly disturbed at the depth of that discrimination and frequently at the horror of its manifestation.
In this battle to eliminate discrimination, the convention is the legal instrument setting out the basic standards necessary to achieve women's equality. It covers areas as wide-ranging as employment equity, equal access to education and health care, participation in public life and equal treatment before the law. Its adoption in 1979 represented the culmination of decades of work by women's organizations and by the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
Canada was proud to ratify this convention in 1981, recommitting itself nationally and internationally to the goal of eradicating discrimination against women in all its forms. As of today, 98 other nations have also pledged to embody and enforce its principles.
In Canada as a society we see the necessity for economic self-sufficiency for women as fundamental to the elimination of discrimination. The ability to economically sustain oneself and one's family is as important to women as it is to men, not simply for survival but for pride, dignity, self-confidence and optimism for the future of one's children.
We also know that violence toward women and sexual harassment are linked at least in part to women's lack of economic self-sufficiency. Unhappily, our struggles to achieve equality and self-sufficiency have failed to eliminate the humiliating and tragic consequences of these most ancient and obscene forms of discrimination.
There is no clearly marked map which delineates the boundary where natural and healthy sexual tension between men and women begins to break down into offensive and demeaning behaviour. Men, as well as women, are struggling to redefine their relationships with each other so that the end result is sexual expression with dignity and mutual respect.
However, for too many still in our society as in other societies there is no boundary. There are still some men who view harassment and violence as their right and as their legitimate means of expressing superiority. It is, in other words, their right to discriminate against women. In recent days, we have been made more acutely aware than ever of where the aberrant form of that manifestation of this so-called right may lead.
The stark tragedy which we have been faced with in Canada can lead us to oversimplify the causes of the barriers we, as women, have still to overcome. It can reinforce our view of ourselves as constantly vulnerable, as perpetual victims.
Let us remember today, as we celebrate this tenth anniversary, that much has been done, that in every avenue of Canadian life, there is activity that is building a better life for all of us. Let us take pride in the fact that women have been the leaders in defining the means to eliminate discrimination and in promoting a broad social agenda that has been embraced by political parties of all stripes and that is changing the way we deal with each other. Let us remember as well that men as well as women must consciously, in their every day behaviour, seek to end the discrimination that diminishes all of us.
In February 1990, Canada will present its second progress report to the United Nations on the measures we have taken to implement the convention. Although much is still to be done, Canada can be proud of its record on women's rights. On the legislative front, the principles of the UN Convention have been embodied in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Our employment equity legislation reflects the fundamental principle that business and employers, as well as governments, must become responsible for solutions to discrimination in the workplace. Proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will enhance maternity and parental benefits. We have put in place measures to enforce court-ordered support and maintenance payments and programs to encourage women entrepreneurs, to name a few, among a broad range of initiatives.
In addition, we are urging the provinces to examine women's training needs and health concerns with us and together we are working on the availability and affordability of child care.
There are urgent objectives still to be met. For example, obstacles remain much more acute among certain groups such as aboriginal women, immigrant women, visible minority women, disabled women, elderly women, and, as a government, we are paying particular attention to their needs and concerns.
As a signatory to the convention, Canada has also made a commitment to implement measures that enable parents to combine work and family obligations in new ways that deal with our new social forms, and here governments at all levels are developing strategies to prompt changes in attitudes, programs, services and
December 18, 1989

legislation. But let us not forget that while governments can lead, there must be leadership through a broad range of activities in our community.
Discrimination against women violates the basic principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity that are the due of all citizens of our planet.
[Translation\
I am confident that, despite difficulties and setbacks, Canada will continue to set an example towards the elimination of obstacles that inhibit the ability of women to achieve their full potential as participants in, and contributors to, society.

Women have much to take pride in, and those of us here today honour them in their ability to contribute and participate as we have in the past. We must all of us remember together that women who perform so much in our society out of their talents and their natural ability to contribute to our well being will continue to do so in the future and will continue to take pride in their ability to do so.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The day is important because it marks the acceptance, at least on paper, of a new global direction, a direction that will eventually tear down the walls of inequality and allow each one of us to live and work without the unfair burden of gender discrimination.
But let us make no mistake. The minister's statement has highlighted an important point, namely, that we still have a long way, a very long way to go in addressing major issues in our society here in Canada which affect women.
The force of the United Nations Convention is only as strong as each independent signatory wishes it to be. As in the case of the United Nations Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some signatories continue to be the greatest violators of human rights.
Can we stand and proclaim that we here in Canada are seriously addressing the problem of inequality and that we can be proud of our record on women's rights? I do not think so. The minister cited the work of this
Routine Proceedings
government listing the first embodiment of the principles of the UN Convention in Section 15 of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But while the non obstante clause exists and Section 15 is in jeopardy, I do not think that we can congratulate ourselves. What message is this government sending to the women of Canada when we have professed to entrench equality in a document where equality is essentially not entrenched?
The minister further pointed to the employment equity legislation that exists. This is remarkable considering that the government is still embroiled in a dispute with hospital service workers, predominantly women, who are being paid substantially less than their male colleagues. Even with a ruling against the government from the Human Rights Commission, this government has refused to move toward pay equity.
A recently released study has shown that women employed in Canadian banks make only 56 cents for every dollar paid to male employees and, further, although women outnumber male bank workers 70 to one, there are virtually no women in banks' upper management in Canada.
This government recently introduced legislation on abortion which criminalizes women for exercising control over their own reproduction. This government professes to be committed to the cause of women but with a sweep of its mighty arm, it slashed funding by 15 per cent from vital national women's programs. It is one thing to say that we are leaders in the realm of equality and it is another thing altogether to actually lead.
Where is real pay equity and where, oh where, is a national child care program that is acknowledged by all to be the only true bridge to true employment equity?
The road to eliminating discrimination is a long one. I applaud the intentions of the United Nations and of Canadian governments past and present, but indeed let us not forget that there is much work still be done.
The examples that I have listed illustrate that we are a long way from achieving a truly equal society. More distressing, the events two weeks ago at the University of Montreal reinforce the notion that women are still

December 18, 1989
Routine Proceedings
perceived by far too many to be a group infringing on the natural domain of men.
Is there hope? Of course there is. But the hope lies in progress, courage and government action. The hope lies in such government action that is honest, consistent and progressive. The hope lies in government that shows its true commitment to gender equality and acts rather than congratulates itself for work which is still unfinished. The hope lies in the recognition, some day in the future, by this government and by all governments that women truly do hold up half the sky.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women has requested that this day be a day of national mourning for the 14 young engineering students who were massacred in Montreal. I would like to support the call for that day of mourning and also the request that Canadians make donations to their local rape relief centres, to organizations that are working toward ending violence against women, and I would urge members of Parliament and all Canadians to take that day of mourning seriously and to perhaps make donations if they are able.
The minister focused her remarks on the progress that women have made toward equality, and I congratulate the women of Canada for that progress. But on this tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, I would like to look closely at the Convention and point out here what still needs to be done in our country.
The minister has said that Canada can be proud of its record on women's rights. I wonder if the government is proud of spending $17 million on 38 strip clubs in Canada while still withholding the bulk of $22 million that is earmarked for Project Haven, a capital grants program for shelters for battered women, because of regulatory red tape.
It is ironic that Article 13(b) of the convention asks signatories to observe equality in credit lending. Women are still discriminated against in terms of bank loans and credit, while this government invests in strip clubs.
Also ironic is this government's recent and rather flagrant violation of Articles 2(c) and (d) and Article
11(d) which deal with equal pay for work of equal value. Pay equity is what the federal hospital workers, mainly women, have been demanding since the early 1980s. They had to take this government to court and they won. The government still refuses to entrench fair wages in the collective agreement. Instead, within the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed the sorry sight of these unfairly treated workers being legislated back to work.
The government's abortion law, introduced this year, contradicts Articles 2 and 16(l)(e) of the convention. This proposed abortion law will discriminate against women because it controls women's reproduction and not men's. It limits women's choices. It targets women's fertility by imposing arbitrary regulations on women's decisions whether or not to bear children.
In Canada it is illegal to discriminate against women because they are women. Yet Employment and Immigration's language training programs for immigrants contain an inherent bias against women that has not yet been addressed by this government. In fact, the government is being taken to court again over its human rights violations.
One in 10 Canadian women is not covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. In Canada's second report to the convention, on its progress toward equality it mentioned the 1985 Equality for All report. The recommendation to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination is still being ignored by this government some five years later.
Article 7 of the convention guarantees women's rights to participate in the formulation of government policy and to participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country. The Conservative government responded to this by slashing the Secretary of State's program for women by 15 per cent and funding to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women by 50 per cent.
I am glad that our party, the New Democratic Party, has contributed to the government's next report on the participation of women by being the first national political party in North America to elect a woman as its leader.
December 18, 1989

Routine Proceedings
Article 11(e) establishes a right to social security, contrary to the government's clawback policy on pensions and on family allowances. Article ll(2)(c) speaks of a development of a network of child care facilities. Where is Canada's much needed child care program? Will this government once again introduce a program two months before an election, only to have it die once again on the Order Paper?
Articles 3 and 5 can be applied to bring in pornography legislation, legislation that attacks violence and pornography and not sexuality.
There are three other points made in Canada's second report on its implementation of the Convention that need examining. One is its glorification of the Court Challenges Program. I hope that this means that the program will be extended. The second is the repeal of discrimination in the Indian Act. However, there still does remain discrimination in the Act since reinstated women can only pass status down to the first generation while men can pass status down to subsequent generations.
The report also discusses the prison for women. I visited the Kingston prison for women and I found the conditions there just absolutely shocking. I would hope that in Canada's next report, there will be real, rather than imagined, progress to comment on as far as the prison for women in Kingston goes.
The preamble of the convention says that signatories are "concerned that in situations of poverty, women have the least access to food, health care, education, training and opportunities for employment and other needs, convinced that the establishment of the new international economic order, based on equity and justice, will contribute significantly towards the promotion of equality between men and women-".
In Canada, the devastating reality is that one in three female single parents in the paid workforce cannot keep her family out of poverty and 53.4 per cent of femaleheaded, single parent families are poor. Three-quarters of all poor seniors are women.
What we need to fulfil our convention obligations is really a new economic order, one that puts people first, one for which full employment is a priority, one that redistributes wealth, an economic order that is based on equality and justice for all.



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions which reject the recommendations of the Task Force on Thx Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Your petitioners, who are residents of the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi, are concerned about the recommendations in this as yet unfinished report.
Mr. Speaker, the task force's final report does not contain single reference to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Cree-Naskapi Agreement or to the final report published in October 1989 on regional disparities among isolated communities, carried out by the Government of Quebec.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, certified correct by the clerk of petitions from a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia. The petitioners are distraught at the news that the government is going to proceed with the goods and services tax and make the announcement tomorrow that it will be reduced to 7 per cent. I personally feel depressed to read all of the things they have drawn to our attention which cause them to be so discouraged and disillusioned with the government.
In summary, they are asking the government to please have some sensitivity as to what is going on in the country and back off from this cruel, brutal tax.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from Montreal, living in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who strongly oppose the new goods and service tax. They state it is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians. It will hit them not only with higher taxes, but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. They humbly

Routine Proceedings
pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present a petition to the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Order 36. There are actually eight petitions signed by 417 people in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, from the communities of Carmi, Salal, Princeton, Hedly, Merritt and the Lower Nicola.
These people are concerned, as are so many others across this country, with the imposition of a goods and services tax of any nature whatsoever. They have asked the government to ensure, if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, that it not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
They are asking this government to ensure that the tax burden is not shifted to ordinary Canadians but is fairly shifted throughout the whole of Canada.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by quite a number of British Columbia residents opposing the goods and services tax. The petitioners state that this is an unfair form of taxation which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no tax while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear the burden of national taxes. The petition also states that the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal, to reform the tax system and to cease with a proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have a second petition which opposes cuts to VIA Rail. The petitioners ask Parliament to guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger services in Canada.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present two petitions. The first petition, certified correct under Standing Order 36 by the clerk of petitions, comes from a
number of people in the Big River community of Saskatchewan in the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency. It is a petition circulated by One Voice, the senior's network, that calls upon Parliament to abandon the proposed measures that will clawback the old age security and family allowance benefits undermining the principle of universality in social programs. They state that it is a tax that would discriminate against recipients of old age security and family allowance benefits. They call upon Parliament to abandon this and maintain an old age security and family allowance benefit program that is tied to the level of income.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I also want to present petition today signed by residents of the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, primarily from Battleford and Wilkie in the North Battleford area.
The petitioners are indicating that the goods and services tax is a regressive tax. They call upon Parliament to reject the proposal for the goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so there is an effective minimum tax tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on sales tax measures to replace the manufacturers' sales tax that this reform not be an opportunity for the federal government impose a massive tax grab and, finally, for the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of a thorough real tax reform.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this house four petitions certified correct by the clerk of petitions. They contain the signatures of Canadians who reside in the communities of Hamilton, Burlington, Stoney Creek, Ancaster, Dundas and Caledonia.
The petitioners state that the Conservative federal government wants to impose on Canadians a new general tax of 9 per cent on all goods and services which will be hidden from Canadians and applied to virtually everything they buy. They say that the imposition of this new general goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians and that the imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small business. They call on Parliament to
December 18, 1989

reject the proposed goods and services tax, be it at 9 per cent today or 7 per cent tomorrow.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from my constituents on the Bonavista Peninsula; Newman's Cove, Amherst Cove, Birchy Cove, Bonavista, Elliston. These communities are looking at the crisis in the fisheries that we will be talking about later on today. They are looking at Bill C-21 under which 26,000 people will have reduced UI benefits and under which 9,000 in Newfoundland will probably lose all their UI. They are looking at the goods and services tax on top of this and on top of the provincial sales tax of 12 per cent, which itself may even rise.
If there is any such thing as a humble prayer and resolution, my constituents are asking for this to get rid of this goods and services tax. As was said by one of my colleagues, the member for Kamloops, let us reduce it from 7 per cent to 0 per cent. Let us get rid of the whole thing.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions from a number of small businesses in my riding.
This is a petition about the goods and services tax and these small business people, 441 of them, say that the goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because it forces small businesses to carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden. They state that it will be an implementation nightmare for small businesses in Canada and that the $600 motion offered to small business to offset the cost of administering this tax is completely inadequate.
The petitioners call upon this government to reject the goods and services tax at any percentage rate and to consult with business, labour and consumer groups to reach a broad consensus on reform of our tax system and to ensure that there is a real reform of the tax system to provide a healthy climate for small business in Canada.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present 11 petitions from people in many communities of Canada; from Waterloo, Toronto, Saskatoon, Kamloops,
Routine Proceedings
Nanaimo and Vancouver who are opposed to the implementation of the goods and services tax.
These petitioners point out that the government has not adequately addressed the unfairness in the present tax system and that the goods and services tax is particularly unfair because it does not tax people on their ability to pay. Having to pay a tax on reading material, educational material, haircuts, and heating oil is certainly not a fair way to collect taxes. They say that there ought to be an effective minimum tax on wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals who can pay, and that whatever tax reform the government brings in must be based on ability to pay and not be a massive tax grab.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to this House under Standing Order 36 regarding the grief and suffering tax. It is signed by residents of the central interior of British Columbia who express their concern that this new tax will be a regressive tax. They request that the tax system be reformed so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and to ensure that, when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
Indeed, Tory times are tax times.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the petition that I have comes from the community of Gananoque. The petitioners object to the effects that the proposed goods and services tax is going to have on the pastime of skating, a pastime for children. The tax applies not only to skates but also to the instructors' fees and everything associated with that pastime for children in that particular community.
In addition to that, I have another petition which meets all requirements. In the community of Kemptville, not too far from here, a great activity in which seniors can participate is bowling. The seniors are objecting strenuously to the 9 per cent additional cost of bowling. That is one of the few activities in which seniors can

Routine Proceedings
participate at most any age so residents of the community of Kemptville are really objecting to that.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have about two dozen petitions to present today on behalf of constituents throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area in which they oppose the implementation of a goods and services tax. My constituents point out that some 31 new taxes have been imposed since 1984, that the manufacturers' sales tax has been increased from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent, that the new goods and services tax at 9 per cent or even at 7 per cent will still be a hidden tax that will cause unfair hardship for low and middle income Canadians and that it will be a special burden to small businessmen because of the cost of administration and the time involved in administration.
I present these on behalf of these constituents who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
* sis *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 146, 161 and 163.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): Under the provisions of Section 16.0.28 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement for approved operating and capital budgets for Cree School Boards (a) what was the budget for capital and operating costs approved under the agreement in each school year from 1978-79 to date (b) of the approved budget in each school year how much was contributed by Canada in (i) dollars (ii) percentage terms (c) has Canada's initial responsibility to provide 75 percent of these budgets been changed and, if so (i) in what years (ii) in each case, by what percentage of the approved budget?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) Quebec and Canada have not, to date, agreed on a common budget approval process for the Cree school board. In the past the Quebec government has determined the annual budgets
and billed Canada for its 75 percent contribution. Negotiations are continuing to correct this situation.
(b)	(i) The table attached indicates Canada's contributions to the Cree school board budget from 1978/79 to 1988/89. The 1989/90 budget is still under discussion.
(ii) These contributions represent 75 percent of the expenses Canada has accepted to fund annually. Canada is also discussing with the Quebec government the approval of additional Cree school board expenses incurred during past years.
(c)	This percentage has not changed since 1978/79.


[Stage Direction]
FISCAL YEARS	OPERATING	CAPITAL	TOTAL1978/79	$ 7,626,800	$ 1,373,077	$ 8,999,8771979/80	10,125,700	1,452,748	11,578,4481980/81	11,698,500	2,235,263	13,933,7631981/82	13,453,300	1,319,000	14,772,3001982/83	15,471,300	941,900	16,413,2001983/84	14,731,000	3,561,500	18,292,5001984/85	16,238,200	1,700,900	17,939,1001985/86	17,403,300	2,721,800	20,125,1001986/87	19,437,000	4,172,200	23,609,2001987/88	18,460,460	4,624,500	23,084,9601988/89	20,517,427	6,048,200	26,565,627Tbtals	165,162,987	30,151,088	195,314,075
Mr. Saint-Julien: As of October 25, 1989, are any Canadian products subject to a federal tax and, if so (a) which ones (b) what is the tax rate applied to each of these products?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: A general rate of federal sales tax at 13.5 per cent is imposed by the Excise lax Act on all goods manufactured or produced in Canada, or imported into the country. A reduced sales tax rate of 8 per cent applies to various construction materials. The Act also provides for a number of exemptions from the tax. For example, most

food for human consumption, most clothing and footwear, and certain drugs and devices for the handicapped are exempt.
Excise taxes of various rates are also imposed under the Excise Tax Act on selected commodities such as jewellery, playing cards, wine, tobacco products, lighters, heavy vans and automobiles, and gasoline.
Excise duties are imposed at various rates by the Excise Act on domestically produced beer, alcoholic spirits and tobacco products.
In addition to the above taxes on commodities, the Excise Tax Act imposes a tax on certain insurance contracts effected outside Canada and a tax on air travel.
The Excise Tax Act also imposes an 11-per-cent telecommunication programming services tax and an 11-per-cent telecommunication services tax.


Mr. Saint-Julien: As of October 30, 1989, are any Canadian products exempt from
federal tax and, if so, which ones?


Otto John Jelinek: The Excise Tax Act imposes federal sales tax on all goods produced or manufactured in Canada. Subsection 51(1) of the statute exempts from this tax the goods which are enumerated in Schedule III to the Act under the following headings: Coverings or containers diplomatic; educational, technical, cultural, religious and literary; farm and forest; foodstuffs; fuels and electricity; goods enumerated in Customs tariff items; health, marine and fisheries; mine and quarries; miscellaneous (including such disparate items as baler twine, British and Canadian coins, and ice); municipalities; production equipment, processing materials and plans; goods manufactured in institutions; clothing and footwear; construction equipment; transportation equipment.
In addition, provision is contained in sections 68 and 69 of the Excise Tax Act for refunds of federal sales tax for the following purposes: exports; ships' stores; use by province; certain systems (primarily municipal drainage or sewerage systems); certified institutions; hospital cleaning establishments; educational institutions; incinerators; small manufacturers; tourist literature; motor fuel used by diplomats; fuel tax rebates to farmers,
Routine Proceedings
fishermen, loggers, miners, hunters and trappers who buy gasoline or diesel fuel for commercial, off-highway use solely in qualifying operations and not for resale.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 147 and 153 could be made Orders for Returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 147 and 153 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Whittaker: For companies regulated by the Pension Benefits Standards Act (a) what is the breakdown of required contribution rates for employees and employers (b) of companies that have established a pension committee with pensioner representation (i) what number provide funding to assist this representation (ii) what are their names (c) for each company that has provided "ad hoc" voluntary inflation adjustments to pension plans (i) what is its name (ii) what is the nature of the adjustments (iii) over what period of time have the adjustments been provided (iv) what is the cost to employees of these adjustments (d) what companies have claimed excess pension fund earnings (e) of the companies that have printed a revenue and disbursement summary, which companies have made the summaries available to pensioners and employees?
Return tabled.


Mr. Caccia: In (a) 1987 (b) 1988, were any charges laid as a result of the violation of federal pollution legislation and, if so (i) what number (ii) under which statutory authorities, with what number of separate charges laid under each (iii) what number led to successful prosecutions, with, in each case, what penalty?
Return tabled.

December 18, 1989
Time Allocation


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes, beginning at 1 p.m. today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-28, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and, one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, eveiy question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of sorrow to speak to this particular motion because I know that my hon. colleagues opposite had wanted to prolong the debate on this motion ad nauseam. Actually, this is a government measure to save them from themselves because we were getting calls from there was this great uprising in the Liberal and NDP parties in an effort to come to the rescue of people with incomes of over $50,000 who were having their old age security taxed back.
We in this party believe in distributing income to those people who need it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Charity in other words.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I didn't say "charity", I said "income distribution". We are doing that through the modernization of a tax system which was left to us in decrepit shape by a decrepit Liberal party. We are making great strides toward doing that. I know I speak for people on all sides of the House when I say that my hon. friends are waiting
in anticipation of the declaration by the Minister of Finance on the new great services tax which we are going to be bringing in shortly. I am sure that by the time the Minister of Finance is finished there will be a great deal of support for this tax.
While I am on my feet I want to mention that I understand the hon. member from Ottawa Centre is organizing a demonstration against the budget cuts that the President of the Treasury Board announced on Friday. I want him to know, although I know it is rather public to do it here, that if he should in any way contemplate a cross-country tour to speak to this, I want him to come to Orillia, Midland, and Penetanguishene to speak to this important issue. We want him in Kamloops and probably in Peace River. We want this noble quest carried across the country. And if he needs money we will be glad to raise the funds to get him there.
Having said that, we are making good progress on the legislative agenda. Upon passage of this motion we intend to call report stage on Tuesday next, tomorrow, and third reading on Wednesday and complete the debate on this very important tax measure and send it off to the other place for final review and, I am sure, speedy passage.
I do not think I need to speak any further. I am sure my hon. friends opposite will probably see the wisdom of this and, thanks to my words, we will probably be able to vote immediately.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to reply so immediately to some of those comments.
On the matter of the cutbacks I feel that I have some obligation to respond to the minister's remarks. I think that the people of the national capital region are indeed aware of the fiscal mess into which the government has got the country. I think they are willing to do their part to try to alleviate the incredible burden that has been thrust upon the nation by five years of fiscal incompetence which has more than doubled the national debt in that time.
I think the government needs to be aware at this time of the importance of national symbols, the importance of realizing, on the part of all Canadians, the fact that we have institutions as well as programs in this country that tie us together.
December 18, 1989

The national capital plays a major part in the development of a system of national values and an awareness of the fact that being Canadian has a symbolic importance beyond where we were bom or where we happen to live. I think we should all be concerned, whatever side we are on, when the government and its ministers try to excuse the inability of the government to manage its finances by somehow criticizing or dumping on one region of the country, especially when that region, more than others, in a way embodies the identity of the nation. I think it is very important that those institutions that are centred on the national capital continue to play that role.
Even as the President of the Treasury Board was standing in the House of Commons on Friday talking about what he was going to cut, the Prime Minister of Canada was in Chambly, Quebec, where there is a by-election by some coincidence going on, talking about how he was spending, about what he was doing to buy votes in that area. I suggest that the government start to look at its own iniquitous practice of trying to buy votes before it starts to talk about the national capital region being some kind of privileged area.
On the matter of time allocation on this bill, I think the minister has also said some things that bear examination. He has talked about the effort on this side of the House to protect the wealthy. I hardly think that asking the House of Commons to take the time to consider the most important social policy change in a generation in this country should be interpreted merely as trying to protect the wealthy.
We have built, for better or for worse, a series of programs in this country based on the assumption that universality should be the guiding principle. We have done that not just with respect to our family allowances and old age pensions, although those are important. We have also done it with our educational system. We have done it as well with our medical aid system. We have accepted the idea that Canadians, whatever their economic situation, should share a common basis of wellbeing based on being Canadian, whether they are rich or poor, whether they live in Ottawa, Orillia, Peace River or Halifax. Wherever they live, whatever their income, Canadians are entitled to a common basis of social programs in this country.
Time Allocation
The government is tearing down national institutions. It is going across the country encouraging criticism of the national capital. It is underfunding the National Arts Centre and its ministers say we should not even call these institutions national because it offends some separatists in Quebec, that we should call them Canadian rather then national. While the government is tearing these things down it is tearing down the basic social concept, the contract whereby we live together in this country, and it is saying, "You can only have a few hours to debate it".
The clawback should not even be in an income tax amendment bill. If the clawback is going to be introduced it should be done as part of social policy change. There should have been a discussion paper following up the one that was issued by the minister of health in 1985 in which the minister of Health at the time, now the minister of energy, said that to tax back old age pensions would be unfair and unacceptable. He said at the same time that it might not be unfair with family allowances. We could argue about that, but he specifically mentioned that the old age pension should be protected.
What happened to the discussion paper? It went to a parliamentary committee, it was studied, it died. There was no further discussion, no more policy papers, no more indication that the government was considering introducing the most significant social policy change in a generation. None of that was done.
Instead the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, went around during the election campaign and said, "Social programs, especially for the elderly, will not be diminished. They will be improved". And with the very first budget after the election we had the clawback introduced. Did he tell his mother, I wonder.
I am sure all Canadians are disgusted at the memory of the Prime Minister of Canada parading his own mother on to an election platform as an example of his good faith to the seniors of Canada. Four months later the Minister of Finance gets up and says he is going to tax back Mrs. Mulroney's old age pension. Why was that not put before the people during the election campaign? Why is it that now, four days before we are to adjourn for Christmas, in an Income Tax Act amendment bill, which has all kinds of things in it from the budget, which the Department of Finance itself tried to amend in committee and all of its amendments were out of order, we have

December 18, 1989
Time Allocation
to be constrained in the time we have to debate such an essential issue?
Instead of having time to study it, instead of having time to hear the groups of Canadians across the country who are concerned about whether the erosion of universality is going to lead to the erosion of universality in so many other areas, we have to abandon that debate, we have to turn it over to the editorial writers and hope that they will take time to raise with Canadians this essential issue of public policy.
This is scandalous, Madam Speaker. It is scandalous not just because it is closure but because it is closure on such an important measure. It should not be done. I suggest to the government, in view of the failure of the Department of Finance to get its amendments introduced at committee stage, in view of the implicit recognition that comes with that failure that the bill itself is fundamentally flawed, that it needs to be amended, that the government should withdraw the bill, forget about tiying to push it through this week, introduce a proper income tax amendment bill in the new year and put the clawback aside until it has been considered and debated by Canadians across Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, when the young people of Canada are studying the history of Canada years from now they will look back on 1989 as the year that the Government of Canada decided to abandon one of the crucial principles of what being a Canadian is all about. Being a Canadian means that if you get sick, it does not matter who you are, rich or poor, whether you live in Newfoundland or Saskatchewan, you will have adequate medical attention. It means that your children will go to school. You do not have to pay extra. You do not have to send them to private schools or special schools which are going to cost you money. Your contribution through the general tax system will take care of that education. It means that if you are raising children you get a family allowance cheque every month until the children are age 18. And it means that if you are an elderly person, no matter who you are, rich or poor, no matter what your ethnic origins, your religion, or where you live, yob get a pension. That is what it means to be a Canadian.
This year the government decided it was going to change all of that, that it was going to tear universality up and throw it out of the window. The government says that it has had enough. It does not want a fair system for
everybody in this country, it wants charity. If you can prove to the government that you are poor enough to receive a pension, then you will get a pension. If you are poor enough to prove to the government you require family allowance, then you will get family allowance cheques.
This means that we are going back to the old days of the means test, a degrading experience. That is Tory times. This is what being a Conservative in this country is all about. I suspect that those people who are watching the House of Commons on their television sets today, trying to understand what is going on, Canadian is all about. If they look through all the veils and so on of what the various ministers have said, lo and behold, way out there is the free trade deal staring them in the face. Because the free trade deal says that we have agreed, as a country, to harmonize our social programs with those in the United States of America.
We know how abysmal the health care system is in the United States. We know how families are the last sort of caring aspect of the American administration, the American way of life, in terms of support and care,. That is what is happening here today. To make it worse, not only is this government dismantling something that is fundamental to being a Canadian, it is now saying: "We don't want the opposition members of the House of Commons to speak about this because if they speak about it the people who are watching their television sets at home today will be aware of what is going on". It decided: "We are going to muzzle the debate. We are going to curtail the debate. We are going to shut down the debate. We are going to introduce dictatorial, totalitarian methods that say we no longer want the Parliament of Canada to explain to the people of Canada what this government is doing".
That has to be a very dark day for freedom of speech. It is a dark day for those who believe in the fundamentals of a parliamentary democracy. It is a dark day for those Canadians who actually believe that democracy is something we are struggling to keep. As we see other countries, particularly in the east bloc, begin to slowly introduce the principles that we have held high for generations, this Conservative government has decided to dismantle this and make this House of Commons and Parliament of Canada into an ineffectual place. As soon as it hears criticisms coming from members of the
December 18, 1989

opposition parties it says: "We don't want to hear this any more. We are going to curtail debate".
That is what the government has done this morning. I do not know if members on the government side realize what is going on today. The Minister of Justice-of justice of all people-stood up and said: "Listen, I know that we introduced this legislation, that it is dastardly legislation, mean-spirited and cruel." What it means to be a Conservative government is to introduce that kind of legislation. He went on to say: "We are going to drive this through". The government closed off debate at second reading and sent it to committee.
Committee is where experts are asked to come from across Canada and examine legislation. We know what happened. It went to committee and members of the New Democratic Party stood up and said: "Listen, if we are going to change the social policy of this country so drastically as a result of this Conservative government and this legislation, let us bring in experts, let us bring in those who understand the implications to explain to the members of the government what this is actually going to do to people and how mean and cruel this whole legislation is".
Did the government do that? Absolutely not. Once again it did not want to hear what people had to say. It did not want to hear the experts. It did not want to hear what it was actually going to do to families living in Atlantic Canada, western Canada and northern Ontario and Quebec. It did not want to hear what this actually means to those people who struggled and built this country. Now the government says: "Well, we changed our mind. You no longer will get an old age pension cheque. Because you have saved and worked hard to provide for yourself we feel you do not need a cheque any more and so we are going to take away this critical right of what being a Canadian is all about". That is the essence of this legislation.
What did the government members do in committee? They said: "We do not want to hear all of this information because if people understand what we are doing they are going to get very, very concerned." They cut off the witnesses.
Time Allocation
We thought that here we are back in the of the House of Commons, we will have a chance now to explain to the people of Canada what this all means. Then the government introduced today time allocation, the muzzling of Parliament, closure of Parliament. "Do not let them talk on the terms of the legislation". That is what has happened. Two days from now we will not be able to speak on this legislation. This legislation will be passed, all gone, done. This government will have changed the direction of the country forever and ever until the new government, the New Democratic government decides to put it right back where it should be and introduce the principle of universality once again.
Not only is it bad that the Conservatives want to take away people's pensions-which is what they are going to do essentially-not only is it bad that they are going to muzzle Parliament, curtail debate and use their jack-booted tactics to close this debate down, which is bad enough in itself, but the bill itself is a disaster. The government came into committee-something which has never happened in the history of Canada before-and said: "Listen, we have made such a disastrous mistake in drafting this legislation, we are going to require 125 amendments just to make it workable". It is incredible that the government is so sloppy, so loose in its thinking, so uncaring, so callous, so stupid when it comes to drafting legislation that it has to have 125 amendments to it just to make it tolerable to its own members.
As you know, the Speaker said: "This is all nonsense" and threw them all out. He said: "These are not even procedurally acceptable". If the government was just to do the honourable parliamentary thing it would say: "Let's go back and at least draft a bill that you can pass through the House of Commons and do what we want even though it is mean and cruel and against senior citizens and families. If that is what we want to do, then at least let us make it properly acceptable in the House of Commons".
Members of the government did not even do that. The government has shown nothing less than utter contempt for this place. It just said: "Well, if we just draft up anything that is sloppy, you know, we will get it through the House of Commons, the Speaker will let it through". Thank goodness, Madam Speaker, you did not let it through. You said: "Listen, there are some standards in

Time Allocation
here. They can use closure and muzzling of debate and all sorts of procedural tricks to jam inappropriate legislation through". But at least the Chair said: "That is far enough and we are not going to tolerate this nonsense".
If this were the only time the government decided to bring in its heavy hand of the majority and just ignore the minority-if you like the tyranny of the majority-then I suppose we could say: "Well, they did not know any better. They do not understand parliamentary democracy. They do not understand what it means to govern within a democratic framework". This is now a trend. This happens time and time again. It is the only way of course that it can get bad legislation through. From time to time the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party try to improve legislation and make it the best we can. We are not always happy with it but we tiy to do our best.
The government has brought in legislation that essentially, as I said, takes universality and eliminates it, something that as Canadians we have struggled to achieve, something which we hold up high on the world stage and say: "This is what it means to be a Canadian. It does not matter who you are and what you are, you will be able to get the old age security cheque when you are aged 65". Yet this government says: "Well we have changed our mind. We are going to change all that now". This is not the Canada we want to see.
This has happened time and time again. There has been closure, muzzling of Parliament, shutting Parliament down, making it impossible for members to speak. That is not what a parliamentary democracy is all about. That is why we say this government shows contempt for Parliament, the principles of Parliament, the traditions of Parliament and the practices of Parliament day after day.
I want to send to the Prime Minister a very clear message this morning. It is that as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned we are not going to take this any more. To make this place work properly you need to have the support of all of the parties and you need to have the will to make this place work.
In closing, I am simply putting the government on notice this morning that in the future if it plans to use the heavy hand of closure, the jack-booted approach to the parliamentary system, we in this party will not stand
for that. We will pull out all the countless ways and means that we use to make this place effective and efficient. If the government is not going to recognize the practices and traditions of the parliamentary democracy in this country, then I am putting it on notice that we will not co-operate any further in the future and it will not be able to pass, without an incredible struggle, this kind of mean, cruel-spirited legislation that we are seeing here before us today.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I cannot say that I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. As you know, there are Canadians who would like to hear Members of the House of Commons discuss this bill. They realize it has some extremely negative implications. However, instead of discussing those implications today, we ought to consider the fact that the government will not let us have the kind of open and full debate that we should have here in the House.

One of the problems facing Canadians is to try to figure out why the government is so stubborn about dealing with this particular proposal. It has tried to suggest that people who are suggesting the clawback is not an acceptable proposal are defending the indefensible, defending people with high incomes. Canadians understand the need for a debate on this matter, particularly senior citizens. They understood from the very outset that this was an attack on what was called a sacred trust. They understood from the very beginning that clawing back any amount, no matter what the threshold, was the beginning of the end.
What I find very unsettling is the fact that we have seniors across this country who are among the best organized groups of citizens in Canada telling the government, telling MPs who are not members of the government that we have to debate this issue, that we have to clarify all of the implications that will arise now that the crack is in the facade of universality. We have to go back and tell them that the government has decided unilaterally, because it has more members sitting to your right, Madam Speaker, than to your left, that it is going to impose closure.
December 18, 1989

The government has told us that some seniors support the proposition. I want to quote from Hansard of November 20 when I was involved in a debate on this very issue. I want senior citizens in Canada to understand exactly why closure is being imposed, why time allocation is being imposed. That debate was fairly lengthy and rather heated. I have had people come up to me to suggest that during that debate I should have repeated what hecklers to your right, Madam Speaker, were saying. Out of courtesy I was allowing them to make their interventions, realizing that they were not being picked up and that people who watch these proceedings were not able to understand what was being said. It was suggested to me that that was not a veiy effective means of proceeding because the fact that I might respond could not always be understood because the intervention had not been heard. What I want to do is simply refer to the debate that took place on the clawback proposal on November 20, 1989.
In that debate I was asking members to indicate whether or not when they went back to their constituencies and talked with senior citizens they were being told that this was the kind of legislation that should be introduced, whether it was appropriate, whether it was acceptable, whether it was fair. I was listening to people saying things like: "What about the deficit? What about the debt? Everybody has to pay their share".
It was my argument at that time that many senior citizens in this country have paid enormously to benefit from our system. They have paid in times of war. They have paid in times of depression. They have paid taxes. Most significantly they have paid into retirement plans, the Canada Pension Plan and old age pensions with the thought that the Parliament of Canada would respect what they had done and that the rules of the game would not be changed at a time when they were less able to defend themselves against legislation such as this.
The reason I bring this up is that I want to remind people that the reason the government wants to impose time allocation is that it does not want any more statements like the one I am going to quote. In that debate I was asking the questions: "Do you want senior citizens to pay down the debt? Do you want senior citizens to reduce the debt? Ask them, tell them. Do not
Time Allocation
say it is because you have too much and we want to take some away from you."
In response to my comments the hon. member for Winnipeg South said: "No, that is not what we are saying". Out of courtesy and recognizing what she said I indicated: "What are you saying then?" I asked that in order to provide the hon. member with an opportunity to explain her concern. I want to quote from the debate on November 20, 1989. The hon. member for Winnipeg South said this about the clawback:
What is being said is that what has been given to you is only
deserved if you have an income that is less than what it takes to live on.
Imagine that, Madam Speaker. That is why we are faced with time allocation today. Imagine a Conservative member of this House saying, and I am quoting from Hansard:
What is being said is that what has been given to you-
The senior citizens of Canada:
- is only deserved if you have an income that is less than what it
takes to live on.
That is why we are getting time allocation. When you ask members of the government party to speak out and to explain what is the philosophy behind this, what is the purpose of going after senior citizens in this country, what is the purpose of trying to embarrass them they say: "If you are getting over $50,000 a year there should be a clawback. Never mind whether it is indexed or not. Never mind whether the threshold can be lowered or not". That is why the government cannot afford to have us talk about this too long. People will say, as the member from Winnipeg South said: "What has been given to you is only deserved if you have an income that is less than what it takes to live on".
I cannot believe that all members to your right, Madam Speaker, share that kind of an attitude. Certainly it is shared to some extent. Again in that debate not that long ago-on November 20-the following was said in this House on this very same matter. I was saying that I had been to Alberta and Manitoba and that my experience had not been to have senior citizens say: "My goodness, I am glad that you have begun the process of eroding our security". I have not even heard people 50 and 55 years of age saying that.

December 18, 1989
Time Allocation
I was explaining that what we are hearing from senior citizens around the country is that they are very, very concerned. They are anxious. They see the beginning of the end for any kind of long-term security. Day after day we read reports indicating that people in Canada are living longer and longer. Life expectancy even in the last 10 years has increased dramatically. I am sure that as life expectancy has increased and people are aware that they are going to be around longer the level of anxiety has increased. We have a government that does not seem to understand the need to maintain security in the minds and in the hearts of Canadians-not only senior citizens but, as I indicated in that quote from Hansard, people who are not receiving pensions now but who are very much aware that those days are rapidly coming. They are not very secure.
The point I am making is as to why the government feels the need to clamp down on Parliament, to shut off debate, and we can quote again from that debate in response to the comments I made. I said that I had not heard senior citizens, not even people 50 and 55 years of age, say that they wanted this process of eroding security to begin. The hon. Minister of State for Privatization in response said: "They have said: 'We do not need it, so tax it back.'"
I do not think the government can take much more of that. I believe that it would need to recognize that its members are having a hard time articulating the problem that it is addressing with the clawback. You have one person on the government side saying: "What is given to you is only deserved if you have an income that is less than what it takes to live on". Another member, a member of the Cabinet, is saying that senior citizens are telling him: "We do not need it, so tax it back".
I think Canadians are extremely concerned. As my friend the Elouse Leader for the New Democratic Party said, every time a sensitive issue comes up we are being told: "You cannot discuss it any more. We are going to put it through". I hope that Canadians understand that we are going to continue to fight for the rights, not only of senior citizens in this country, but for everyone who believes that Canada has developed a system second to none in this world. We are going to fight to protect it.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my great displeasure at this government's attempt once again to gag Parliament. I can certainly understand why the government would introduce such a closure motion today. It is because hon. members opposite have been checking with their constituents. They have been finding out that the longer this debates continues on this and other regressive measures that this government has introduced in this place the lower and lower the popularity of the Conservative Party falls.
This is an abuse of the rights of parliamentarians to a full debate on social policy changes that are taking place around us. This government is intent and hell-bent on making sure that that type of debate does not see the light of day.
I listened earlier when the Minister of Justice spoke. It is no wonder he had such a hard time keeping a straight face. He said that he was getting calls from our constituents. I do not think that he has received calls from any of my constituents telling him that they want this bill passed as quickly as possible. He says that the opposition parties have spent too much time, way too much time, holding it up at report stage. Either he has gone into a deep sleep or he has lost all sense of timing.
This particular measure, Bill C-28, has been debated at report stage for only one hour. It is one of the most major changes that we have seen in any bill before this place. Perhaps the only more significant change was with the free trade debate, and the government did the same as it has done today. When it has a piece of legislation that it does not want Canadians to listen to debate on, it invokes closure or time allocation. It did it then and it is trying to do it now.
On this particular piece of legislation it is important for Canadians to know that what members of this government are doing is ending universality of social programs through the back door. It is doing it in a bill called C-28. It is doing it with the clawback, the scratch back, the gouge and screw back. That is exactly what it is doing.
The Minister of Justice said earlier that the Liberals do not want the rich to be taxed. I hate to tell him this but since 1984 with the inflation rate the purchasing power of $50,000 is equal to about $33,000 in 1984. Not even that member opposite would have had the gall to get up in this House in 1984 and say that somebody who makes $33,000 a year is rich. I do not think he even has the gall to get up today to say that someone who makes $50,000 a year is rich. Let us look at how regressive this
December 18, 1989

particular bill is. Then we will understand why they wanted to invoke time allocation again to kill the debate.
Let us take an example of two individuals who worked the same number of years in the workforce. Those two individuals made about the same amount of money. Both are heading for retirement. One of them made sure that they lived on as little as they possibly could. They did not take their trips to Florida. They did not move into a five-bedroom house when a three bedroom house would do. They did not spend money on Bingo or go to the horse races to bet at the track. They had a pretty tough life. What they did was put their money into investments so that when they retired they would reap the benefits of good fiscal planning.
Buddy next door said: "This is crazy. I could be dead tomorrow. So what I am going to do is have a heck of a time. I am going to Florida. I am going to spend every penny that I can possibly spend. I am going to go out boozing every night. I am going to go to the racetrack. I am going to drive the biggest car on the block. I am going to have one hell of a time". That is what he says.
Ele spends his disposable income. He does not invest. Then he turns 65. Under this legislation because he did not plan and because he had such a great life he is going to be allowed to keep his old age pension. The poor bugger next door who planned all his life and had a pretty meagre life will now find himself because of good planning getting his old age pension taxed back.
Surely to goodness there are no members opposite who are going to look at that particular scenario-and it is not a far-fetched scenario-and say that this is fairness, that this government policy wreaks of fairness. It wreaks of something, and it is not fairness.
The other thing that most Canadians and I have a lot of problem with in this legislation is the fact that this government has misled the Canadian public on its intentions on universality and its intentions to tax back old age security. Let us not forget-and I know members opposite would love to have this forgotten, which is why they are trying to put closure on this debate-that in 1984 the Prime Minister told everybody that the Conser-
Time Allocation
vative Party would never touch social programs, that they were a sacred trust. Then they came in and tried to deindex the old age security pensions. That is what they did. If it was not for a lady from Ottawa-Vanier who pointed her finger at him and said: "Good-bye Charlie Brown", we would have had the deindexing of the old age pension. You know: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
In 1988 during the election campaign we had the Prime Minister-and this shows you, in my opinion anyway, the complete lack of faith in the Canadian electorate, and I guess perhaps the single-mindedness and the almost arrogance of this government-knowing full well that he had misled the seniors of Canada in 1984 during the election campaign using his mother as a prop. He took his mother out during the campaign and said:, "My mother is on old age security. Would I ever do anything that would harm my mother? I certainly would not do anything to harm her." He used his own mother as a prop. How low can you get? That is pretty low, Madam Speaker. I cannot think of anything lower, except the use of closure on the debate of this bill.


Mr. Gardiner:: They are digging a well, that is how low they will go.


Ronald MacDonald: My hon. friend over here says: "They are digging a well-" If the Canadian public had their way they would dump them in the well and they would fill the well in.
This particular debate that is not going to take place is a debate on our social programs. It is a debate on fairness. Let us not forget that up until 1971 the people of Canada who were working and paying income tax paid in to the old age security system. I think 1971 was the last year that it was still on the income tax forms. It was a special surtax of about 4 per cent. This was not a bit of welfare. It was the Canadian people saying through their government that they believed that those individuals who built this country and made it strong had the right, when they were looking at retirement planning, to expect something back from the government. They paid taxes all their lives. They built this country and made it strong. They paid into the fund and the least that they

Time Allocation
should expect is a few dollars a month coming back from the federal government when they go into retirement.
What this government has done with this bill is to ensure that those seniors who are making over $50,000 start to get their old age pensions taxed back. If that were not bad enough, what it has also done is to ensure, because there is not full indexing on that particular provision, that the older Canadians get the poorer they get. That is absolutely despicable.
I think the Leader of the Opposition back on May 9 in a question in the House put it very well. He talked about what effect the Consumer Price Index minus 3 per cent would have when the threshold would be reached in the future. What it means is that somebody who is going on retirement right now and perhaps making $35,000-and that is not a lot of money-as a result of good planning, by the time they are 75, just 10 years down the road, they are going to have some of their Old Age Security taxed back. It is not just that this bill is so unpalatable right today, it is the effect in the long term of making older Canadians poorer that this government will have to pay for.
I see that my time is nearly up. I wish to join with other members from my side at least who find this motion on time allocation to be absolutely inappropriate. It is nothing short of an attempt by members opposite to hide their latest dirty deed.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, this is not a timed speech so you may invoke closure at any time. We are all vety used to that on this side of the House.
As to the definition of universality, we have had a difficult time in getting the government to define it for us. I have taken the opportunity to check in the dictionary. It means "of or belonging to or done by all persons or things in the world or in the class concerned applicable to all cases". The thesaurus goes on to say that universality means cosmic. It means global. It means infinite. It means pervasive. It means total. It means usual.
However, this government has rewritten not only the rules in the House of Commons-closure is a rule rather than an exception- it has begun to rewrite the dictionary and thesaurus.
It does not say that they will give it to you only to take it back. It does not say that if we take back 4 per cent it is still universality, or we recognize that in 10 years it will be 25 per cent. I am sure eventually it will be 100 per cent. That is universality in reverse.
I think that is what the government has planned for us. It is rewriting not only the rules of the House, not only the dictionary and the thesaurus, but it is rewriting social policy for the whole country.
Every once in a while we forget-and we get tired of mentioning it-the free trade agreement, but I think this is what it is all about. Universality is a watershed of social policy that this government is eroding, in fact decimating.
May I talk about the sad chronology of events of Bill C-28. I was to be the lead speaker for our party on Bill C-28. When I heard the speech of the Minister of State for Finance I was sitting here in great trepidation because I thought I was going to speak to the wrong bill. Not once did he mention the words "universality" or "clawback" in any of his very abbreviated speech. That gave me some trepidation that I was going to speak to the wrong bill. Lo and behold, that was a plan. No one in the government speaks about universality or clawback, and now we know why.
This bill has received very little fanfare. It is suggested that it is not a significant bill; let's push it through very quickly and keep its contents quiet. Member opposite are saying that the New Democrats are speaking for the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The people for whom we are speaking are the entire population of the country. That is what they want to keep quiet. They just want to talk about the $50,000 for the seniors. Those are the only people. No one out there wants to suggest that we should not take it back. That is what they are saying but that is a lie. The whole thing has been a fallacy. The whole thing has been a scam.
We have spoken to universality. At least we have tried to, but this bill touches on many other things. It is an omnibus tax bill. It talks about transfers to provinces, regional development, and post-secondary education. However, because of the way the government has handled it, ramming it down everyone's throats, we have not been able to address most of the issues. We have zeroed in on universality. At least we have tried. The

government's suggestion is: "Let's keep them in the dark. What they don't know won't upset them.''
We presented to the committee a list of 20 possible witnesses. The government members said: "Let's take five or six. We will pick them. You don't. They will all come and say the same thing over and over again." I suggested at that time that government members did not want to hear what they have to say. They were mute and did not ask any questions of any of the witnesses who did appear. It is a story they did not want to hear. That is a sad evaluation of some of those people. The five or six who did come suggested 35 minutes for presentation and questions.
For the committee members on the government side it was a revolving door of individuals. Once in a while I do not mind being laughed at, but throughout the hearings there was a great deal of laughing: "Why are you concerned? Let's wrap this up for Christmas. Let's give the seniors and families of this country a Christmas present."
Some 120 government amendments were thrown out. They were heavier than the bill itself. It was suggested that they would come back with another bill in the new year and clean it all up. I suggest that that is not acceptable. Why this week? Why are we hurrying this up? Tomorrow is GST day, another bit of sad news from members of the government. They know that this clawback will get lost in the GST, another cover-up of the whole thing. They have worked out a very sad stratagem. It is indeed a sad evaluation of the government.
The opposition is growing, but we know it is growing too late. Everybody is tied up with the Christmas shopping rush and they are preoccupied with Christmas spirit, but it is not in the spirit of Christmas that this government operates.
Bill C-28 is personified by Scrooge. They say: "Seniors, humbug. Families, humbug". We are not surprised by the government action. It is expected. We do not accept it, but we are powerless to do anything. Powerless now, but time is on our side. The seniors' time will come; the families' time will come; the Canadian people's time will come. The Canadian people will turf this government.
Time Allocation
We shall not forget their callous attitudes and actions. They are changing the direction of this country. We are headed southward. History will recognize this bill for what it is. Unfortunately history will not unfold for quite a long period of time, but this government and its members will be judged very harshly.
Fie on this government for this bill, fie. If one does not understand what fie is, it is a euphemism for a curse or a plague upon this government for introducing this legislation. The Canadian people shall not forget.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I must say that I rise today with great difficulty to discuss Bill C-28 or, more important, the closure that comes with it. As a new member of Parliament I have a lot of difficulty, as do a lot of members, trying to figure out the procedures of the House. When we first came to the House we were told that this was one of the procedures that would not be used very often. I recall the discussion we had with the Whip who told us not to be too worried about closure, that it only happened once in a while.
All of a sudden I notice that closure takes place almost every day in the House. I am getting to know the rules quite well and understand the procedures, but I want to talk a bit about closure and about what this House is supposed to be for. I think it would be important in this debate for members opposite to pay a little attention so they could understand my reasons for thinking why they are here and why they were elected by their constituents.
I was elected to voice my opinion on behalf of the people of Kenora-Rainy River. When I return to the riding on weekends and when the House is not sitting, on a regular basis the people of Kenora-Rainy River give me their input on what is important to the country and what direction they want us to go.
One thing that really bothers me is the fact that on all bills that we have debated closure, in particular, nobody on the other side gets up to represent their constituents. I find that deplorable. It is one thing to vote with the government side because you are a member of the government; "Hold your nose", as they say, and "go ahead and do it".
It is difficult in our party system to vote against your own party. That is understandable. I think people can understand that, but they do not understand when people come to the House, sit here all day long-or in this case for an hour-and not rise once to defend the reason closure is in place, to defend the reason this particular amendment of Bill C-28 is taking place. If

Time Allocation
they agree with closure, then let us change the procedures of the House so that we only debate for an hour and, if that is acceptable to Canadians, then so be it. However if it is not, then we should stop using this particular procedure which was put on the books for purposes of emergencies.
This is not a great emergency. I do not see any seniors outside saying: "Hurry up and put this in place. I can hardly wait to have my hard earned funds taxed back and clawed back as quickly as I can, so get on with it!" I think that is something that the members opposite should pay close attention to.
The people back home are starting to pay closer attention to what the Conservative members are doing. One thing they must be asking themselves over and over again is: "Who is speaking for me? Who is speaking out? Why are they not saying what they think?" If they really believe that this is the way to go for the future, then by all means they should be standing up in their place and doing that.
Another thing that we should touch on is: What does closure really mean? You close the door, the window, or perhaps the lid on something that is open. Whether it be in the fridge or in the cupboard closure means basically that. You put a stop to something. The environmental aspects of closing a door is that you do not want the cold air to come in or, for that matter, they might not want the fresh air to come in.
What we are seeing here with members opposite is that they are putting closure in place because they do not want us as opposition members to use our abilities to speak in the House and to tell the people of Canada what is taking place. That is a very dangerous precedent. To continue doing that on a regular basis really undermines democracy and the ability to speak our minds whether or not they agree with it. Really, it does not make any difference whether they completely agree with my point of view. In this country I have the ability to speak for the people I represent.
Another thing I have noticed is that the government opposite does not like the members of the opposition, members of the Liberal Party in particular, to speak
about the clawback. In essence, they believe that we do not know what we are talking about.
Today I have prepared some quotes we have heard over and over again to make members opposite more aware that aside from the seniors we are not the only ones who are saying it is not good. There are other people who have a common voice, a lot of exposure, and are well respected members of Canadian society speaking on this issue. I think the government should pay closer attention to that.
One Voice, the Canadian seniors network states: "History will remember the clawback as the end of universality, not for its drop in the deficit bucket".
Then there is Don McGillivray, our good friend from The Ottawa Citizen who states: "The policy pretends to continue universality, but in fact cancels it".
Then there is Hugh Winsor of The Globe and Mail of all places who states: "If, as Mr. Mulroney subsequently admitted, tampering in the indexation was wrong in 1985, attempting the same thing with the threshold levels is wrong in 1989".
Leonard Shifrin, in an article published in The Ottawa Citizen states that the finance minister "proceeded to undermine the universality of family allowances and old age pensions".
A report from the National Council of Welfare states: "A social program that delivers benefits to everyone and then collects them all back from some recipients is not universal".
We are not the only ones in Canada who are disappointed that what this government is doing through the back door in a sneaky way is moving away from universality. What it is doing is changing the way we look at ourselves. That is something that should be heavily debated, not something that should be just fed in there very quickly.
A perfect example is the discussion we have had in the House for the last months about VIA. There was no heavy debate on VIA. Therefore we still do not know what we are going to do with VIA Rail.
Do not make the same mistake as other governments have made by not discussing that particular issue. If they want to change the way that Canadians look at themselves, then change the way we as governments are either to give benefits to Canadians or take back benefits

through the tax system. Let us stand up in our place and debate it. If Canadians accept that, then so be it.
One thing of utmost importance is how we as Canadians look after other Canadians. Is this to become a dog eat dog or an "I'm okay, Jack" type of country where if you are lucky enough, you get a good education, good employment and are able to save the amount of dollars required in this day and age to have a long retirement.
Senior citizens are having longer and longer retirements because there are early retirements and people are living longer now than they used to. We are really talking about our future seniors, not necessarily the seniors of today, because the level and the threshold will reduce themselves over time. It will not happen over night. People 20 years from now will be more adversely affected than those of today.
Members opposite keep using the argument: "Why are you protecting the rich, those who make $50,000 a year and over?" I say to them that we are not. We are talking about a fundamental change in direction in how we are looking after the people of Canada. If we are going to do that, we should do it a constructive way.
We should not have closure and one measly hour to debate something so fundamentally unacceptable to Canadians and something that we as opposition members will have to explain in our ridings time and time again in the future. That is very difficult when nobody on the government side wants to stand up and argue the point.
How do I go back and tell the people in my riding why the government is clawing back old age pensions if government members have not stood up and told me why. Therefore, I have to go back and say: "The Conservatives do not know anything. They have not got a clue where they are going, no agenda whatsoever". I suggest that there is no agenda because if they had an agenda they would not be afraid to stand up in their place and tell us why they are doing what they are doing.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough- Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand up in the House to participate in different debates. However, the one we are participating in today is one where this
Time Allocation
particular government has gone back on its promise. Let us look at the record.
In 1984 the Prime Minister was running to become the Prime Minister of this country. I guess this was probably the biggest mistake the country ever made. At that time he stated: "We will not deindex seniors' pensions. We will not even touch them, the sacred trust". What did his buddy sitting next to him, the Minister of Finance do? In 1985 he turned right around and said: "Seniors, we are going to stick it to you". They attempted deindexing, and the Prime Minister had to face some seniors in front of this House and say: "I would not do it to my mother". Then they tried to deindex seniors' pensions.
What they were not able to accomplish then, they seem to want to accomplish now. The government is preaching one thing and on the other hand tries to do another. It speaks of universality. However I do not think it knows what the word "universality" means. The government continuously preaches one thing and does another: "We are all going to be equal, yet if you make over a certain amount and you happen to be a friend, as we have seen, you will end up being better for it".
There are many examples where the government of the day has let its rich friends eat from the public trough. We could go through them, but the one I really want to touch on is the deal whereby CN Express was sold to Route Canada. It is a great example of how the friends of this government ate from the public trough. They sold CN Express for $29 million and then Route Canada turned around and went to the bank and borrowed $50 million. They walked away with $21 million clear. They will not open the papers yet so many jobs were lost at CN Express. Where does one go?
In 1988 the Prime Minister gave to this country what we should be calling a "Scrooge proposal". After the election, he again put forth closure. We were limited on the amount of time that we were able to debate the free trade legislation.
After one year, at Christmas 1989, what do we see? In Toronto only, 7,000 jobs were lost and the Prime Minister stands up and says: "We have created 1.4 million jobs." I wonder what kind of jobs, hamburger helpers at McDonald's?

Time Allocation
In my riding alone, just south of my riding, the van plant of General Motors closed costing many of my constituents their jobs when 1,700 jobs were lost.
Now the government is proposing a goods and services tax. Small business is going to get hit over the head. The average Canadian is going to get hit over the head. Seniors will have to pay an extra 9 per cent for everything they buy. We are going to have the clawback taking it away from them because all their lives they were frugal. They spent all their lives earning and because they have something extra now we are going to take it away from them. That is not enough. We are going to turn around and we are going to hit them over the head with a 9 per cent sales tax.
The Prime Minister is practising one thing and saying another. I think that the meaning of Ebenezer Scrooge is going to have a new sense in the 1990s. Ebenezer Scrooge at least saw the light. I wonder how many ghosts our Prime Minister would need in order to see the light.
This government I believe is discriminating. Yes, it is discriminating against the seniors who worked so hard all of their lives. I was visited just last weekend in my constituency office by a delegation of seniors. They said to me: "We voted Conservative last time around. However, this time we are not going to vote Conservative. We do not even want to think Conservative; we do not even want to say the name of the Prime Minister". They strongly voiced their opinions to me.
I wonder what the Prime Minister's mother would be thinking today. Would she be proud or would she be sad? I think she should be sad.
We are going to give our seniors a Christmas present they will remember the rest of their lives. We are not only going to say to them: "I as your member of Parliament cannot voice your opinion. The democracy that we fought so hard for over the years is going down the tubes. If you make more than $50,000 we are going to claw back your pension". The government of the day states that it is going to stay at that level, but I reassure you, Madam Speaker, that in two years time it will go down to $45,000. A couple of years down the line it will go down to $40,000, and then to $30,000 and $25,000. Where is it going to stop? I wonder.
We have fundamental changes to what we call universality. We have taken the word "universality" and said: "If you make x amount of dollars we are not going to touch you, but if you make more than that we are going to hit you over the head". It is going to go lower and lower and lower. What we are doing is discriminating against the seniors of this country who worked so hard over their lifetime building what we have today, and as we and our children continue to get older that discrimination is going to continue.
I feel very saddened that this House is not let to debate this particular bill. This government time and time again does not do what it preaches. It brings closure on bills in order to steam roll them along. It seems that every Christmas history repeats itself: 1988 and 1989. I wonder what will happen in 1990. To whom are we going to stick it?
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this particular motion today regarding Bill C-28, which is referred to as the clawback bill. A number of members in the House have raised their concerns about this very regressive legislation that is being introduced by this most incompetent government.
First I would like to mention a few points about what we are dealing with right now, this motion on time allocation and closure. What has the House dealt with when it comes to time allocation and closure? First, it is not the Conservative party any more; it is the closure party. That is what it is going to be known as from now on, because of the number of times the closure party has brought in time allocation and closure in the House.
Let us take a look at a bit of history. In 1969-1974, time allocation-not closure but time allocation, basically a form of closure-was used three times. The Liberals were in office then. As usual the Liberals say one thing on this side of the House and another thing on the other side.
In 1974-1979 there were 15 Liberal time allocation motions. In 1979 there was one time allocation motion. That was the only chance the Conservatives had during that time in office, I suppose, to move it.
In 1980-1984 the Liberals were running the country, and it was probably the worst time that the Liberals had to offer this country. They are still paying the price for that. During this time they brought in time allocation 20 times. To try to outdo the Liberal Party of Canada in its destruction of this country, we have the Conservative
December 18, 1989

Time Allocation
party making its best effort. What is its best effort? In 1984 to 1988, the Conservatives first term in government, time allocation was brought in 20 times.
The record is being broken in this House by the antics of the government opposite in the way it is ramming legislation through this House. We all remember the debate last year at this time around free trade. I did not even count how many times time allocation and closure was used then. I wonder if the members opposite can remember that or kept track.


An hon. Member:: They are trying to forget.


Brian L. Gardiner: They are trying to forget it, as my hon. friend says. You are dam right; that is what they are trying to do.
We know that in 1992, when they have the gumption or the courage to go to the polls again, it is not the Conservatives who will remember time allocation, closure or the clawback. It will be the Canadian people who will remember that.
This House came back in April 1989. Let us take a look at closure motions and time allocation motions since April alone. Closure has been used six times and time allocation has been used four times. The government has already reached 50 per cent of the goal it had in the four years of its first term of government and the last four years of the Liberal administration, and we are only through one year of Parliament.
Members opposite in the Conservative government should look closely at their record of ramming legislation through this House. The committee which deals with rules and procedures in the House of Commons should examine the use of time allocation and closure by the government. We should adopt some measures that ensure a return to this Parliament and this House of those rules of Parliament that we have stood by for so long and which are being trashed by the Conservative party. It is called democracy, and we ask government members to support our call for the return of democracy to the House of Commons.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I rise on this occasion to state a few of my concerns with regard to this bill. One must realize that in terms of the clawback provisions certain areas of the country-and I would like to give special attention to the north-are not quite as well off as the rest of the country, particularly the Northwest Territories.
As far as old age pensioners are concerned, I would think that the government would want to reward old age pensioners who are enterprising enough to make in excess of $50,000 net.
However, the government now wants to tax anybody who makes in excess of that after that senior has accumulated that pension over the years. I cannot understand why anybody would want to tax the hard-earned savings by that person which have already been taxed.
It is difficult enough for anybody to make $50,000 in the north because the cost of living is about twice the average of the cost of living in the south. Why would the federal government want to tax a senior who makes over $50,000 in the north when that person's earnings are about half compared to what it costs to be able to live down here? For anybody making $50,000 up north, it would probably amount to $30,000. I remember my colleague said earlier that in 1984 $50,000 was equivalent to about $33,000. That figure would have been approximately $22,000 to $27,000 in the north.
If the Conservatives think that somebody who was making $25,000 is rich and are willing to tax somebody at $27,000, I would hate to see what they would do to tax somebody who is making $15,000 to $20,000 which is what most people are making in the north. They ought to do away with this bill because it is going to create hardships for those people who have, over the years, earned the right to their pension.
I would just like to add my voice to those who have already spoken ahead of me that this is not a fair treatment of our seniors who built this country over the last number of years. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to say a few words.

December 18, 1989
Time Allocation


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to take this opportunity to speak to the time allocation motion on Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act.
I feel compelled to speak because I feel that Bill C-28 to amend the Income Tax Act belies the real intent of the bill which has been spoken to by several of my colleagues, the intent to put an end to the theme of universality in social programs in this country.
Through the amendment to this act the government proposes to put an end to the universality of the Old Age Security program through the clawback of that program whereby, when instituted, seniors in higher income tax brackets will be repaying back to the government the total of the benefit that they receive.
The problem with this is that at this point in time it affects seniors at one income level, but because the clawback is not totally indexed in a very few years every senior will be paying back the totality of the Old Age Security income and, in fact, there will be no benefit to anybody in this country through this program.
The government proposes to do this in view of the serious national debt and the increasingly high deficits that we have on an annual basis in this country. The government uses a totally unacceptable moral ethic in the way it brings about changes to programs which are supposedly going to address our mounting and ever increasing deficits. It uses the lifeboat ethic, where it is seen that the most important problem is our debt and if we cannot afford to keep everybody on the Canadian life raft, we dump those at the bottom level.
In this instance, it disguises that fact by clawing back the Old Age Security from those seniors in the highest income bracket. It is a principle, and the clawback not only applies to Old Age Security but to family allowances as well, and will have in the future, and even today, a very sad impact on those in need in our country.
This government not only has an economic financial problem in terms of the national debt, but in my opinion, it has a more serious bankruptcy problem. It is bankrupt in terms of ideas and leadership in this country.
I do not think there is one member in this House who is not concerned about our national debt and would not be willing to sit and discuss ways and means of addressing it. I am very concerned. I have the sense that I am an elected member of Parliament here to warm a seat in
this House and in various committees. We in this House and in committees have the opportunity and the privilege to listen to people who have very broad experiences and expertise. But this government proceeds with very drastic and dramatic changes, in this case to social policy, without any consultation with any of the elected members of this House.
For example, we have a tremendous change in passenger rail services in this country through Order in Council. Again, it is the lifeboat ethic. The government says it cannot afford to maintain the service so it will just throw off certain people. There is total neglect to the strategic need and the ultimate importance to certain people in this country of having services such as rail service. For some people in my riding it is a matter of life and death. They depend on that service for their health needs.
We are seeing here the erosion of the notion of universality. It is an erosion which will lead to its total elimination and yet there is a total bankruptcy in terms of this government's ideas for addressing the needs of those people who are dependent upon our social programs. Instead of providing for those most in need, as is the proposition from this government through effective programs, it simply eliminates all programs in the name of trying to address a national debt problem.
This government, I believe, has only two masters. One is the United States and the other is big business, overlooking totally the most important contribution of the middle and low-income people in this country, who, because of the national debt and through paying taxes, are paying interest to the high-income people in this country who can afford to invest in bonds. The masses of people in this country at the lower spectrum of income are those who are most hard-hit by this government, a government that does not have a conscience or a modicum of concern for them seen through consulting with the members of Parliament in this House who have been elected by the Canadian people.
I object totally to the time allocation motion made concerning this bill. I think that when you are bringing in a bill that has such a serious impact, which totally changes the nature of our social policy in this country, we must have a full debate and consultation among all members of this House. If it is this government's opinion that it is necessary to erode or do away with the idea of universality, we must replace it simultaneously with

something that is going to address the needs of those most in need in this country.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, this debate will not last more than two hours because of the government's motion for time allocation, which will limit debate to one day per stage, the debate on this very important bill, Bill C-28, which contains measures whose purpose is to claw back sums of money from Canadians Old Age Security Pensions, from people who were often counting on those amounts and who depended on the money to be able to plan for a well deserved retirement.
Madam Speaker, the government is once again using a measure to limit debate because it wants to tell Canadians as little as possible. The government wants to keep bills that are difficult to explain to itself. It wants to keep them from away as the public opinion as possible, and to do so, it uses measures like closure, which limits debate to one or two days on a very important subject, or time allocation, which is also in our Standing Orders, a measure that the government has used as well.
I asked the clerks in the House for some statistics. During the 33rd Parliament which ended with the 1988 election, the government used time allocation 20 times. Madam Speaker, this government decided to limit debate 20 times, and one wonders why Canadians have trouble understanding what this government wants to do! Because it doesn't want to explain. It doesn't want to. It limits the time for debate. It hides important details from Canadians, and Madam Speaker, if today Canadians are confused and cynical about this government's policies and objectives, it is the government's own fault.
As far as this session is concerned, since November 1988, the government has used closure ten times on ten different bills. Don't get me wrong. These are not your run of the mill bills. These are very important pieces of legislation. In this case, we have Bill C-28, a bill that, as you know, is a concerted attack on the elderly, aimed at recovering certain sums of money paid to Canadians for their old age security pensions. This bill proposes to attack these pensions, one more instance that belies the
Time Allocation
fact that the Prime Minister said that Old Age Security Pensions were a sacred trust.

I want to remind members of a statement made by the Prime Minister in Sydney, Nova Scotia during the last election campaign. He said:
As long as I am Prime Minister, social programs, especially those
for the elderly, will be improved not diminished.
This is the same Prime Minister whose government today is proposing a bill that attacks senior citizens, that attacks old age pensions and that attacks the rights of children because it will clawback some family allowances.
It, therefore, is an attack directly on Canadian families. It is an attack, no doubt, on the universality principle which has been with us for some years. As the members have been told before in this debate, the Prime Minister and his government said these were "sacred trusts". Well, they sure as heck did away with that commitment. There is nothing sacred any more as far as this government is concerned, social contract or no social contract.
I view this as a betrayal of the Prime Minister's promises. It is a betrayal of the Prime Minister's so-called "sacred trust". We take exception that these important pieces of legislation are being bullied through the House through time allocation or closure. The government will say to Canadians: "In the interest of balancing our books, in the interest of dealing with the deficit, we are indeed in a hurry to get the legislation dealing with old age pensions through, so we are going to use time allocation or closure".
This bill got first reading on June 20, 1989. It was called by the government, which brings forward whatever bills it pleases, on October 11, 17, 18 and November 20, 1989. Closure was put on second reading and the bill was sent to a committee. As of November 20, the House had spent 15 hours and 37 minutes in debate, discussing a bill which contains 48 amendments to social programs and which ends universality and penalizes Canadians.
I do not know how the Prime Minister and his Cabinet can continue to say they know what is right for Canadians, when Canadians across this country have been

telling them: "We don't want you to meddle with pensions especially with the universality principle which to us is a very important principle".
I want to read something that was said by an important group of Canadians concerning the proposed measure to claw back some of the pension benefits. I quote an editorial from the Vancouver Sun: "As a political issue, the clawback is a sleeper because initially it will not affect many Canadians, and even those will not be seriously inconvenienced at first because the plan is to phase it in over a three-year period".
It goes on to explain that the government has sold the plan as a "high income taxpayers measure". I will not read the whole article, but it goes on to say that the real problem is the inflation which becomes, in the editorial's own words, "a two-edged sword against Old Age Security Pensions, cutting their value through the clawback as well as through increased consumer prices".
We would have loved on this side of the House to debate the importance of preserving the value of our senior Canadians' pensions that inflation reduces every year. This measurement will claw at their pensions. Today, $50,000 may sound like a big number but eventually with inflation this figure will soon affect a million Canadians whose entitlement to pensions will be reduced.
We would also love to discuss the impact on married seniors. There is a good article written by Leonard Shifrin in the Ottawa Citizen of December 14.
Mr. Shifrin makes the point that indeed women, particularly senior women, are getting a raw deal from this legislation.
When I was on the government side, I remember the Trudeau government facing the problem of seniors, especially female seniors who were found to be in need. They were not entitled to the CPP because the way in which the CPP was structured did not allow those people to receive a justifiable amount of money since they were not contributing to the plan. Therefore they depended upon Old Age Security. What did we do? We increased the Guaranteed Income Supplement to allow these people to at least get a reasonable income so that they could cope with day-to-day requirements.
I find it totally abhorrent that this government has more or less abandoned women, especially seniors. I happen to have many seniors in my riding, who deplore the fact that this government in the last five years has not increased the GIS. We would like to have a debate on that. Why is the government clawing back the old age pension upon which these people depend for their livelihood in the years to come?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being 1.21 p.m., I do now leave the Chair till two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.21 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, to show Canadians that support for Canadian culture would be business as usual under free trade, this government promised prior to the last election that postal subsidies for Canadian magazines, newspapers and books would remain close to current levels for five years.
How times have changed. With the election over and free trade a fait accompli, the government has now caved in to American pressure and broken its promise not once, but twice. First, the Conservative budget slashed $45 million from postal subsidies and last week they cut another $64.5 million.
Do the Ministers of Finance and Communications not realize that publishers earn pre-tax profits of only 2 per cent and that is why for more than 100 years all governments, regardless of political stripe, have supported this subsidy? It gives all Canadians equal access to magazines, books and newspapers with a Canadian perspective, no matter where they live.
This Conservative government's slashing of a vital link between publishers and readers will affect 95 per cent of Canadians who read our magazines. Does this govern-
December 18, 1989

ment not realize that Canadians like to read Maclean's, Equinox and Chatelaine? Where is the government's sense of Canadian cultural priorities? Is it in Newsweek?


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, in Gre-vet, in my riding, a new mining camp is about to open. According to Mr. Christian Derosier of Exploration VSM, the one deposit is worth $700 million and exploration was financed by means of flow-through shares. A pre-feasibility study is now under way to assess various options for opening the mine between Miquelon and Chapais.
However, one of the concerns of people at VSM and SEREM is railway transportation. Representatives of both companies have attended public hearings and also emphasized the need for maintaining the Franquet-Cha-pais subdivision of Abitibi, which CN closed down without prior authorization or consultation.
Mr. Speaker, this is another underhanded manoeuvre by CN management. The people of Senneterre and Chapais and the people of Quebec are waiting for the National Transportation Agency's decision on CN's unwarranted application.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, this government's goods and services tax will impact veiy heavily on the Canadian housing industry. The Canadian Home Builders Association estimates that the goods and services tax will increase the price of an average home, average being around $150,000 now, by at least $3,000. Most Canadians realize when we mortgage our homes, by the time we pay off that mortgage, the $3,000, that goods and services tax will be well above the $6,000 or $7,000 level.
The implications for the home building industry are evident. Not only will this tax put the Canadian dream of owning a home well beyond the reach of many Canadians, it will affect the very heart of the lumber industry in our country.
The lumber industry in British Columbia, Alberta, northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada will be hard hit. Not only are we an export-based industry, but we rely very heavily on domestic consumption and the domestic market. In light of the 15 per cent export tax on the softwood lumber industry and the continuing appreciation of the Canadian dollar, the lumber industry in Canada cannot afford another set-back.
This government must realize that our single largest industry is in some difficulty. This industry should be helped and not hindered.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, today is a national day of mourning instituted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women to commemorate the death of the 14 young women in Montreal. All Canadians are encouraged to reflect on violence against women and, if possible, to make donations to rape crisis centres and to shelters for battered women.
On Saturday, a vigil was held in Vancouver for a foreign domestic worker who was continually raped by her employer. Foreign domestics are often the victims of violence and economic exploitation.
The National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women has recommended that the federal government work with its provincial counterparts to establish employment standards and to ensure that these standards are being implemented and enforced with sufficient resources.
It is imperative that domestic workers be given more protection. I hope the Minister of Employment and Immigration will attend to this serious issue, and not make it more difficult for domestic workers to receive landed status in Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, 1990 will be a very busy year for Dow Chemical, located in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, in the environmental area.
Last Friday Dow announced its Sarnia division vision. This policy statement affirms the company's commitment to work in a safe, healthy and environmentally

December 18, 1989
responsive manner. Indeed, it complements a 10-year, $55 million spending history on ecology related projects at Dow's Sarnia division.
Financially, Dow announced a commitment of an additional $10 million toward some further 25 separate ecology projects in Sarnia. The key goal is to separate Dow's plants from direct contact with the St. Clair River, virtually eliminating the potential for spills and harmful discharges into the river.
I applaud those on-going efforts by Dow Chemical to achieve environmental excellence and fulfil a commitment to not adversely impact the environment. I strongly encourage other private sector interests as well as public sector organizations to demonstrate a similar commitment to our most valuable infinite resource, our environment.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis on Indian reserves in Manitoba. In the past year, four young children have perished in house fires, two on reserves located in my constituency. These tragedies are further compounded by the fact that in every one of these cases, a fire truck was available at the reserve but was not functioning due to one cause or another.
Steps must be taken to make sure that no more lives are lost. Bands should be encouraging their residents to inspect their homes at least once a year. It seems the Department of Indian Affairs cannot handle the problem. I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs to enlist the help of outside independent professionals to do the job that it seems this department is unable to do.


FISHERIES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Fisheries was quoted as saying on the weekend with regard to the east coast fishing industry: "Some of these guys are making over $100,000 a year. You sure wouldn't know it the way they sing the blues."
Did the minister really say this? Does the minister believe that? Is he not concerned with the 1,500 people who lost their jobs at National Sea last week? Is he not concerned about the potential lay-offs at Fishery Products International? Is he not concerned about the severe
cuts in the total allowable catch in Atlantic Canada? Is he not concerned about the American lobster restrictions? Is he not concerned about the European quotas in our waters which are three times what Canada requested?
If the minister is not concerned about all of this, he is in the wrong job.


CANADA POST
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I informed this House about a Canada Post decision to close the McKeman postal outlet located in my riding before Christmas.
The corporation insisted that the outlet, located in Maurice Pharmacy, would be closed unless the pharmacy's new owner, Eugene Barabash, purchased a franchise at a cost of roughly $40,000, an impossible amount considering Mr. Barabash had just bought his new business.
Since then, Canada Post has proven that, like the Grinch, it too has a heart. After meeting extensively with Mr. Barabash, officials from the corporation have determined that the outlet which has served the community for 20 years will not close after all.
I would like to commend Canada Post for its response to the concern of area residents and for demonstrating sensitivity to the needs of its customers. I would also like to commend the residents of McKeman for uniting together to save the Maurice Pharmacy outlet. Their determination should be admired by us all. Merry Christmas, McKeman!


STUDENT LOANS
Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, last Friday there was an announcement by the President of the Treasury Board to introduce an administrative fee of 3 per cent on any student loan application that will be processed next year.
Students in the 20th century continue to suffer with the additional costs this government so frequently finds necessary to pile on to the minimal budget with which students have to work. The combination of Treasury Board's student loan administration fees, the Finance Department's proposed GST and Consumer and Corporate Affairs copyright fees will leave some students in
December 18, 1989

the position of not being privileged enough to attend post-secondary education institutions.
I believe our youth need to foster growth and maturation through higher education. If this government's extra fees preclude individuals from becoming involved in higher education, then yes, all these fees that are being tacked on by this government do hit the lower income groups, contrary to what the people of our country have been told.
This is going against the Canadian tradition if it affects Canadians in this way. I continue to question how it can be interpreted otherwise if only the rich can still afford a higher education.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, Richard Bilodeau, a Canadian resident of Coaticook, was released by the American authorities last Saturday on $100,000 bail.
Mr. Bilodeau has come home to his family and will be able to spend Christmas with his wife and children. This was made possible thanks to a tremendous movement of solidarity on the part of all Quebecers, the involvement of all levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-and especially, thanks to the much appreciated help of the media which made their contribution towards dealing with this terrible injustice.
Mr. Speaker, this spirit of solidarity went beyond the province of Quebec and was felt across Canada and even in New Hampshire and other states in New England.
This proves that when we stand together, there are no obstacles we cannot overcome, and what was accomplished by this general support for Richard Bilodeau, Mr. Speaker, is reassuring when we think of our future safety on trips in the United States.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the content of the 1991 census. Officials representing the Canadian disabled community fear that the people they represent will be excluded from this census.
It is of paramount importance to the livelihood of the disabled community that they be included in this census. For the first time in 1986, four questions on the disabled were included. The information obtained by Statistics Canada from this census allowed for more complete and accurate data regarding employment equity. If questions about the disabled are excluded from the 1991 census, Statistics Canada will be unable to gather current information regarding the disabled community in Canada.
I want to inform the Minister of Employment and Immigration that we are indeed aware that the questions regarding the disabled may be left off the 1991 census. Inclusion, not exclusion, is what Canada's disabled community would like.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to a very successful project in my riding of Delta. Taking advantage of the balmiest climate in Canada and using waste wood as an energy source, Houwelling Nurseries are a true success story.
Starting in 1985 with six acres under glass, they now cover 15 acres and are currently shipping the last of their poinsettias, 62 per cent of which are shipped to the United States. They are currently planting English cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers which they will start harvesting at the end of January to be shipped as far east as Montreal and Pittsburgh and as far south as Los Angeles.
There is a vast market in Japan for their produce but the Japanese have not allowed the regular import of these choice Canadian products. I call on the Canadian government to assist this excellent company to open the doors to the Japanese market to bring greater prosperity to Canadians.

December 18, 1989


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa. He is sitting right over there in the Minister of Finance's seat but he is known as Santa Clawsback.
This Santa claws back your old age pension. This Santa claws back family allowances for young families. This Santa claws back door-to-door postal delivery in rural post offices. This Santa claws back the national dream of Canadians of passenger rail service from coast to coast.
This Santa claws back decent, affordable child care. The Santa claws back programs to promote women's equality. This Santa claws back support for our regions, for those of us who live a distance from the money barons of Toronto and Montreal.
This Santa claws back support for students at universities. This Santa claws back support for health care in hospitals and medical research. This Santa claws back our social safety net. This Santa claws back protection from unemployment. Finally, this Santa claws back 9 per cent or 7 per cent or whatever he feels like from virtually every dollar spent by every Canadian.
^ ^


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, a columnist in The Globe and Mail has recently pointedly summed up five years of Conservative government. "The Conservative government," says Michael Valpy, "is a statement such as we have not heard in this century. It is a statement of evaporating social compassion, of a government who favours the bottom line over people".
The Minister of Finance says that if he lowers the proposed GST rate, he will have to tighten the government's belt. What he really means is that while he and his colleagues continue to travel in luxury, more and more Canadians will be forced to brown-bag it. He says that there has to be a little give and take. Yes, taxpayers give, give and give and he takes.
The Prime Minister says that he needs the GST to reduce the debt. What he really means is that he needs a convenient excuse to severely reduce social programs like the clawback of the OAS, and in the process,
closure, closure and more closure, because this government is not interested in hearing from Canadians.
The reality of five years of Conservative government is that today in metro Toronto, there are more food bank programs than there are the combined total of outlets of the three major burger chains. The reality is that the Prime Minister is demanding even more cuts in spending at the expense of his government's social programs.


&quot;CHARTING CANADA'S FUTURE&quot;
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in April of 1986, the federal government initiated the review of demography and its implications for economic and social policy. The study was mandated to report on the changes in size, structure and distribution of the population of Canada between now and the year 2025.
On Thursday, December 14, the Minister of National Health and Welfare released the results of the study and presented the report to the standing committee. A total of 167 studies, prepared by over 200 Canadian scholars from across the country, culminated in this report. The projections for the future show what will happen if fertility, mortality and immigration levels remain at the current level. The Canadian population will peak at 31 million in the year 2026.
Contrary to popular belief, the baby boom did not cause the aging population. In fact, it delayed it. By the year 2026, between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the population will be over 65 and approximately 10 per cent of the population will be over 75. Women in this latter age group will outnumber men two to one.
The research indicates that Canada is not facing an imminent population crisis, but that current demographic trends will produce such fundamental changes that the Canada of the 21st century will be significantly different from the Canada that shaped today's attitudes and policies. The implications for Canada in areas such as immigration, social policy, tax structure, health care and housing will all be impacted by these changes. I would urge all members of Parliament and Canadians to avail themselves of the information contained in Charting Canada's Future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election, I said that the Conservatives would tiy to attack senior citizens' pensions and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance called me a liar. I said that the east coast fishery would suffer as a result of the trade deal and again I was called a liar.
I said the dollar would go up and hurt our exports, and they called me a liar. I said interest rates would rise, and they called me a liar. I said the GST would cost billions of dollars more, and the Minister of Finance called me a liar and said it would not cost one single penny more to the taxpayers of Canada.
A year ago, the Minister of Finance said to us in this chamber: "Conservatives have spending commitments and we have sufficient money to handle those announcements". The Prime Minister said: "Every nickel has been accounted for".
Will the Prime Minister explain to the students of this country, the senior citizens, the public servants, and to Canadians generally, what he was talking about last year when he said he had enough money to handle our spending commitments? I ask the Prime Minister exactly who was lying during the last election?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows explicitly what I said in the speech when I was referring to the veracity of the things that he was saying, and they were not what he referred to in his remarks. So again, he is misleading people by what he is saying.
Clearly the fiscal position of the Government of Canada has been greatly affected by the change in interest rates, what was anticipated at the time of the election and also at the time of the last budget. To be precise, we were looking at interest costs of, I think, $33 billion. Instead, they have gone up to $39.5 billion. That has meant a significant change in the fiscal position of the government and it did require a number of the actions that we have taken.
Oral Questions
The point that must be made here is that if you apply the increase in the debt of the country from 1984 to the present time and relate that to the interest costs on the debt that was in place at the time that we took over, you will find that it is almost exactly the same.


John Napier Turner: The fact is that this Minister of Finance, advising his Prime Minister, told the people of Canada during the last election that all the spending commitments were commitments for which there was money and that the sales tax that he contemplated would not cost one single cent more to Canadian taxpayers. That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statements are very revealing. Last week, when he was campaigning for the Tory candidate in the Chambly by-election, the Prime Minister of Canada repeatedly told voters how much money the government had spent in their riding. He was practicality saying: Vote for the Conservatives and money will come pouring into the riding. However, as soon as he left, he started talking about the need to cut spending. Why is the Prime Minister prepared to spend taxpayers' money on winning a by-election, when he reduces appropriations for students, the elderly, food assistance organizations and regional development?
Does he think he can buy a by-election in Chambly like he bought the Environment Minister's seat in Lac-Saint-Jean?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will leave this House with very little ceremony if he maintains the tenor of his questions. He ought to know that, contrary to what he said, in Chambly I never made single reference of the kind the Leader of the Opposition is putting into my mouth. I did refer to economic expansion in the Montreal area, which is occurring thanks to this government's intervention in industries such as the automobile industry, petrochemicals, aerospace and pharmaceuticals, while the Liberals in the Senate and here in the House were effectively smothering Bill C-22. I mentioned, quite appropriately, what the federal government, together with the Quebec government, has done to stimulate the economy in the greater Montreal area including, of course, the town of Beloeil.

December 18, 1989
Oral Questions
Now if the Leader of the Opposition is against economic recovery in Montreal, if he is against intervention by the federal government in high-tech industries in the Montreal area, including the riding of Chambly, let him come out and say so, instead of applauding this in Beloeil and speaking out against it in the House.


John Napier Turner: I dare him to say
anywhere else what he says in Chambly, Mr. Speaker!

Interest rates in Canada are too high. The spread between Canadian and American interest rates is at an almost historic high. The government's tax policy is in a mess. Instead of scrapping the GST, it is now trying to perpetrate some phoney changes on us.
The fiscal policy is a mess. They make all kinds of special promises during the election and then they break every one of those promises. The trade deal is a mess and we are now moving into a trade deficit.
What is the Prime Minister going to do to avoid a recession in this country? Does he think that the deceitful promises he used during the last election are going to work this time to salvage the Canadian economy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we will not do. We will not follow policies like those followed by the Liberals when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Linance and gave rise to the deficit and the recession that this country began to go through. He is responsible for it.
Program spending in Ottawa increased by 20 per cent a year when the right hon. gentleman was the Minister of Finance. Program spending has been held to 3.5 per cent by this government as opposed to the 20 per cent under the Leader of the Opposition.
Last week, a leading columnist in The Globe and Mail said that the period from 1975 to 1984, led by the former Prime Minister and his ministers was the period that devastated the economy of Canada. He was right. The policies of this government are making the economy stronger and more competitive and we will pursue them because they do not involve printing money and bringing on inflation and dragging up unemployment. They involve getting Canada ready for the next century in a very confident and modern economy.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Everybody agrees that the goods and services tax is more bad news for the Canadian economy. Small businesses are already struggling under the burden of interest rates that are too high, while at the present time, consumer spending is going down.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees that his proposed goods and services tax will bring Canada into a recession. Will he now listen to people across this country who are asking, who are begging him to withdraw his proposal for a goods and services tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have listened very carefully to the consultations that we have had as a government and that the finance committee has had in the course of its hearings across the country. We have listened carefully to what Canadians have had to say. I will be reporting to the House on that tomorrow, as I indicated last week.
I say again to the hon. member that he would have more credibility as a spokesman for his party if he would come up with some alternatives rather than saying scrap this, scrap that. That is no way to deal with the problems that we are facing today.
The members of the Liberal Party are walking away from the problems of taxation, the problems of high inflation and saying you can't do this, you can't do that, but they have not got a brain in their heads to propose another alternative policy.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, two quick proposals would be to reduce the interest rates and try to reduce the value of the Canadian dollar. That would do more than anything else to help exports and business in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


M. Douglas Young: That would be a nice start, Mr. Prime Minister, to reduce interest rates.
The Minister of Finance has said consistently that he would not change his position on the goods and services tax. The Prime Minister defended the Minister of
December 18, 1989

Finance saying that the proposal would stand as it was presented.
Since it was to be revenue neutral, visible, and have provincial co-operation, the proposal that the Minister of Finance has presented to this point and undoubtedly will continue to put forward tomorrow has none of those components in it, will he not understand that the only appropriate thing to do at this time is to withdraw his proposal, reduce interest rates in this country, make sure that exports are protected and try to get it right?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member. He says: "Get interest rates down". This is not Santa Claus. This is not Christmas Eve and this is not just a question of saying: "Let's have lower interest rates".
I ask the hon. member to consider how he is going to get lower interest rates. We have seen bank loans growing at 11.5 per cent. To get interest rates down the hon. member would start printing money, which means that bank credit would be increasing at 12, 13, 14, or 15 per cent with an economy that is growing at around 7 per cent.
How is that going to address the problem of inflation? It is going to feed inflation, it is going to feed higher interest rates, it is going to feed the very problems that he is concerned about today. All he is saying is deal with the symptoms of the problem and ignore the cause.
We on this side of the House understand the causes and we are dealing with the causes of that problem, not just fluttering about saying: "Do this, do that" about the symptoms, which he knows will do absolutely nothing to solve the problems we are facing today.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well. The minister said in this House on Friday that he fully supports the high interest rate policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Also on Friday the chief economist from the Bank of Montreal said that Governor Crow wants to deliberately weaken the economy to prepare for the introduction of the GST.


Some hon. Members:: Oh come on.
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Those are the words of the chief economist of the Bank of Montreal.
Is it government policy to deliberately create slack in the economy in order to create unemployment so that workers will be scared to push for wages to compensate for the rise in the cost of living when the GST comes in? Is that the policy of the government? Was the chief economist of the Bank of Montreal right when he said this is happening?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say right off the top that I completely reject that machiavellian interpretation of the policy of the government.
The hon. member knows exactly why we are following the policies that we are, and that is because we have some very real concerns about the level of inflation. I ask the hon. member to reflect on the impact of inflation on senior citizens, on people who are on fixed incomes, on people who are in low income brackets. These are the people whom we are concerned about when we follow the policies that we are following today.
If the hon. member wants to ignore those policies, again I ask him to think back to 1981-82 when there was that sense of despair in the country, when people were saying: "We are going to have a 12 or 13 per cent inflation rate for a long time to come". With that came the high interest rates. Think back to that time and reflect on whether or not the policies that we are following are the right ones because we are doing everything we can through the policies that we are following to avoid that happening again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, thinking back to 1982, the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Trudeau, said: "It is still possible to scare the hell out of people by creating more unemployment". What I really want to know from this Minister of Finance is whether or not he is following a similar policy.
We now have about the highest interest rate in the industrialized world, a rate that is about 400 basis points higher than in the United States. We have rising unemployment and we have the first monthly merchandise trade deficit in some thirteen and a half years.
How much more of a decline in the economy is the Minister of Finance going to accept before he has a

December 18, 1989
Oral Questions
heart-to-heart talk with John Crow and demands he bring down the interest rates? Has he, for example, ever thought of firing John Crow, giving him a pink slip?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly never going to defend the policies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, so don't ask me to do that.
Here we have a question comparable to the last one asked by the Liberals, possibly with a little more attention to what might come up on the evening clip on television tonight. The answer is the same. The NDP are saying: "Please Santa, give me some lower interest rates". You cannot just wish these. You cannot just wish lower interest rates, you have to follow some policy direction to get them.
The policy direction that I have heard from the NDP and from the Liberals is print money and that will raise interest rates a few months down the road, although there may be a short-term drop. That is not the right way to cure inflation.
That is exactly what happened in the 1970s under the policies initiated by my friend across the way. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was there at the time as well. They started printing money. They took the inflation rate from 5.5 per cent up to 13 per cent. They took the unemployment rate from about 7 per cent up to 13 per cent and they took interest rates from about 10 per cent up to 24 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance wants to know how to bring down the bank rate, all he has to do is ask the chairman of the finance committee. He will tell him how to do it, and so did the finance committee last June.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance about the unemployment rate. We now have an unemployment rate of some 7 per cent in this country. About 1 million people are unemployed. What unemployment rate is the Minister of Finance going to tolerate before he changes monetary policy in this country? Is it 8 per cent or is it 9 per cent, because at 9 per cent another 250,000 people will be unemployed.
What is the bottom line? What unemployment rate will he tolerate before he instructs the Governor to roll back that bank rate? People in this country really want to know.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is very well aware of the performance in this country on employment. We have seen 1.5 million jobs created. We have seen unemployment come down in every province, except for one, Prince Edward Island.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Oh, come on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member across the way says: "Oh, come on". Those are the facts. I know the hon. member does not like to face the facts. He does not want to listen to what has happened over the course of the last five years, partly as a result of the policies this government has followed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go ahead, I'm listening. Just don't mislead.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Again, we go right back to the source of the problem, and that is inflation. If the hon. member would stand up and tell me how he feels we should get inflation down, I would be quite happy to listen to that. For the last year and a half members from the New Democratic Party have been saying: "Forget about inflation. You can't have interest rates go up. Forget about inflation". When we see that those pressures are still there today we know that if we had forgotten about inflation we would have a rip-roaring inflation problem now, and that is what we are trying to avoid.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When the minister took office in 1984 he inherited a $20 billion trade surplus. In the last eight years he has managed to produce the first month-overmonth trade deficit. There are some economists who are suggesting that over the next year our trade deficit could go as high as $20 billion.
What plan of action does the minister have to avert this economic disaster?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are some pressures in the economy. That is clear. The hon. member is falling into the same trap as his colleague who sits behind him. He is dealing with the symptoms of the problem and not dealing with the cause of the problem. I would appreciate if the hon. member would stand up and tell me what he thinks we should be doing about inflation, how we should be getting the inflation problem under greater

control, because it is the inflation problem that is causing the things to which he has referred.
At the heart of this is the difficult fiscal problem that we inherited in 1984, which he very conveniently avoided mentioning, and that is a deficit that was close to $38.3 billion which we have brought down year by year with a very great deal of difficulty, and we are committed to getting it down further. That is one of the difficult causes of the inflation problem that we have today.


Dennis Joseph Mills: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. It really frustrates me that he cannot take responsibility for his own actions. The fact of the matter is that in the last four months our inflation rate was around 2.7 per cent on average. I would just like to know at what point in time he would react to inflation.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada is not responsible for managing the economy of this country; the Minister of Finance is responsible. At what time will the Minister of Finance assume his responsibilities? At what point in time will he ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada to act? Will it be when there is 100,000 jobs lost, 200,000? At what level of human misery will the minister act?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said that I am not prepared to accept my responsibilities. I am quite prepared to accept, and I accept those responsibilities day by day, every day that I am in this job.
The hon. member again is playing kind of loose with those numbers. If he takes notice he will see that the inflation rate increased last month, not decreased. These are the pressures that are still there in the economy. I say to him again if he is going to have credibility as a spokesman for his party stand up and talk about the cause of the problem, and that is inflation.


Some hon. Members:: It's you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How is the government going to deal with the problem of inflation today? If he has any ideas on that I will be happy to listen to them, but don't just talk about the symptoms because, as he knows, dealing with the symptoms of the problem is exactly what got us into the mess we inherited in 1984. That government, for years and years, dealt with just the
Oral Questions
symptoms of the problem and did not get down to dealing with the causes.


ATLANTIC FISHERIES INDUSTRY
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The entire fisheries industry in the Atlantic Region is in a slump, and this applies to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Eastern Quebec and New Brunswick. Our economic base is crumbling.
Last week the Prime Minister told us here in the House that generous, comprehensive programs similar to those created to help Western farmers would be put into place for the Atlantic fisheries. We have now heard about these programs several times but we have yet to see the colour of them. Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians this afternoon what he means by comprehensive and generous programs?

Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may not be paying all that much attention, but a week ago today, I believe it was, the government announced the measures it was taking with reference to the immediate consequences of certain plant closures that have occurred in Atlantic Canada, or that may occur in the next several months.
Included among the measures to be taken was the formation of a community diversification fund to help the people in the communities affected, to try to diversify their economy to assist those communities. Improved programs were announced in order to help the individuals who might be affected, including the application in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia of the program for older worker adjustment which applies to those who are over the age of 54. If they cannot be retrained or find other work they will be assisted until they are 65. It was announced that there would be a supplement to that program for workers in this industry who are over 50 and find themselves in that position, because the workers in this industry are not entitled to pensions and because in some cases they are not even receiving a separation allowance.

Oral Questions
Steps have already been announced and taken and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, longer term plans are being developed with the province of Newfoundland in particular to deal with the long-term consequences of the fact that the fishery is now trying to sustain many more people than can be sustained at an economic or living wage from the fishery, and that problem has to be tackled as well. It was not tackled in the past. It is going to be tackled now under the leadership of the Prime Minister.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is true what he meant by comprehensive and generous programs.

Is the Prime Minister ready to commit his government before Christmas, right here, today, to a $1 billion program like the programs that are used to aid the western farmers? Is he ready to do that today? Is the Prime Minister ready to put his money where his mouth is?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated on behalf of the government and on behalf of the people of Canada that we would be assisting the Atlantic fishery and the communities affected by problems in the Atlantic fishery as vigorously as we intervened on behalf of the prairie farmers. I have already indicated that very publicly. I do not know why the hon. member is quarrelsome in regard to his question.
I know of the hon. member's sincere interest in this. As a result of this I would ask him, on behalf of those in the Atlantic fishery who are badly affected, to speak to his Liberal colleagues in the Senate to make sure that they pass the unemployment insurance bill because that will give fisheries workers benefits at 10 weeks rather than 14 weeks.


Fernand Robichaud: Let's hear a number then.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Atlantic families are today being penalized by Liberal senators, and I ask for your help to get this thing back on the rails so that Atlantic Canadians can benefit from UIC.


EDUCATION
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Recently the Prime Minister pledged to make education the highest priority of his government. He promised all young Canadians a world-class education.
Now the government is imposing user fees on student loans and adding hundreds of dollars to debts of already overburdened students. The government keeps telling us it does not like debt. Why is the government forcing students into more debt?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Student Loan Program is a very important program that will help some 220,000 students in need this particular year.
The government will be guaranteeing student loans worth some $600 million this year and will be spending $431 million on student assistance. That is double the amount that was spent five years ago. We are veiy cognizant of what has to be done. We certainly want to do all we can to be helpful. The small administration fee that is being asked is intended to help offset some of the cost of the defaults which are now running very high.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, students all over the country are finding it difficult to get to university because they do not have enough money and have difficulty paying back the loans when they do get there.
My supplementary question is also to the Secretary of State. The government is also privatizing the student loan program. It is doing what its business friends have told it to do, privatize education. Canadians want to know whether, under this government, the qualification for university admission is to be high marks or high income.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of benefits that students receive, including the loan guarantee. There is an interest subsidy. There are favourable interest rates and an easy repayment schedule. We are trying to increase the efficiency of the program. We would like to encourage responsible borrowing and we want to deter the default payments.
December 18, 1989

There is every reason to target some funding, for example, to the disabled, to the really disadvantaged, and to women. We are going to be examining the program, as we have very recently. We are going to be doing a very full review to see how the program can better respond to the changing needs of the community.


INCOME TAX ACT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In Quebec, all corporations have to pay tax annually on their capital. However, Quebec's income tax legislation provides an exemption for mining companies that have not yet reached the production stage.
Bill C-28 does not contain the same exemption. It taxes all companies with capital in excess of 10 million, like Ressources Yorbeau in Rouyn-Noranda.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Will Bill C-28 provide the same treatment, and if not, will he consider a change in the legislation for mining companies that are not in production?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern that the hon. member has indicated on this particular tax, the large corporations tax. It was a tax which was brought in to ensure that all corporations with capital over $10 million, which amounts to 3,500 or 3,600 corporations in Canada, would pay at least a nominal amount of tax and that amount varies with the size of the corporation.
The hon. member has expressed interest in a variation on this. I would be happy to look at the proposal and get back to him.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture recently released farm income figures showing that as a result of government policy farm income will drop by 39 per cent in 1990. This includes an incredible 101 per cent drop in Saskatchewan and 87 per cent in Manitoba. Now the
Oral Questions
minister's office has told the Globe and Mail that program expenditures will drop 64 per cent in 1990. The farmers of Canada cannot accept these massive cuts.
What plans does the government have to ensure a fair return for the producer rather than encouraging the vicious winner-take-all battle that this government has forced upon the agricultural industry and the food processors of Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question would have certainly expressed the urgency of the matter if he had not tried to preface it on the basis that the decline in farm income projected is as a result of government policy. He knows that and he should not mislead the House in that regard because the Government of Canada has been very generous in supporting farmers all across Canada, whether it is western Canada, eastern Canada or central Canada. The hon. member knows that very well.
As a matter of fact, that resulted in large part in the average income of the farming community in Canada being raised from an average of $3.1 billion during the time when his party was in office to over $4 billion during the period of time that we were in office. That is a 30 per cent increase. That hardly demonstrates that this government has not been there in support of the agricultural community. Some $21.7 billion, to be exact, has been spent since this government took office.
What is the government going to do about it? We have put in place a process for the examination of new policy alternatives which is clearly needed to overhaul the crop insurance program, the safety net program and stabilization programs which have been put to the supreme test. I ask the hon. member, rather than carping from the sidelines, to get involved in this process. Bring forth your ideas and I am sure that they will be taken into consideration.


Ralph Ferguson: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the price for grains has dropped dramatically since the government took office.
If this minister is unable to recognize the impact of his own figures, a look at what is happening in the food processing industry will allow him to see the writing on the wall. Three more food processing plants announced

December 18, 1989
Oral Questions
closings this month: Cobi Foods, St. Lawrence Starch and Gerber Baby Foods. Five hundred more jobs are lost. Twenty-two processing plants have closed across the country this last year with 3,071 jobs lost, and that in addition to what is being lost in the fish processing industry.
Given the disastrous effects of the free trade agreement on agriculture in Canada and on the food processing industry, will the minister call upon his government to invoke the six month cancellation clause of the free trade agreement, or will he just continue to bluster and evade the issue that Canada's food production and processing industry is in serious trouble?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, Mr. Speaker, every sparrow that falls will be blamed upon the free trade agreement.


An hon. Member:: What a turkey.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When it comes to turkeys, the hon. member knows who they are because they are all surrounding him, and as Christmas grows near they get fatter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could conclude his answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that the questioner who preceded the member for Lambton-Middlesex sort of suggested that we were too generous to the agricultural community and this gentleman now is indicating that we are not generous enough.
He knows as well as anyone else in this House should know that the price of grain is established in the international market-place and Canadian grain is largely exported and it must be competitive to meet competition. The Hon. Member should know that.
He talks about the processing industry. As I have said in the House before, the processing industry has had a very good year. Investments are up by some 15 per cent. Investment is up by 40 per cent in the bakery industry, 21 per cent in biscuit manufacturing and 73 per cent in meat processing.
He wants to talk about what is happening because of free trade. Pilsbury, Canada Packers, General Foods, J.M. Schneider, M.L.M. Flour Products and C.S.T. are all expanding because of free trade.


CLOSURE OF CFB SUMMERSIDE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it has been eight long months since this government asked for the closure of CFB Summerside. Since that time the economy of Prince County and indeed the economy of Prince Edward Island has suffered severely, as the Minister of Finance has already indicated.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have had eight months to respond to their commitment of a significant federal presence to replace CFB Summerside, is he prepared to make that announcement today following his meeting with Premier Joe Ghiz?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Just say yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals ask a question and yet they refuse to let anybody answer. That is the problem with the Liberals.
I will be meeting with Premier Ghiz this afternoon and any matters that have to be announced will be announced then or at an appropriate time in the future.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Atlantic fisheries is in a state of crisis and the fact that the elimination of the 880 Squadron will only make that crisis worse as 50 per cent of our air surveillance will be eliminated with the elimination of the tracker squadron, will the minister offer some support to her beleaguered colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and order a full reinstatement of the 880 Tracker Squadron or at least a partial reprieve because service to the Atlantic fishery is needed now more than ever? Will the minister do her part toward solving this crisis?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member

is aware that the Department of National Defence will, of course, continue to provide services through Aurora aircraft and the newly purchased Arcturus aircraft when they come on board.
I am sure he is also aware that in October of this year the cabinet approved additional funding for the Department of Fisheries of some $28 million to provide for fisheries patrol surveillance and that should more than meet their needs. In fact it is substantially more than what had been provided by our department previously.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. To date approximately 2,000 Canadians have died of AIDS and another 3,300 have contracted this deadly disease. In spite of all the efforts of our best doctors and scientists we have not found a cure. The best thing we can do is help prevent it. In this regard the government on December 1 presented an excellent video on AIDS.
Does the Department intend to issue any more of these informational videos?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the video Live which we released on World AIDS Day, December 1, we have a further video about AIDS which we are currently negotiating with the CBC for airing on the national network.
We have already shown the video to a number of community health people and educators have been very supportive of it. We are currently preparing materials for use in classrooms to go along with the release of the video.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He will be aware that during the Canada-U.S. negotiations on the free trade deal there was great pressure by the Americans on our cultural industries, including postal subsidies to keep Canadian magazines afloat. The previous minister, Flora MacDonald, proudly told this House that she had won the battle
Oral Questions
and she was going to keep the subsidies on for at least five years.
Last week the minister cut those subsidies. On what basis was Canadian culture chosen as a cutback and was this, in fact, just a guise? In fact, it was a concession as a result of the free trade deal under the guise of a budgetary cutback.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government's decision in this area has nothing to do with the free trade agreement.
We are trying to develop a program that meets Canadian cultural objectives in the book and magazine publishing industries, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has spoken eloquently in the House about the five million people who are illiterate in the country. He has turned around and put a tax on books and has now removed the subsidies to Canadian magazines.
What are the priorities of the government, given in the last week that the principal victims-not the cafeterias or the dining rooms-or the real victims of the cut-backs were students and the Canadian cultural industry? Where are the priorities of the government?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government's priority in this respect is to ensure that our cultural industries are viable and that communication between the Canadian creative artist and the Canadian consumer is effective, and that is what is foremost in our minds.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The National Capital Commission's budget has been chopped by $24 million over the next three years. This comes after a $5 million cut in last April's budget.
By reducing the NCC's budget by 25 per cent, by forcing the NCC to sell off federal properties, by leaving the NCC competing for money in the private sector, and

Privilege
with the potential for staff lay-offs in the future, is the government really committed to the concept of the NCC playing a pro-active role on behalf of the entire nation? If not, why not? If it is, when is it going to prove it?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission plays a very important role in the life of the community of Ottawa, being the nation's capital. With a budget of in excess of $96 million a year, I think any other city in the country would also be pleased to have such a forthright and progressive institution.
The fact that the cut-backs happen to be with regard to the residences of the Prime Minister and Rideau Hall do not affect the ongoing programming the NCC is carrying out.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister for Supply and Services does not support the National Capital Commission.
In 1986 cabinet approved an expanded mandate for the National Capital Commission with the key objective of, and I quote, "making the capital more representative of Canada and ensuring that it is perceived as such by all Canadians".
If this government is really committed to the National Capital Commission, why is the minister making it impossible for it to carry out its mandate? How can the minister seriously expect the NCC to maintain a nation's capital of which all Canadians can be proud?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. We are very much in support of the NCC and think that the chairman has been doing an excellent job.
However, it is obvious that the Liberals would sooner have a new roof on the Prime Minister's residence than get on with the new programming and the work carried out by the NCC.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have two questions of privilege to deal with.
On November 20, 1989 the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands raised a question of privilege related to certain pamphlets on the goods and services tax which a constituent of his had informed him were being distributed in a local grocery chain outlet.
In view of the Chair's ruling on October 10, 1989, the hon. member questioned the propriety of the distribution of the pamphlets. He suggested that this constituted a contempt of the House, pointing out that in the text of the pamphlets the presumption that the GST will be law by January 1991 is everywhere asserted with none of the appropriate references to the legislative process through which the GST must pass.

Later that day, the Minister of Finance rose on a point of order to explain that the pamphlete in question were part of the initial information package prepared by the Department last summer and distributed last August. The Minister assured the House that the distribution contracts for the dissemination of that material had been completed by October and that, subsequent to the Chair's ruling on the advertisements for the GST, steps had been taken to have all offending materials returned to the department.

The hon. member for Windsor West intervened to question whether the disputed material was still being distributed.

The Chair undertook to look further into the matter. I have now carefully considered the issue raised by the Honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands and the remarks made by the Honourable Minister of Finance. It appears that the point at issue is the timing of the removal of the pamphlets from public distribution.

The Chair is satisfied that the material in question was part of the summer advertising campaign and that given the intricacies of the nation-wide distribution of such material some time delays may have occurred in recovering material from that campaign. The minister has assured the House that the department had taken appropriate steps to have the material returned to it and has asked, in light of the complaint raised by the hon.
December 18, 1989

member for Kingston and the Islands, if members would bring such aberrant cases to his attention so that corrective action may be taken where required.
In light of this information the Chair is satisfied that the hon. member's complaint has been fairly and expeditiously dealt with and considers the matter settled. If hon. members have further information to bring to the Chair, the Chair of course will hear further applications.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Friday, October 20 by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell regarding proceedings in the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations the previous day. The hon. member had made the case that he had been convened to a meeting of the committee to discuss the specific subject matter, that during the course of the meeting a motion was moved relating to an entirely different subject, and that this constituted a breach of his privileges as a member.
He further argued that the committee notice of meeting is equivalent to the Order Paper of the House and that if a single item of business appears on the committee notice of meeting then only that item can be dealt with by the committee.
[Translation)
I have carefully considered the argument of the hon. member and the excellent points made by hon. members on both sides of the question. The Chair finds itself in some difficulty in addressing the specifics of the case made by the hon. member for Glengariy-Prescott- Russell. According to our traditions and practices, the Chair ought not to intervene with the proceedings of a committee unless a problem has been reported by the committee to the House or in extremely unusual circumstances. It is also clear that disputes arising from committee meetings ought to be dealt with in that committee and not raised on the floor of the House.I will therefore not comment on the specific incident in the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Chair is pleased, however, to comment on the larger questions which arose during the discussion of the hon.
Privilege
member's grievance, which relates to committees dealing with business other than that listed on the green sheet announcing the date, time and place of the meeting.

Although Standing Order 116 states in part that "in a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable," it is nonetheless a long-standing convention that notice is not required for any motion in committee.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition in Citation 571 reminds us that flexibility is the watchword in committee deliberations when it states:
Proceedings in the committees are more relaxed in nature than
those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the
chamber are not so strictly enforced when members sit in committee.
This difference in practices between the House and its committees is nowhere more evident than when dealing with motions in amendment to the clauses of a bill. Motions to amend a bill in committee require no notice whatsoever. In the House, on the other hand, the Standing Orders specifically require that 24-hour written notice be given for motions in amendment at report stage of a bill.

This being the case, and while some members may feel that it causes inconvenience and creates difficulties for the orderly pursuit of a committee's agenda, the Chair must rule that there is no procedural impediment to a committee's dealing with any matter within its mandate at any meeting of that committee regardless of the stated purpose or purposes of a particular meeting.
The Chair must also inform hon. members that it has been unable to find any procedural authority to support the position of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and other hon. members that the committee notice of meeting constitutes an Order Paper for the committee.
Should the House in its wisdom wish to alter this long-standing practice it can certainly do so, and there are several avenues open to achieve this end.

Time Allocation

I thank the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell for raising this most interesting issue.

I hope that this judgment has helped to clarify the matter for all hon. members.


POINT OF ORDER
Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period and in response to a question the Minister of Agriculture stated that I had misled the House.
This is very serious. I would like to point out that some of the figures I used came from the minister's own department. I would suspect that likely he was referring to the fact that I said as result of his government's policy farm income would drop by $2.6 billion in the coming year. The minister's own figures show that there will be a drop of $1.7 billion in expenditures of the Department of Agriculture for the coming year.
Therefore I would suggest to you, Sir, that the drop in his own expenditures is in effect as a result of government policy.
I would ask to have that remark withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to hear further argument.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who has another engagement at the present time. He is unable to be here to make any comment. We would ask him to respond at the earliest opportunity when he returns to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: We certainly will accommodate the minister and hear his response.
I want to point out to the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex that the word "mislead" is sometimes used on both sides of the House. It always gives me a certain concern because the question has to be whether the word is used in the sense that the minister or the
member is intentionally misleading the House. That is what I would have to determine.
The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex would know that that would be the question I would have to decide. I have some difficulty in sorting out the merits of an argument over various allegations of numbers and figures on both sides of the House. However I will hear the minister at an appropriate time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in relation to Bill C-28, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and, one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am not veiy happy to be speaking this afternoon on a motion to impose closure on a bill that deserves to be heard.
I sat in the House throughout this morning's debate just as you did, Madam Speaker, and I listened to argument after argument by opposition members. These opposition members were stating the obvious, that is this government has imposed closure and time allocation more times than any other government in the history of this country.
It is a sad state of affairs when the government has to impose its will on the people of Canada, rather than do the will of the people of Canada and carry out their wishes and needs. I sat here and listened to the various arguments that were being made. I was quite surprised that I did not hear a single word in response from members on the opposite side of the House.

All morning we debated this bill and the only words we heard from across the way were a very few short statements from the Minister of Justice who said they had to impose closure on the clawback legislation, Bill C-28.
We have no evidence whatsoever that members opposite have listened to a single thing that Canadians have said about this Bill-not in committee, not in debate here in the House of Commons, and certainly not from the people of Canada.
Just prior to that debate this morning I presented a petition from people in Big River, Saskatchewan. It is a smallish community in the northern part of my riding, The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, in north west Saskatchewan. Big River is on the eastern side of my constituency.
The seniors of that community sent me a petition that had been provided to them by One Voice, the seniors network. These people from this small community in the northern part of Saskatchewan were adding their names to those of other Canadians and seniors from right across this country who are telling this government that it cannot claw back the old age security pension, the family allowance program, or take money our of the pockets of seniors and do away with universality.
Did the government listen to those petitions? Did the government listen to the petitions that have been presented by the other members of this House who we have heard day after day after day in here? No, not at all.
I have been listening to the debate in this House. I have not heard much debate from the other side of the house. Obviously they must be listening if they are not speaking. However, if they are listening, why are they not doing what the people of Canada are suggesting to them?
It is like the other things that we have heard about in the last little while on the subject of interest rates. It was demonstrated quite clearly in the House today during Question Period. Is this government listening to the people of Canada, to the small business people of western Canada, to the farmers of Canada on the subject of interest rates? No, it is not listening to the people of Canada.
Has it listened to people on the subject of VIA Rail? Has it listened to the seniors from coast to coast who are
Time Allocation
using VIA Rail? Has it listened to the students who are using VIA Rail? Has it listened to the tourists who have travelled this country all summer long on VIA Rail proclaiming it to be not the best service but a good service for them as tourists coming to this country? Has it listened? No, it is not listening on Bill C-28. It is not listening on clawback or on universality. I think it is a shame and a sham that it is trying to impose this on us. I say that, the people of my constituency say that and certainly, as I indicated this morning with my petition, the people of Big River are saying that to this government.
There is total chaos in this bill. Certainly the process by which we have seen the matter handled through committee, the introduction of amendments, the whole mismanagement of this matter, tells me that rather than imposing closure on this bill and rushing it through the government should be doing everything in its power to withdraw the bill and start over again so that we can have good, unflawed legislation and a government that demonstrates that it can manage not only this piece of legislation but the economy.


An hon. Member:: And that it cares for Canadians.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: That is right. My colleague is absolutely right. It has mismanaged the economy and this piece of legislation, and we should have none of it.
I know that I do not have much time, but I just want to indicate something here about the bill. Bill C-28 is essentially a clawback on the old age security pension. This is being done by not fully indexing the program-an attack on universality.
I just want to put a couple of thoughts on record. Talking about universality, obviously the government has accomplished the withdrawal of universality by not fully indexing what it calls a trigger figure of $50,000. If inflation rises by 4.5 per cent next year, the trigger figure will rise by only 1.5 per cent. That means that over time through inflation more and more of us will be caught in this whole process.
Here are some examples concerning the old age security pension. Right now a 25-year old who makes $25,000 a year for the rest of his life will have part of his old age pension clawed back at retirement. Where is the $50,000 there?

Time Allocation
Here is another example. A 30-year old making $30,000 will have part of her OAS pension clawed back when she retires at the age of 65.
The same is true for 35-year olds making $35,000 a year, for 40-year olds making $40,000 a year, and for 45-year olds making $45,000 a year.
This is where the end of the universality program attacks a growing number of seniors in our society as time goes on. All told-and the government knows this, which is why it is not saying a dam word today-the clawback will catch about 128,000 Canadian pensioners in 1990. In 20 years from now that figure will rise to over one million Canadians. Where is this process of universality? Where are the government members standing up and saying: "Universality is a sacred right in this country"? We have on the old age security program more and more seniors coming under attack.
Is it any wonder that at national conferences across this country when seniors get together they talk about how this government is hitting them harder and harder with every single move that it makes? It is happening on this old age security program, on VIA Rail that transports them from one place to another, and on the GST which attacks almost everything that they buy and reduces their buying power.
I am appalled that this government wants to oppose closure and does not want to talk about the legislation here in order to give Canadians the opportunity to hear what we have to say. I am appalled that I have to stand here today and talk to them about this, but I know it is the only way that Canadians across the country will know exactly what those people across the way are thinking and doing, because obviously they are not interested in communicating that message themselves.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, once again I rise in this House to address the issue of closure. It seems that it is becoming such a habit with the government opposite that it appears to have embarked on a one-party quest to change the rules of the House of Commons.
I would say that this party, the Conservative party, was a party of parliamentary reform. When it came into office in 1984 the Conservatives said how much Parliament needed to be reformed. They had been in opposition for decades and had all kinds of ideas on how Parliament would be improved. They instituted a series of reforms that Your Honour knows about. We are now faced with a situation where instead of living up to the spirit of those reforms and following through with them they are going back to the old closure rules that they condemned so vigorously when they were in opposition and which they now use willy-nilly on almost every bill that comes along.
I see the hon. member for Macleod is grinning. He should be red-faced with shame at the constant use of closure that this government has embarked on in this House. I want to make some reference to this.
I think the record is a broken record, a dreadful record. This government has used closure in this Parliament already, and we have not yet been sitting for a full year from when we started last December. The government has used closure more than any other government in any other Parliament in Canadian history. Not by one or two times more; it is almost double the number of times. I think it is at 11 on closure, and that this is the second or third time we have had time allocation. That is not counting the fancy suspension of the standing orders we have had: one on the bill last week and one on the free trade bifl a year ago in December.
That is the kind of record that most governments would be terribly embarrassed about. Instead, this government goes on with its dictatorial ways trampling on the rights of Parliament right, left and centre.
I want to go through the history of its dealings on this particular bill. The bill was introduced following the budget and was given first reading on June 20 this year. It was called for second reading on October 11.1 would like to remind you, Madam Speaker, that the House adjourned on June 27 last summer and, at the request of the government, we did not meet again until September 25, a full two weeks later than the rules would normally have provided.
If the government were that concerned about getting this bill passed, surely it would not have allowed an extra two weeks of holidays, as they are called, for members of Parliament to be away from this place. Surely it would have called Parliament back promptly.


Mr. McDermid:: Holidays?
December 18, 1989


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I said so-called holidays. I know the Minister of State for Privatization works like a Trojan when he is not here, but the fact is that Parliament could have been recalled. We could have been here to deal with that issue. Instead government members chose to ignore the facts. They said: "We will wait. We will get Parliament back together and then after two or three days of debate we will close her down. We will stop members from debating this bill any more", because they are so embarrassed by its contents.
It was debated on October 11, October 17, October 18, and finally on November 20. Let us look at the days just to see. That sounds like a lot, four days on second reading of a bill. Let us look at the days. October 11 was a Wednesday. October 18 was a Wednesday. Those are the shortest possible days that you can discuss government business in Parliament. Yet those are two of days on the list of four which the government says that this bill has been debated.
On October 17 it was debated for a full normal Tuesday and then on November 20 they applied closure. We had a late night sitting to deal with the bill because of the application of the closure rule. We went on until 11.30 at night. We could have gone to 1; if the minister had been here to speak perhaps we would have.
The fact is that the debate ended and the minister did not participate, as I recall, on that particular evening. I regret that. I would have enjoyed a speech from him. Perhaps he will speak tomorrow. The fact is that the debate was closed off on November 20 and the matter went to a committee. It has come back to the House by report.
When was it debated at report stage? There were about, as I recall, seven amendments moved at report stage. It was debated for one hour on Friday morning from 11 until 12 and then the heavy-handed Minister of Justice walked into the House and slammed down a little time allocation motion on us.
The Minister of Justice was here this morning introducing his motion. It was one of those flippant happy speeches that the minister so likes to make, designed to charm the people in his riding but not designed to charm the opposition or anybody who has a responsible view of the duties of a government in Parliament.
Time Allocation
The duty of the government is to account in this House. I see the minister running from the door. The obligation of this particular bunch is to come in here and tell the House what is going on, to account and be responsible. Instead they say: "No, we do not want to discuss this bill. We will simply close off debate as soon as we can get an opportunity".
One hour at report stage and the government is in here moving a time allocation order. It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace. It says that we will have one more day.
Guess what is going to happen, Madam Speaker: One day on report stage. That will be on Tuesday. It will be a full day and then one day on third reading. It will be Wednesday, another short day; probably two and a half hours of debate maximum at third reading on this bill. That is what the government calls a full day of debate. That is what the government calls a responsible attitude to Parliament. That is what the government calls the spirit of parliamentary reform.
I see the Minister of Justice has appeared from behind the curtains. He should come and sit in this House and tell the House his views on this motion, instead of the flippant speech he gave this morning when he smirked and snickered his way through what could only be regarded as a travesty for the rights of parliamentarians to discuss an issue of great importance. This bill is one of the major bills coming out of the budget that was introduced, that leaked budget that the Minister of Finance had all across the television screens before he could introduce it in this House last spring.
This bill, as everyone knows, claws back pensions. It is a totally unfair package of tax increases for senior citizens. No other group in Canada is being discriminated against the way senior citizens are being discriminated against. The Minister of Justice, of all people, the representative of the sovereign as the fountain head of all justice in Canada, is in here applying closure and this kind of tactic to a bill that is designed to be unfair, to discriminate, to do everything that a bill should not do. The Minister of Justice is the one who is seen to countenance this kind of injustice toward the seniors in this country. No other group is being subjected to 100 per cent tax on their income or any portion of it and yet that is what this bill does for the seniors of Canada.

December 18, 1989
Time Allocation


John Horton McDermid: A "portion" of their income.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. minister of state for privatization is getting excited again. Certainly it is a portion of their income, but it is their old age security pension that is being attacked in this way.


John Horton McDermid: Got to keep you honest. The people from Kingston and the Islands are honest.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I agree with the hon. minister that people from Kingston and the Islands are honest. I do not disagree with him one bit on that statement. But the fact is that part of people's income is being taxed at 100 per cent. No other kind of income is treated in this way under the tax laws of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Part of my income is taxed 100 per cent, too.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Hon. members opposite are getting overwrought. The minister of state says part of his income is being taxed at over 100 per cent. I say to him, he does not have an Old Age Security pension and he is not getting taxed on that particular portion of his income.


Harvie Andre: Family allowance is taxed to death.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Family allowances, also. I am sorry, I forgot about his family allowance. Not being a family man, I am not concerned about the family allowance in the sense that I am unaware of my family allowance being taxed back. But I agree with the minister, he should be ashamed that that kind of income is being taxed in this way too. It is highly discriminatory. It is highly unfair and the minister knows that. He should oppose this bill.
Here we have the largest cabinet in history, 38 members of the cabinet sitting in this House. If there were any sense of democracy in that group, surely they would get together in the cabinet room and vote down this kind of bill. Surely they would say to the Minister of Finance that this breaches all sense of decency, of fairness, of equity, of propriety, and of justice, I say to the minister. Yet 38 of them did not manage to vote this down. Where is the sense of democracy in the treasury benches opposite? I ask the Minister of Justice, why did he not put to his colleagues the question of whether there would be time allocation on this bill this afternoon? Surely, if he had put that question to his colleagues they would have said: "No, Mr. Minister, we cannot have time
allocation on such an important and unfair measure", and surely the minister would then have agreed.
I ask the minister to stand up in the House in the minute remaining in this debate and withdraw his motion so we can proceed with detailed consideration of this bill as it requires.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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 nays 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.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Abitibi, on a point of order.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I abstained from voting on this motion because mining companies in my riding have a problem with Section 181 of this Bill.


Mr. White:: Madam Speaker, I was late arriving for the vote, but I would like it recorded that had I been here I would have voted with the government.
++NAYS



[Stage Direction]
Members
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Callbeck
Catterall
Crawford
Duhamel
Finestone
Flis
Fulton
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Kristiansen
MacAulay
MacLellan
Maheu
Marchi
McGuire
Milliken
Murphy
Nystrom
Parker
Prud'homme
Riis
Rompkey
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Taylor
Whittaker
Young (Gloucester) -72

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House for second reading Bill C-48, which is legislation amending the Crop Insurance Act.
This new legislation amending the Crop Insurance Act is crucial to protect Canadian farmers from economic losses due to uncontrollable natural hazards such as drought, hail, and waterfowl, and many other elements of weather that are uncontrollable by man. Without that protection farmers can face extreme financial hardships. Such risks and disasters are unacceptable for individual producers and our agricultural crop industry in general.

Government Orders
Although responsibility for crop insurance lies with each province, the federal government, through the Crop Insurance Act, provides mechanisms and support to ensure that the Canadian farmers can afford this protection. The federal act is enabling legislation that permits the transfer of federal funds to provincial programs that operate within the Federal-Provincial Crop Insurance Agreements. It is also very consistent with the agricultural policy review that this government has put into place, and the recent conference here in Ottawa last week entitled "Growing Together". It is all part of the safety net program that will be introduced. This is the first part of that program. We feel it is very important to have an affordable crop insurance that will give the producers of crops the protection that is necessary to carry on viable operations right across Canada. We hope with this legislation that provinces will provide the programs which are necessary for that to happen.
The legislation that the House is considering is designed to assist in the economic survival of our crop producers when confronted by natural disasters over which they have no control. We all are certainly aware of those disasters. It seems that they happen somewhere in Canada every year. The amendments proposed in this bill will provide the best insurance coverage at the lowest cost to the greatest number of farmers.
Originally passed in 1959, the Crop Insurance Act was a response to the concerns of both producers and governments about existing levels of crop loss protection. Until that year, crop insurance was really a permanent disaster relief program based on a 1 per cent levy on all grain sold or on ad hoc emergency funding at times of crisis. Although these programs did offer some security to the industry, farmers complained that payments were too small and that the program did not distinguish between those farmers with good yields and those with poor yields. In effect, efficient crop producers subsidized less efficient ones.
Ad hoc funding was less popular and producers could never be sure of how much they would be indemnified for losses. It was very difficult to do any financial planning with those types of programs. Governments and producers believed that the Crop Insurance Act was the answer. This act introduced stability into crop production by offering assistance to producers to cover insurance premiums.
Since its inception, the act has been amended several times. These amendments reflected the need to share
costs more equitably among the federal and provincial governments and producers to extend coverage to more crops and more farmers, and to reduce reliance on ad hoc assistance.
The time has come when we must again amend the act to reflect modern realities.
The new legislation adheres to sound actuarial practices. In keeping with the original intent of the act, Bill C-48 will lessen producers' reliance on ad hoc assistance. While providing producers with a flexible and a greater range of coverage, the amendments ensure that the crop insurance pays for itself in the long term.
We have conducted extensive consultations with the provincial ministers of agriculture and with provincial and national producer organizations. Based on these consultations, we are proposing four classes of amendments to the Crop Insurance Act in time for the 1990 crop year. It is very important that we have this legislation passed to give the provinces time for their enabling legislation and regulations to be passed to make sure that it is there for 1990. It is a must that that is in place.
First, one major area of change modifies the calculations used to determine how much producers are reimbursed. This amendment gives the provinces more flexibility in estimating the probably yields for insurance purposes. It raises the maximum coverage from its current level of 80 per cent to 90 per cent and ensures that the price paid for a lost crop is fair.
Second, we have provided a more equitable rate for sharing the cost of insurance premiums. Third, we have strengthened the act's regulations to present more clearly the criteria governing federal support for crop insurance. Finally, we have added special provisions to extend coverage to new and minor crops and to crops lost to waterfowl. That is a new provision totally.
Producers greatest concerns were with three key elements: probable yield, maximum coverage, and unit prices that are used to calculate compensation. All those things are very necessary. We have amended the act to bring compensation more in line with lost revenues.
Looking at the first element, the current act provides a method of predicting yield based on the simply historical average of a producer or a geographic area. Producers consider this method inflexible and often punitive. For instance, the act does not recognize increased productivity as a result of technological imprudence. We all know from the way farming and the production of crops have changed over the last number of years that all of those
December 18, 1989

things are very important and have to be recognized and considered, and this bill does look after that.
Producers were also concerned that major losses could significantly erode their yield guarantees. Many producers claim that basing yield exclusively on an historical average for a given area disproportionately of benefit to those with lower yields. The area-average approach does not accurately reflect an individual farmer's productivity. Based on sound actuarial principles, amendments in the new legislation offer new approaches to determine insurable yields. These approaches take into account whether producers acquire new technology and buffer producers' yield calculations from successive losses.
The second key area in determining how much a producer is indemnified is the maximum coverage. Many producers feel that the current level of 80 per cent is too low. This new legislation proposes to increase allowable coverage up to 90 per cent for lower risk crops and areas.
Controls have been added to ensure that this increased level of coverage will not be abused. Greater coverage must be statistically justified, thereby ensuring that low yield variability is the basis for higher limits.
The third key element in the compensation calculations is the value of each unit. Provinces will have the flexibility of basing unit prices on market value or on costs of production.
The second major amendment proposes a more equitable cost sharing arrangement. Under the current act, one formula allows provinces to pay all the administrative costs while the federal government and the producers jointly assume the relatively higher costs of the premiums.
The result of this formula has meant that the federal government pays, on average, 45 per cent of costs, the producers pay 45 per cent and the provinces pay 10 per cent. The legislation has been amended to eliminate this formula and in its place is a more balanced method to share costs.
Government Orders
The arrangement is provided for in the current act, although to date only Newfoundland and Quebec have adopted this approach. Under this arrangement, producers pay the same proportion they have paid since 1973. That is, 50 per cent of the premiums and nothing towards administration which means that they pay 45 per cent of the cost. The federal and provincial governments share the balance of premiums and all administrative costs. The two levels of government do that equally.
There have been many enhancements to the Crop Insurance Act, such as the increase of the federal level of funding over the last number of years to make the program more viable. On an annual basis there have been more federal dollars go into the crop insurance program than before. In the 1987-1988 crop year, for instance, it was $181.5 million; 1988-1989 it is estimated to be around $314; in 1990 it is going to cost approximately $233 million. Some of these changes and different figures are because of drought and greater participation in some parts of the country.
I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not a cost reduction exercise. The purpose of this change and amendments to the Crop Insurance Act is to make sure that we have a program that meets the needs of the producers of crops in Canada.
The third major class of amendment strengthens the crop insurance regulations. This is necessary because the regulations in the current act are vague and incomplete. Regulatory provisions have been rewritten to set out more clearly the basis for federal contributions in order to move to a more level playing field by basing federal contributions on a more consistent and sound footing.
The new legislation will clarify many of the vague sections of the current act by including a comprehensive list of subjects to be defined and detailed in the regulations.
Adding new special provisions is the fourth major class of amendment. Crop insurance has traditionally ensured commercially viable field grown crops. However, recognizing that it is in the best interests of producers and government to diversify agriculture production, we have amended the act to cover new and minor crops as well.
Another special provision compensates producers when their crops are damaged by migratory waterfowl. The current approach to compensation has been based on average crop insurance coverage not directly related to the amount or value of the actual crop lost. The

December 18, 1989
Government Orders
amendment proposes increasing compensation to 80 per cent of the value of crops damaged at no cost to the producer. This provision will give producers a reasonable return on their crops and at the same time it will support Canada's international commitment to protect North American migratory water fowl.
I think it is very important that we have lived up to two obligations here. We have assisted the producers who have experienced damage from waterfowl and migratory birds. Many of us with rural ridings can relate to that problem. In some areas there is always damage by waterfowl. Also I want to point out that this cost is bom equally by the federal and provincial governments with absolutely no cost to the producers. These four groups of amendments are improving the method for calculating compensation; providing a more equitable cost-sharing formula; strengthening the regulations; and adding provisions covering new and experimental crops and damage done by waterfowl. These are the major improvements to the Crop Insurance Act. But the new legislation also addresses other very important issues.
The current act has been criticized for not clearly specifying the responsibilities of the federal government and the provinces. Similarly, the conditions under which the federal government will fund provincial crop insurance plans are vague. This lack of clarity has led provinces to form different interpretations of what is permissible. This in turn has led to inconsistencies in the insurance program and varying levels and kinds of protection being offered.
Finally, sound administration is necessary to encourage more producers into the insurance program. Inadequate resources for administration generally results in increased premiums beyond what they should be and could put at risk the financial viability of crop insurance. The new act attempts to rectify this problem by requiring all major elements in the program to be outlined in regulations. We are giving provinces a clear idea of what will and what will not be eligible for federal contributions.
Crop reduction losses can result in financial fluctuations that are not in the long-term interests of either the agricultural industry or individual farmers. We have certainly experienced what has happened to our producers in this great country as a result of those fluctuations in prices and shortfalls that have occurred, particularly in the 1980s.
The ad hoc programs that were there were very unpredictable by nature and have made planning federal and provincial budgets extremely difficult. Producers have never been sure of how much support they could expect from one situation to the next. That has been part of the problem in agriculture. We know that the ad hoc programs have been very much supported by the producers but it is very difficult for any type of business, including farming, to establish a long-range plan when you are receiving ad hoc programs. Whether it be the borrower or the lender, it is very difficult to forecast the future and that is something that we have to do.
This is the first step we are taking to put that in place. It is one of the areas we are addressing. The financial element is a major component of this measure which we feel will assist in long-term planning for the agricultural sector and we look forward to the other measures that will complement this.
A more sound approach for protecting farmers against production losses is multi-peril crop insurance. Through Bill C-48 the federal government will ensure that crop producers can get the protection of crop insurance they need. We are amending the Crop Insurance Act to make it more responsive to the concerns of the provinces and producers.
As we approach adjournment at the end of the season, we would certainly hope that we could give consideration veiy rapidly to this bill at second reading and send it to committee so that it would be able to work on this legislation as soon as the House resumes in the new year.
I know that the producers of this country are anxious to have this legislation in place, to work with the provinces and have the protection and assurances that we need for the 1990 crop year. I think that will give the producers of this country a lot more confidence in planning for their future.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on the crop insurance bill. I have to concur with the parliamentary secretary that the producers want this legislation in place, but not in this form.
December 18, 1989

The producer organizations asked for a tripartite approach in this legislation whereby they would pay one-third of the premiums, the federal government would pay one-third and the provinces would each pay a third. Consequently, it would be a saving in outlay not only to the producers at a time when farm incomes are going to be down dramatically next year but also a saving to the federal government.
As it stands now the producers pay 50 per cent of the premiums, the federal government pays 50 per cent and it is administered by the provinces. That is why they are referred to as the Canada-Ontario, or Canada-Saskatch-ewan, or Canada-Alberta crop insurance program.
It is really enabling legislation that is implemented by the provincial crop insurance commission and, of course, these have to vary somewhat from province to province, depending on the crop being insured and the crop being grown.
The coverage under this bill would improve from 80 per cent to 90 per cent of probable yield for some crops. This is an improvement in this legislation, if it is an improvement. However, I have to point out that if a farmer was insuring for 90 per cent coverage in a field of corn, the premium would go up from $5.71 per acre up to $10 per acre. The premiums would almost double for the additional 10 per cent coverage.
In the many years I have been farming, only once have I ever been able to collect on crop insurance, and that was on some new seeding that would have been clover and legumes which smothered under the ice cover. But for those farmers in the drought-prone areas of Canada, particularly the prairies and other areas where we have frost damage and frost risk, it is essential that we have good sound legislation for them.
It is in this context that I and producers across Canada believe that at a time when many farmers are facing financial difficulties it is wrong to have the federal government cut back on its expenditures in this program. Even though it said it will not be spending less, the budget from last April indicated it would save $2 million over two years.
Consequently we feel that we should re-examine this bill and give the farmers a break in the premiums they pay as well as a saving to the federal government by reducing the premiums from 50 per cent for each of the
Government Orders
farmers and the federal government down to 33.3 per cent.
The farmers across the country want this tripartite sharing and I think it would be a very solid improvement to a program that has served the farmers of Canada very well in the past.
We have tripartite stabilization payments for pork producers and beef, with the producers paying 33 per cent, the provinces paying 33 per cent, and the federal government paying 33 per cent of the cost. Why not the same for crop insurance? The precedent has already been established. I believe that we should be following through in that context.
We are sharing the risk. After all, the producer has no control over weather, nor does the government either at the federal or provincial level, although some would like to claim they do. Because we are dealing with mother nature and the elements I think we should look for a tripartite sharing of the cost.
I should point out that with the higher premiums which will be required, the farmers will take less coverage and there will be a continuing demand for ad hoc programs such as the Special Grains Program, or the drought and flood relief programs we have had in the past five years.
Therefore, I would suggest that we should re-examine this bill and I would ask the government to think very seriously about changing that to a straight one-third, one-third, and one-third arrangement.
This legislation has served the producers of Canada very well for a number of years. But it is on a voluntary basis and the all-risk insurance provides, and most of the provinces demand, that all acres in crop be insured. I would have preferred to be able to insure individual farms if that was possible, and I would like the government to look at this as well, because you do not insure all of a person's buildings and then only give a partial payment if only one burns down. You only pay on the individual buildings.
I think we should consider crop insurance in the same way because within a few miles there can be different levels of rainfall or a low lying area that is prone to frost damage in the fall of the year. Therefore, there are areas where there is higher risk than in others. Unlike fire insurance where the insurance is on individual farms or individual buildings, crop insurance covers the whole property. I think that is something we should be looking at in the future to see if that can be accomplished. Again,

Government Orders
by going with the one-third, one-third, and one-third sharing, the risk would be spread to everybody.
The 90 per cent provision would increase coverage to a maximum of 90 per cent of the probable yield in the area with respect to any farm. The increased coverage would be optional, and not all crops would be subject to the increased coverage. It would be only the low risk crops, and Ontario com would be one that would fit into that group.
The current act offers production guarantees reflecting the long-term average. The new amendment would base coverage on a probable or expected yield process. This would permit adjustment for exceptionally high or low occurrences while accounting for productivity increases due to technological advance or management skill improvements. For example, the new probable yield would be based on a 10-year trend line as opposed to the 20 to 30-year average.
If the government had accepted the recommendations of the farmers for a tripartite sharing of the costs, I personally could support this bill. The original act has served us well for a lot of years, but it is time for a change. Unless the government does bring in some amendments like that, either at second reading or at committee, then I will have to go against this particular bill.
I look back a few years to the task force report entitled "Economic Growth-A Study Team Report". It was the task force on program review on agriculture. This report is dated February, 1985 and is referred to as the Nielsen task force.
When one looks at some of the recommendations one sees that it certainly has laid out the direction that this government has taken in agriculture over the last several years. One of the things that shocked me was that in this report there were several pages of acknowledgements of people who contributed to this report, including various assistant deputy ministers, department people, a lot of organizations, a lot of individuals, many of whom are academics.
I could only find the names of two farmers. One of these farmers is from Buffalo, Alberta, and the other is the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. These were the only two farmers who were consulted,
according to this task force report. I think that is despicable because it is the livelihood of farmers that is at stake. There are literally thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan who are going to be forced off their land this winter through no fault of their own. They had no input into this document that has obviously set the program and the policy of this government.
This policy has resulted in a forecast loss of income for the coming year. I believe it was in The Globe and Mail on December 8, where the minister himself stated that one of the biggest factors in the loss of income to farmers in the coming year was the fact that the program expenditures of Agriculture Canada were cut back dramatically.
There were recommendations in the task force report regarding the At and East legislation. It says it does not serve as a vital link in Canadian grain trade. I would have to suggest that the At and East program is a very vital program that provides western Canadian grain to the mills and the ports in Atlantic Canada. There is a bill before the House at the present time, I believe, to dismantle that program. That was one of those identified in the budget last year. It was going to be discontinued. That, of course, is in this task force report.
The crop insurance is touched on here as well in this Neilsen task force report. It makes recommendations suggesting that producers should pay more of the cost. That is one of the options that is suggested. It also suggests that the federal government pay 30 per cent of the actuarial cost. That is the one I am hoping the federal government will look at and increase not just to 30 per cent from the 25 per cent proposed in this bill but up to 33-1/3 per cent.
This task force report also talks about privatizing the Farm Credit Corporation. It talks about eliminating the Consolidated Revenue Fund borrowings and privatizing this institution which has provided money to the farmers over many years. It served very well until it became so harsh and unrelenting on those in arrears in those last three or four years. Policies are forcing farmers off the land through no fault of their own, policies that are not acceptable to the economic conditions of agriculture in Canada today.

Just recently we debated Bill C-36, the Advance Payments for Crops Act to eliminate the subsidy for interest payment under those crops and the interest free part of the prairie advance payments was also eliminated under Bill C-36. That is here in the Nielsen task force report. This plan has been in place for a long, long time. I cannot understand for the life of me why in the world the government did not make this available and talk about this a little over a year ago during the federal election campaign.
Little did the farmers know what was in store for them. The fuel tax rebates as well are being hit hard under this last budget. Then, of course, the national marketing boards and the Marketing Agencies Act are being hit. One of the clinchers is to eliminate the present structure by eliminating all daily subsidies and putting them under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
I think that we should be looking at all of this in context and just wondering what is going to be cut next. We do not have much left in the list here, just the privatization of the Farm Credit Corporation and then, of course, the dairy. Why did they not tell the farmers who were here on Parliament Hill protesting on November 22 what they were really intending to do?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is an embarrassment.


Ralph Ferguson: It is a tremendous embarrassment, but I think the farmers have a right to know. It is little condolence to the thousands of farmers who are not able to afford Christmas this winter.
I cannot get over the fact that of all the people who were consulted in the formation of this report, as I indicated earlier, there were only two farmers. Literally dozens of people from other sectors of the economy, the food processing industry, from various departments, from the National Farm Products Marketing Council, consumers associations, banking institutions and associations were advising the government on how to set the policies for agriculture. They were the ones who convinced the government that it should cut back on all these programs that have provided a safety net to agriculture in Canada for many years.
I cannot accept the fact that there are so many food processors who are finding themselves behind the financial eight ball in view of the free trade agreement that was brought in January 1. Twenty-two further processing companies have either gone out of business or have
Government Orders
announced that they will be cutting back and going out of business, three within the last month.
Somehow the government has the feeling that if it can do away with the marketing boards and allow these processors to buy the food at a lower cost, everything will be okay. That is not the case because if we look at the amount of wheat that is in a loaf of bread, the cost of that wheat is 14 cents. The cost of wheat in a box of cereal is 11 cents. The box of cereal sells for over $3. There are three cents worth of wheat in a box of cookies.
A neighbour told me just a few days ago that if we gave them the wheat for nothing, they still could not compete because of what is happening to the food processing industry in Canada at the present time and the pressures brought to bear under the free trade agreement.
We talk about the system in the country to the south of us. We look at what they did in daily a few years ago when they slaughtered a million cows. A million cows passed through those golden arches and were converted into hamburger. Yet the milk production actually rose during that period.
Then all of a sudden something happened. The returns were so low in the dairy industry in the United States in the last few months, 1 per cent of the producers have been leaving the industry each month. There is a shortage of milk in several states in the United States. These shortages are impacting on the processed cheese industry.
There are shortages in Michigan, in the area north and west of Lansing. If you want to buy milk on a weekend, you have to get it before three o'clock in the afternoon or you do not get any. There is just not enough to go around.
By comparison, here in Canada we have had systems that have served the producers very well over the years. They planned production to our needs within Canada and the potential export markets that we have. It is a system that has given a stable income to the producers and a return on management, risk and labour, the same as any other sector which society has to have if it is going to operate efficiently. We see in this task force report where they are going to eliminate all dairy subsidies and

December 18, 1989
Government Orders
put the industry under the jurisdiction of the Farm Products Marketing Agency Act.
I was very shocked a little over a week ago by a speech made to the United States Senate Agriculture Committee. The Secretary of Agriculture in the United States indicated that he was going to write the agriculture policy not only for the European common market and his own country but for Canada, Australia, Argentina and Brazil.
I have to wonder if between this task force report, which had very little farm input, and the statement by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, that is why we are seeing all of these bills coming forward in this session of Parliament, bills that will tear down those structures which have served this industry so well for so many years.
It is not hard to tear things down, but it takes a lot of imagination, foresight and determination to build them back up again or to establish them in the first place. It is for this reason that I think this government should have thought a little longer and a little harder about the changes here in Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
If we are truly partners in this country, if we are partners of Confederation, I think it should be done in a manner that involves both levels of government and the producers in an equal way. We all have responsibilities to ensure that there are adequate supplies of high quality Canadian grown food available for our consumers. We also have a responsibility to make sure that we not only have these supplies of food, but that there is a continuing supply and that the infrastructure is in place for farmers five or ten years from now to make their way into the industry and to continue that supply based on the concept of the family farm operation.
Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith, who was born in Elgin County, Ontario, and attended the University of Guelph, pointed out to us in October when he was in Glencoe in my riding that the family farm is the most reliable form of food production and probably the most efficient that we have in the world today. It is part of our economy and part of our social fabric, and to allow this to be undermined and destroyed is not acceptable, particularly here in Canada.
I want to say that I hope the government will reconsider what it has here in this legislation. I am pleased to see that it has gone ahead with the increased coverage up to 90 per cent. To allow the government to cut back on its share of the premium from 50 per cent to 25 per cent is definitely not acceptable.
The provinces have increased their share from strictly administration costs up to a level of 25 per cent. I think the federal government should help the producers roll back their input costs at a time when they are facing such financial hardship.
The input costs to the farmers have not decreased. In fact, they have actually increased in spite of the fact the world grain prices dropped dramatically in the summer and fall of 1984. They dropped dramatically in Canada and in some other countries, not through any fault of the producers themselves, but through the fault of governments that failed to respond to world conditions.
There are no big surpluses of grain, no unmanageable surpluses of grain. Because trade has fallen into fewer and fewer hands and the element of greed has made those corporations look for larger and larger profits, the farmer has been at the low end of the totem pole.
In conclusion, I simply ask the government to abandon this Nielsen task force report on agriculture, to stop and listen to what the producers of Canada are saying and to make the amendment to this bill that is acceptable to the farm organizations that contacted us over the last summer.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, things are not great in the agricultural industry these days. The position taken by the government on most issues, many of which were just mentioned by the member for Lambton-Middlesex, have not increased the confidence of residents of rural Canada that they are going to get anything better in the future.
Farming is an integral part of rural Canada, but the feeling of being abandoned by the government, by society to a great extent, extends from one coast to the other and through all kinds of rural communities. Regardless of what part of the country you visit, if you go to small town rural Canada, you will find a feeling of being abandoned. As Newfoundlander Gerald Smith from Port au Port put it, people in decision-making circles in this

country are completely out of touch with rural Canada, or maybe they just don't give a damn.
That feeling is common across the country. Both the federal and provincial governments have made a commitment in the last year or two to reduce subsidies. This is especially disturbing to farmers in places like Saskatchewan where the combination of drought and low prices have been devastating and have pushed the return from agriculture to the lowest it has been since 1933. In fact this year, for the first time since 1933, the return from agriculture will not be enough to pay the bills. The actual income from agriculture this year will be negative in Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan has lost 20,000 farmers in the last two decades. That amounts to 1,000 farmers a year or almost three per day for 20 years. At present, Saskatchewan is losing one resident every 20 minutes. More than 200 people are leaving Saskatchewan per day. The cities in Saskatchewan are not getting any smaller. We have to assume then that those 200 people who are leaving Saskatchewan every day are leaving from rural and small-town Saskatchewan. They are leaving because they feel abandoned by society, by the federal and the provincial governments.
Cities like Saskatoon are not able to take up the slack within those areas. Saskatoon, which is a medium-sized city, has the second highest unemployment rate in Canada, following only St. John's, Newfoundland. The drain in population in Saskatchewan is from rural and small-town Saskatchewan. Of the 17,000 people who left Saskatchewan for the first nine months of the last year that we have statistics on, 7,000 were in their early twenties. As the former member from Nipawin who was previously in this House stated, Saskatchewan exports its youth better than it exports its wheat.
Bill C-48 is part of the government's move to reduce the costs to the government in agriculture across Canada. It is very doubtful that this bill is going to do much to improve farm viability or to reduce the exodus of population from rural communities. All it will do is reduce the cost of the crop insurance program to the federal government.
That reduction of cost to the federal government seems to be the only driving priority for the government's changes in agricultural policy over the last few
Government Orders
years. It is the only driving priority for changes in legislation, for changes in program and changes in regulation.
The paper entitled Growing Together is a discussion paper on farm policy. It covers a number of areas for discussion. Those areas are market development, farm finances, safety nets, supply management, transportation, food safety and sustainability. On the surface it would appear that this is a relatively worth-while approach to be taking and, except in a couple of minor areas, the theme of the discussions which are outlined in the paper Growing Together is how the government can cut down its involvement and costs in agriculture.
How can this improve the viability of the family farm? How can the government reduce these agricultural costs? Well, it has been doing very well in the last few years. It has been doing very well indeed. I can list just a few.
Last week we passed a bill which provided for amendments to the Advance Payments Act. It was a move in the direction of reducing costs of this government for agriculture. It saved the government a considerable amount of money, $24 million.
Second, over the last few years the cost of inspections in meat, seeds and almost all areas of agriculture has been moved from the government to the farmer. This has created a saving to the government and an increase in cost for the farmer. It is another move to reduce the expense of assistance to agriculture by this government.
There is the commercialization of the Farm Credit Corporation. At the moment, a considerable amount of money is going out of that, but the aim of that particular move is exactly the same. At some time in the future, the government intends to have the Farm Credit Corporation not costing it a thing. Again, there will be a saving to this government by the removal of assistance to agriculture.
Reduction of the industrial milk crisis sounds like a very easy and straightforward way to go, but what it does do is reduce the subsidies that were given by this government to the dairy industry and reduce the income of dairy farmers in the country. Again, this provided for a saving to the government and a reduction to the income of farmers.

December 18, 1989
Government Orders
I can go a long way back. We do not have to blame the present government entirely because we have the loss of the Crow rate, a considerable saving to the government but an increase in costs to farmers. We have increased freight rates which a few years ago were kept at a certain level at an expense to the government. This is no longer going to be kept in place. Again, there is a saving to the government and an extra cost to the farmers. The elimination of the fuel rebate provided for a saving to the government and an extra cost to the farmers.
The GST that is being planned is going to increase the cost of production to the fanners and add nothing to their incomes. In fact, if the GST is charged on products of the farm, it is likely that that GST will be higher than the cost of the farm product going in for sale.
We are here to talk about Bill C-48 dealing with crop insurance. This bill also has as its main reason for being an attempt to reduce the costs to the government. In this case I have to say the costs are not being passed on to the farmer, they are being passed on to the provincial government, but they will probably end up coming out of the pockets of the farmers anyway. As far as the farmer is concerned, there is really no appreciable improvement.
The amendments to the Crop Insurance Act will save the government money from crop insurance in most cases because it will only be paying 25 per cent while before it had paid approximately 45 per cent. I want to quote from Farm and Country an article by Tom Button. He states, and it is pretty much the viewpoint of much of the farming community at this time:
If you couldn't afford crop insurance in 1989, don't expect to be able to pay the premiums in 1990.
If you could afford it, but found it so tilted against you that you could almost never expect a pay out, don't expect any improvement.
After four years of crop insurance debate, farm leaders have finally seen exactly how Ottawa and Queen's Park intend to reform the country's crop insurance plans.
They're shaking their heads in disbelief and disappointment.
That is a quote from Farm and Country about the changes in the plan in Ontario. In the west, Mr. Speaker, where you and I come from, it is not going to be that much better, although there is a much larger use of
insurance in the west than there has been in most of eastern Canada.
We have to recognize that there have been problems with the crop insurance program and those problems are the reason that the government should be moving in that particular area. Most of the problems that were there before are being dealt with in some method in this bill and a lot of that is worth while. But if this bill was intended to improve the lot of farmers, to make family farms more viable, then the government missed the target.
The quote that I just read indicates that the changes are not contributing to the viability of the family farm particularly. The process of change, I guess, is laudable in that a paper was put out for discussion, there was consultation between producer groups and the government, then there was more consultation. The consultation brought in 64 briefs that the government looked at but there was no feedback from those consultations. None of those producer groups were contacted to be asked why they wanted to do what they wanted to do and were not told why the government rejected the proposals.
The final changes in the act were brought forward by the federal and the provincial governments in an agreement in Prince Albert a year ago. That is the basis of the legislation in the House and I think it is one of the weaknesses of our legislative process because quite often the legislation could be improved if the consultation took place after the decision that the government had made to go ahead was already in place.
What does the bill do? It changes the basis of the yields on which you can be paid which is basically a good idea. It increases the maximum coverage to 90 per cent. That is something that the farmers asked for. The result is pretty much an illusion because what it suggests is that you can buy 90 per cent insurance coverage, but according to the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, the act will be changed to allow optional insurance coverage at 90 per cent of farm average yields but a restrictive formula would be put in place so that many Ontario crops would not receive 90 per cent coverage.
Farmers have asked for premium levels to be determined for each crop at the 90 per cent coverage level with farmers having the flexibility to determine whether
December 18, 1989

such rates are affordable. Since coverage levels are now at 80 per cent, improvements in many crops will be either marginal or non-existent under the proposed formula.
In other words, he is saying that the process by which the government has done this and the formula which the government will use mean that the return for the farmer will not be improved at all under this particular act. The formula is a complex one and will not particularly help in increasing the pay-outs to farmers in cases of disaster.
The farmers also asked for extended coverage. I have to say that that is good if it works. I want to talk about how it is going to work a little later.
There is a clause in this bill which suggests that water fowl damage will be paid for. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture made the statement that another special provision compensates producers more fairly for crops lost to protect migratory water fowl. Producers would receive 80 per cent of the value of lost crops. This compensation is cost shared equally between the two levels of government and producers do not pay any premiums.
That is all very nice, except that it is not in the bill. This statement was made by the parliamentary secretary, but all the bill says is that the federal government will share with the provincial governments whatever the provincial governments will share. There is no guarantee in this bill that the provincial government will pay anything. That needs to be looked at very closely in committee before this bill is moved on.
There is a cost sharing concern. Farmers believe that the cost sharing should be improved. They were paying 50 per cent, the federal government was paying 50 per cent, and the provincial governments were paying administration. I did not see too many of the 64 briefs that were presented, but the ones I did see all recognized that there needed to be a change in cost sharing and the logical change was the tripartite system which has been developed and put in place in most of the stabilization programs that we have been working on in the last few years.
We have established that as a basis, but if we had gone to the tripartite system the federal government would have had to pay a little more and, as I said before, the aim of this bill was to reduce the amount of money that the government would have to pay. Instead of a tripartite
Government Orders
system we have a system which actually increases the amount that the farmer will have to pay. He paid 45 per cent before. Now he is to pay 50 per cent of the total bill.
Much of the legislation that we pass in this House depends on regulations. It works only if the regulations are properly put in place and are aimed properly for allowing the bill to work. The parliamentary secretary suggested that these regulations were already in place and that we could look at them, but they are not. They are not necessarily available and will not be available when we take this to committee.
In committee we will want to know very specifically what those regulations are intended to do and whether or not they are going to improve the situation and allow the farmer's situation to be improved. The people who work on those regulations should be farmers, not the bureaucrats whose aim is to have the bill work smoothly and not to allow farmers to have a little better deal in the pay-outs from the insurance plan.
As I said before, these changes were started to get rid of the ad hoc programs. Again I want to quote from Tom Button's article in Farm and Country. He makes this statement:
Ottawa started its crop insurance review by saying that if crop insurance were more affordable and flexible it could stop making emergency ad hoc programs such as the recent $850 million drought relief bail-out.
"Farm groups supported that goal", LeDrew says.
LeDrew is the manager of the Ontario Com Producers Association. The article goes on to say:
"But what Ottawa is doing doesn't coincide with what it is saying," he asserts. "Crop insurance isn't going to be significantly more affordable or flexible".
George, who is the vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, adds this:
"If we get hit with another drought, Ottawa will argue that the crop insurance reforms let it off the hook". He predicts: "In truth, crop insurance really hasn't been reformed, and I am afraid we are going to have a real fight on our hands."
The government has dealt with the shortcomings of the Crop Insurance Act but in the process has reduced the security on which farmers depended in that act. I could talk about the ups and downs and the values and the shortcomings of the act. Those have been dealt with to a great extent, but the net result is something which is difficult for the farmers to understand and to deal with if

Government Orders
the aim of this act were to improve the viability of family farms.
We are in the process of studying all phases of agriculture. In this process we are setting up a number of task forces that are supposed to deal with each of the phases of agriculture. One of the first things that we want to be sure of is that the same thing does not happen in further so-called improvements, that the direction taken by the task force is to improve the viability of the family farm, the viability of agriculture; the viability of the production part of agriculture.
It scares me that this particular paper is called "The Agricultural and the Food Industry". The food industry is not doing badly in many areas, but if there are no farmers on those task forces we are going to end up with another bureaucratic direction which will not increase the possibility of farmers staying on the farm.
Right now in Saskatchewan there are 10,000 farmers who have been served foreclosure notices. A good number of those farmers will be losing part of their land or machinery. The discussion paper which is supposed to cover all of this does not even mention how we are going to keep those farmers on the farm, how we are going to deal with the $23 billion of debt which they carry.
As I started out saying, Saskatchewan, with 110 per cent reduction in income this year, is not in a position to pay more money for crop insurance. Consequently, although we agree with'the direction of the bill and will support this in principle, we feel that we must very strongly discuss the shortcomings of it when we take it to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government Whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given our experience today, I think it might be a good idea for the console to be manned when the bells are ringing because the House does on occasion defer votes and so on. It would be helpful if it were to be manned at all times, even when bells are ringing.
There have been some consultations, Madam Speaker, and I think you would find unanimous consent for the House to suspend briefly to allow consultations to take place between now and the normal hour of adjournment. I suspect that that suspension may be for only five minutes and then we might be ready to proceed with the next order.


Mr. Boudria:: Madam Speaker, there have been such discussions. I just want to point out that it is our understanding that this brief adjournment would not extend beyond the normal hour of termination of our sitting; in other words, this is not open ended.
If at six o'clock there has not been a conclusion to these negotiations, then of course the House would adjourn at six o'clock. With that proviso we are prepared to give that consent.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is my understanding as well.
December 18, 1989


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Accordingly the House will suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.17 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.28 p.m.

Harvie Andre: that Bill C-44, an Act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, today is a great opportunity for us to be able to debate Bill C-44 and likewise Bill C-45 which bills represent important stepping stones along the road to a vibrant energy future for Canadians. They give the go-ahead to the development of two of this country's largest and richest energy resources.
Three hundred and fifteen kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland, under 80 metres of water, lies one of the largest deposits of oil to be discovered in this decade anywhere in the world. In all, we estimate that 650 million barrels of oil await recovery under the Hibernia site.
Almost a continent away, in northern Alberta, beneath the earth's surface lie the oil-soaked sands containing one and one-half times the recoverable light crude oil in all of Saudi Arabia-350 billion barrels of oil or 600 times the amount that Canadians consume each year.
Canada has benefited significantly from a thriving oil and gas industry. Today, one out of every seven dollars
Government Orders
invested in the Canadian economy goes to the oil and gas sector. To a considerable extent this reflects the importance of the industry in our economy-including refining and petrochemicals, it accounts for about 12 per cent of our gross domestic product. Net energy exports have significantly improved our balance of payments in recent years, reaching about $7.5 billion in 1988.
Even though their economies are diversifying, our western producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan rely heavily on the petroleum sector for employment and economic growth.
This government has placed special emphasis on maintaining a strong and active domestic oil and gas industry. We have moved to a more market-oriented energy policy while remaining sensitive to the industry's special needs. When oil prices collapsed in 1986 we also acted quickly to assist the industry. The petroleum industry is so vitally important to Canada, we must ensure that its viability is maintained well into the future.
The government's investments in the OSLO and Hibernia projects are of vital importance to our future oil and gas industry. We are close to peak levels of production from the western sedimentary basin. These fields are forecast to decline in productive capacity.
If this industry is to continue to grow and prosper as we approach the 21st century, Canada must increase its investment in the non-conventional, higher cost deposits in Alberta and off the coast of Newfoundland.
Granted, there are risks involved. These projects will take nearly a decade before peak production levels are reached. Long lead times make it very difficult for the private sector to proceed on its own. Without public support, these projects will stay on the shelf. Our critics would have us pull out of these investments, to hold back, to wait for another day. "The projects are uneconomic," they say, "oil prices are too unstable".
The critics are too quick to judge. This government will not support investments in our higher cost oil reserves unless it makes economic sense to do so. The investment of public funds in both the OSLO and the Hibernia developments is not only wise planning, but it is economically sound.
Let us first speak of the Hibernia project development. The Government of Canada and private companies have already spent millions of dollars testing the

Government Orders
deposit off the coast of Newfoundland and determining how best to extract it.
There are formidable obstacles to be overcome. The waters of the North Atlantic are among the most hostile in the world. Icebergs and storms are an ever-present danger to workers and equipment. Recovery platforms must be located far from shore making them difficult to service. Compounding these hardships is the lack of an existing infrastructure in Newfoundland to support and service this type of an enormous offshore operation.
The Government of Canada has struck a long-term deal which will prove to be a sound investment for Canada. It is true that we are taking a substantial share of the risk in this project, but we will also reap our share of rewards when the returns begin to come in. There is a genuine sharing of these risks-the project's corporate sponsors are carrying their fair share of the load.
The federal government has offered two principal, special incentives-a loan guarantee and a cash contribution. In exchange we will earn a net profits interest as well as normal tax revenues. The province of Newfoundland has complemented these incentives with some adjustments to its royalty regime-principally to make it more profit sensitive.
Our loan guarantee, which amounts to about $1.7 billion, is a key element of the deal. It involves no cash requirement for the government-and its terms give a high level of confidence that our contingent liability will never be called.
The guaranteed debt will be repaid fully at real oil prices above $15 U.S. a barrel. Currently, the price of oil is about $20 U.S. a barrel. This provides a powerful financial leverage to the project with relatively low risk to the government.
Moreover, the government of Canada will contribute $1.04 billion, or roughly 20 per cent of the project pre-production cost in cash. This adds real value to the project. This component is large in absolute terms, but less so in relation to the $20 billion cost over the life of the project.
More important, the federal government sees its cash contribution as part of the total government investment in the project. Even if the prices were to remain at the current real levels, the government could be expected to fully recover all investment-not only our cash incentives, but any incentives delivered through the tax system-in this project and earn a small return.
The government will earn a major share of the upside. Governments' net real revenues from Hibernia will be more than $3 billion if real oil prices average $25 U.S. over the life of the project, from 1996 to 2010. While we all know that oil price forecasts are not infallible, petroleum companies are making long-term decisions based on modest real price projections.
These positive results do not include the considerable external economic benefits that will accrue to the province of Newfoundland and to the rest of Canada. These benefits will indeed be substantial in terms of jobs, spin-off economic benefits, and lower unemployment insurance payouts. In fact, every dollar spent on this project will yield several dollars in primary and secondary benefits to Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders.
Over the life of this project $11 billion in expenditures will pass into the province's economy, as companies drill, operate equipment, and bring the oil from the Hibernia wells onshore.
But the benefits will not stop at the Newfoundland border. About 50 per cent of Hibernia's $5.2 billion development costs will be spent in Canada, with over one-half of the jobs going to Canadians, mainly to N ewfoundlanders.
In all, 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the project will be "Made in Canada". Hibernia will have a higher percentage of domestic content than was enjoyed by the British or the Norwegians when they began extracting oil from their North Sea regions.
Without a doubt, Hibernia will be a truly Canadian venture. The main platform to be built for the field-the gravity base structure-will be a massive, reinforced-concrete structure that will extend above sea level to provide a stable base for drilling and production operations. The oil will actually be treated out at sea in facilities built atop this giant platform, and will then be moved to market via ice-strengthened tankers.
The GBS, which will require almost half a million tonnes of high-quality concrete and cables to build, will be able to store 1.45 million barrels of oil. It will be built to stand up against the worst that the North Atlantic has to offer, and it will be built in Canada. It will offer

producers a decided advantage and help offset the difficulties of operating so far out at sea.
Canadians will learn from Hibernia. We will develop our skills, out on the rig 300 kilometres off our coast. We will become experts in offshore oil recovery. That expertise will constitute an invaluable commodity to be marketed around the world.
Environmental reviews of the project have been completed. The Governments of Canada and Newfoundland have held extensive public reviews. We have studied the briefs and concentrated on the concerned parties. The decision of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, issued in June, 1986, was that the project would proceed once the 50 recommendations of the environmental assessment panel were adequately addressed.
Let me remind hon. members that the project must be regarded in the long term. It will span some 20 years, beginning most probably in 1996, and will produce from 110,000 to 150,000 barrels of oil per day.
This is a sound investment, especially in view of the taxes, royalties and profits that we expect to recover for Canada and for Newfoundland. There are no special tax incentives for companies operating in the Hibernia field. All the activities will be carried out within the existing tax system. All financial arrangements are visible and above board.
Bill C-44 and the introduction of this bill today indicate to Canadians how important the future of Hibernia is for Newfoundlanders and for people on the east coast. It has been a great honour for me to speak on behalf of the minister who will be speaking on both Bills C-44 and C-45.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, it is certainly with pleasure that I have the opportunity today to address the House on Bill C-44 at this most important stage of the bill, second reading.
Bill C-44 is an Act respecting the Hibernia development project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto. The principle of the bill is to grant the government the authority to enter into an agreement with the
Government Orders
other parties involved in the now well-known Hibernia development project.
Nine years have passed since Chevron, on a farm-out well from Mobil Canada Limited and its partners, discovered the Hibernia oilfield approximately 315 kilometres east of St. John's, Newfoundland. After its initial discovery, tests subsequently confirmed oil reserves of more than 500 million barrels in a 20,000-acre area. This is one of the largest offshore oilfields in the world.
The Hibernia development project has experienced nothing but delays since its initial conception. In 1986, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at that time advised Newfoundlanders in St. John's that negotiations on Hibernia would wrap up in the next two or three months. That was in 1986. After that-two and a half years later on July 18, 1988-the Prime Minister of Canada stated: "-the prospects, the possibilities, the prosperity of Hibernia may now be realized".
This timely comment came three months before the last federal election. It was in reference to the statement of principles signed on July 18, 1988, by the project owners and the federal and provincial governments. That statement of principles confirmed that the legal agreements for Hibernia would be officially signed on March 31, 1989.
However, there is nothing legally binding about this statement of principles. My colleagues addressed this issue in the House immediately after that statement on July 18, 1988. Their concern was for project guarantees for the province and the people of Newfoundland. The Minister for International Trade assured Canadians that day by responding, and I quote:
-that Hibernia project is going. It is agreed. The companies have agreed. The Government of Canada has made it all possible with the initiative that we have taken and with the agreements that we have made. They will all be legally bound by the end of March.
Here we are in December of 1989-seven months after that statement by the Minister for International Trade-and there is still no master agreement in sight, at least for another six months or maybe a year, who knows?
While the negotiations continue, offshore contractors based in Newfoundland are suffering their worst year since 1977. The delays to the Hibernia project have paralysed a local economy that geared up for an oil

December 18, 1989
Government Orders
bonanza almost ten years ago. Instead, they have received nothing, nothing but false hopes and false promises from this government.
Today, however, we are debating a bill which allows the federal government to enter into a binding agreement with the Hibernia project owners and the Newfoundland government.
I would like to examine briefly some of the costs associated with this project. The estimated cost of Hibernia has been stated at $8.5 billion. That is for the start-up and the initial development costs. The start-up costs alone are $5.2 billion, out of which the federal government is assuming $2.6 billion, or 50 per cent. This includes contribution to both the capital costs and loan guarantees.
The province of Newfoundland has agreed to contribute $11 million to the project owners out of an offshore technological transfer fund, plus $95 million will be allocated from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund.
In addition, Newfoundland has agreed to waive all of its retail sales tax on all capital items purchased during construction and during operation. On top of that it has further agreed to reduce its retail sales tax that all citizens pay from 12 per cent to 4 per cent for items purchased during the operation of the oilfield.
It is difficult to calculate exactly in dollars and cents just what those taxes would amount to, but certainly the figure would be very, very substantial. Newfoundland's contribution to Hibernia is extensive, when one considers the low returns it will receive and when it receives them for this investment.
The statement of principle that was signed in July of 1988 provides for Newfoundland receiving only a nominal royalty. It starts out at 1 per cent and every 18 months it increases 1 per cent until it becomes 5 per cent after six years. Even that basic royalty will be reduced by the same proportion that the average oil price, current at the time, is below $30 a barrel in U.S. dollars.
Even if everything worked out perfectly and the full average of 110,000 barrels a day were produced for 365 days the first operating year, Newfoundland would only get $6 million in royalties for that year even if the price of oil as it is today increases every year until then by an amount equal to the inflation rate.
I think that we must take into account when reviewing Newfoundland's role in the project that the province represents only 2 per cent of the population of Canada. Therefore, the financial burden being borne by the people of Newfoundland is at least twice that of the people of Canada as a whole. Coming from a small province, Prince Edward Island, whose population is approximately 128,000, I understand and appreciate the extent of this burden that Newfoundlanders must be feeling.
The problem in terms of royalties appears to stem in part from the Atlantic Accord. The accord applies to all gas and oil resources in-and I quote from the document:-"that area below the low water mark lying off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador out to the outer edge of the continental margin, coming within Canada's jurisdiction". Its main financial stipulation is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador can establish and collect resource revenues as if these resources were on land. However, the form that this revenue gathering will take in the extent of the revenues has already proven difficult. In effect, the accord grants Newfoundland the right to negotiate with oil companies on this issue.
The project owners will be supporting the balance of the start-up costs with what is offered by the federal and the provincial governments. This amount is roughly $2.94 billion for the start-up costs of Hibernia.
After the production start-up costs there is another $3.3 billion that has been estimated for additional development costs, which will be the responsibility of the project owners.
The total private sector contribution to the $8.5 billion project is $5.79 billion, which amounts to approximately 68 per cent of that $8.5 billion.
In July of 1988, when the statement of principle was signed, the document also outlined provisions for industrial benefits to be gained by the Hibernia project. The main concentration for industrial benefits was on the gravity based structure's main support frame and where it was to be built. In 1988 it was agreed that this could be done in the Come By Chance area of Newfoundland. However, in June of this year the Minister of Energy, while speaking in St. John's to the Newfoundland ocean industries, said:
December 18, 1989

-while industries and governments were prepared to proceed with Hibernia on the basis of the $5.2 billion estimate, we would all feel more comfortable at a lower cost.
To this end Mobil Oil Canada, the leader of the four-company consortium that has agreed to develop Hibernia, is completing a redesign of the project's massive production platform. Needless to say, this new redesign causes the almost certain prospect of fewer jobs in Newfoundland.
This is of grave concern to the province of Newfoundland because under the statement of principles this platform was to be assembled in that province. It guaranteed the province three million man hours. Now it appears that this new platform may be assembled elsewhere.
If that happens Newfoundland stands to lose two-thirds of the original planned construction work. There is is no doubt that the industrial benefits of Hibernia should be maximized in Newfoundland.
Based on the original technical requirements of the project, Newfoundland would have been the location for construction and the mechanical outfitting of the concrete gravity based structure. The general management of the project was to be located in Newfoundland as were the important aspects of the design of the gravity based structure and the topside facilities.
The mating of the topside and base, the assembly and outfitting of the main support frame, the hook-up and the commissioning of the topside were also to take place in Newfoundland. All of these activities were expected to generate approximately 10,000 person-years of employment for the residents of the province.
But the minister's June statement, however, has changed the province's employment prospects. It is no wonder that the government of Newfoundland is concerned. With the new design planned by Mobil, the number of permanent jobs created by Hibernia may only be as many as 1,600. This is a large reduction indeed from the estimated 3,500 permanent jobs summarized in the statement of principles. The fact is that this represents a reduction of 54 per cent.
There is no doubt that regional development concerns are part of the incentive push behind Hibernia. We must ensure that the industrial benefits promised to the
Government Orders
province, which are briefly mentioned in this bill that we are now discussing, are met. We cannot ignore the disastrous state of employment conditions on the east coast. Certainly the present conditions in the Atlantic fisheries have created a frightening crisis. Tonight we in this House will be discussing that problem in an emergency debate.
Atlantic Canada does need employment opportunities. Hibernia will answer part of that need.
Energy is the lifeblood of a nation. National energy security must be the long term strategic objective when your country is one of the largest per capita users of energy in the world. Energy policy must anticipate future disruptions at world energy markets. It must be sufficiently flexible to endure those shocks with minimal disruption to the lives of Canadians.
Although energy security is a necessary part of policy, it is not sufficient to build energy policy around this concern alone. Energy development must also be environmentally sound.


Albert Glen Cooper: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologize for interrupting the member, but I believe that the time allowed her would take us beyond six o'clock.
I think you will find consent amongst the members in the House, Madam Speaker, to allow us not to see the clock, to allow the hon. member to finish her speech and the NDP critic in the area of energy to finish his speech. The House would then suspend at that time until the 8 o'clock emergency debate.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I just want to make it clear to the hon. member across the way that we are giving unanimous consent to do this. There is an understanding that the government would not move to extend the hours while the hon. member for Malpeque is completing her remarks, or during the comments of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party. In other words, there is an understanding that there will not be a motion, during the rest of this day, to extend the hours without unanimous consent.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, obviously we agree to that. We are prepared to say that there will be no further dilatory motions for the rest of the evening.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Malpeque may wish to conclude her remarks.


Catherine S. Callbeck: We certainly believe that those conditions can be met by the Hibernia project, but that they will take continued work, monitoring and action by the government. We intend to ensure that the federal government meets all of its responsibilities to the Hibernia project.
Hibernia is a national project, one which the Liberal Party of Canada has long supported. The commitment of the federal government to Hibernia has been questionable, to say the least. The April 1989 throne speech did not even bother to mention the Hibernia project, the deal that was supposed to be signed, sealed and delivered four days earlier, on March 31.
This bill may be heading toward a master agreement for Hibernia. But there are many obstacles we still must cross before this project is the best deal for all Canadians. Hibernia is seen as the cornerstone of the Canadian offshore industry. Hibernia could be the key to future development, it could be the springboard discovery which provides us with much of the infrastructure, the technology and the impetus for development of our eastern offshore industry.
My colleagues and I will support the second reading of Bill C-44, which serves as implementation legislation. What it really does is allow the federal government to enter into a master agreement with other parties involved in Hibernia. We note that the minister shall present a summary of each of the agreements before the House. Certainly I am looking forward to this bill being sent to the legislative committee. I hope that it will lead to a far swifter management of the Hibernia project than this government has demonstrated to date.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I must say at the outset that I intend to take the liberty of addressing both this bill and Bill C-45.
Given what I understand to be the principle both of this bill and of Bill C-45, the bill which sets up the fiscal regime for the government's participation in the OSLO project, and given that the central principle in each bill is
to create the fiscal structure under which the government will participate, and given the sums of money involved, I must say that I am somewhat surprised that these bills are sponsored by the minister of energy and not the Minister of Finance. However, they are sponsored by the minister of energy and must therefore be seen to constitute, at least in part, the government's energy strategy. So, I will be dealing with that aspect of the bills as well.
If I might, I would like briefly to summarize the two bills. Both of them set out the proposal for the expenditure of government money in the two projects.
In the case of Bill C-44 which deals with Hibernia, we are talking about a grant for the defraying of capital costs in the amount of $1.04 billion. We are, as well, talking about loan guarantees on the capital project of up to $1.66 billion, a direct loan in the amount of $300 million, loan guarantees for what is called a temporary financing facility in the amount of $175 million, and interest payable guarantees on the $1.66 billion loan guarantee. In other words, if the loan is going to default what the government has guaranteed, not only will we pay the principle but we will pick up the interest charges as well.
Therefore, we are talking about a direct expenditure, a grant to Hibernia of up to $1.04 billion, a $300 million loan, and various and sundry loan guarantees and interest guarantees in the amount of $1,835 billion for a total possible government investment of $3,139 billion, a tidy little sum in anybody's books.
For OSLO, we are talking about a grant for the capital costs of up to $425 million. We are talking about a price of oil production subsidy of $48 million. This is a sort of project specific guaranteed floor price for oil. If the cost of production of oil exceeds the price the OSLO project is getting, then this $48 million will kick in. You will find a floor price for Canadian oil in no other aspect of the industry even though New Democrats, federally and provincially, have been vigorously calling for such a thing for many years now. However, for OSLO this is a sort of "most favoured" status, I suppose.
OSLO will have this $48 million floor price guarantee. As well, there will be loan guarantees on the capital project of up to $642.5 million. There will be loans-the terms are not set out, of course, in the bill-of up to $250 million. And loan guarantees, again, for this temporary financing facility of $62.5 million. We are looking once again at a direct expenditure in OSLO of up to $425 million, direct loans of up to $250 million, various

December 18, 1989

guarantees of up to $705 million, for a possible total government involvement in OSLO of $1.4 billion.
These bills would allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into firm agreements on both the Hibernia and OSLO projects, thus involving the potential for government fiscal involvement in the two projects of up to $4.5 billion.
I do not want to consider these complex financial arrangements or get into the details of the bills today. That is a job most properly left to be handled in the committee. I want, instead, to deal with the principle of the bills which is the commitment of this amount of money to these particular projects. I also want to deal in part with what I understand to be the government's energy policy, of which these two projects are definitely centrepieces. In other words, I will make some general remarks about where these bills fit into that over-all policy.
Since the initial plans for these projects were drawn up, there has been a revolution of sorts in the energy sector. Canadians, regardless of what their governments have done, believed or wanted, have themselves added a new criterion to those by which energy policy is to be judged in Canada. Canadians have added the new criterion of the effect of our energy sources on our environment.
After all, in the words of the Brundtland report called Our Common Future, quoting from page 7-1: "-choosing an energy strategy inevitably means choosing an environmental strategy".
I would note that the government has been very quick to adopt the rhetoric of the Brundtland report. But they seemed somewhat more reticent in adopting the counsel of the Brundtland report.
Listen to what the Prime Minister said on June 27, 1988 at the International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere held in Toronto. He said at that time: "The world is coming to recognize what we believe to be self-evident-that development and environmental protection are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.
Government Orders
Our economic activity must be increasingly compatible with today's environmental facts of life".
Later, in the same speech the Prime Minister added: "In no area is the link between our economic activity and environmental disruption more evident or more troubling than in the area of energy policy".
This is not Audrey McLaughlin speaking, this is not Ed Broadbent speaking. This is the Prime Minister of Canada, the leader of the Conservative Party. He goes on: "Canada is committed to applying the principles of sustainable development to our energy future".
That is commendable, Madam Speaker. One of the most important environmental issues of the day is global warming. In the statement coming from the Toronto conference that I just finished quoting, the International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, June 17,1988 entitled "The Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security" stated: "The earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions".
It was stark language that the conference used in speaking of the changing atmosphere, and again I quote: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war". These are very strong words and in the opinion of many, absolutely warranted words.
The Prime Minister, again a fine sounding environmentalist, on March 11, 1989, signed The Hague Declaration entitled "Our Common Future: It's in our Hands". That declaration emphasized the importance of all countries doing their bit to prevent atmospheric pollution and stated: "Because of the nature of the dangers involved, remedies to be sought involve the duty of the community of nations vis-a-vis present and future generations to do all that can be done to preserve the quality of the atmosphere".
So on the level of official pronouncements, the Mulro-ney government is quick to agree that much needs to be

December 18, 1989
Government Orders
done to protect the environment, but its pronouncements do not mean anything significant, because Canada has to begin to put its own house in order.
We clearly have a valuable role to play. After all, while Canada is directly responsible for only about 2 per cent of the total global CO2 emissions, carbon dioxide being the key greenhouse gas, we are one of the most energy inefficient countries in the world. Canadians consume more energy per person than is the case in the U.S.A., Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan, and the situation is getting worse. From the perspective of energy use per $1,000 of GDP, we also use more than the U.S.A., Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
It is true we live in a cold country. Mainly our population is spread out along a long thin southern line. Our industries have to deal with the effects of cold winters, as do our people. But this is no excuse, because in taking account of all that, nonetheless we are extremely wasteful energy users. We could use substantially less energy, thereby polluting much less, without significant changes to our way of life.
So far the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been running in the wrong direction and has been using as an excuse that he favours a market oriented approach. So what has the government done? In the last budget, the government eliminated completely the 12 conservation and renewable energy offices across the country. These offices were run on a shoestring and provided information to people in the regions on how they could save money and energy at the same time. They were not even a significant intrusion into the market-place. They were funded at too pitiful a level to be that. Nonetheless the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources closed them all down.
As well, the government also dismantled the branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that oversaw research on energy conservation and alternate energy sources. The government cut funding for conservation and renewable energy-using its own department's figures-from $410 million in 1984-85 to $49 million in 1989-90. What is the justification for all this slash and burn of alternatives and conservation? The argument is that conservation efficiency and renewable energy sources just cannot compete. They cannot compete. They are not as marketable, they are not as efficient.
There is not a free market in energy in this country, there is no so-called level playing field between the fossil fuels and the alternatives, between spurred consumption on the one hand and conservation on the other. To all Canadians who may have any doubt that there is not a level playing field in energy resources in this country, I simply say, look at Bills C-44 and C-45: up to $4.5 billion in government commitments to two fossil fuel projects.
This government, in proposing to provide the $4.5 billion to these two energy projects, is simultaneously slashing funding for conservation and energy alternatives to just $49 million per year. That is the government's level playing field. That is the government's demonstration of the hallowed free market in action, an increase of $4.5 billion for just two fossil fuel projects, and a decrease to $49 million for all energy conservation and renewable projects.
Most Canadians believe their tax money should be put to wise use, in part to influence the choices that we will have in the future. That is why most Canadians want their money to help prevent environmental degradation. But these bills will use their money not to fight global warming but to add to it.
Think for a minute of how far $4.5 billion could go in the sectors of energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy.
We could have perpetual energy savings by encouraging better insulation of the houses of ordinary Canadians. We could have energy savings through the use of energy efficient lighting in commercial buildings. We could have vastly more fuel efficient cars. We could have greatly enhanced support for public transportation systems, especially in the urban areas. We could have the development of an ethanol fuel industry in Canada. We could have viable co-generation production. We could have solar power. We could have small, independent power producers feeding into provincial grids. Think of the harnessing of a good portion of the wind energy streaming off the mountains in southern Alberta or around the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay shorelines of Ontario.
As the August, 1989 DPA study conducted for the minister recently pointed out, many of these investments would not only save energy, they would also save money.
December 18, 1989

Government Orders
Let me offer an analogy. Let us say you want to wash the walls in your living room and for this purpose you have a bucket, but the bucket has a number of holes in it. These holes, when the water runs out of the bucket, gets your beautiful carpet wet. So you have a choice: you can spend your time and money pouring in more water as fast as you can and rushing the washing job before the carpet gets completely soaked, or you can plug the holes in the bucket and get on with the job.
What will OSLO and Hibernia mean for the environment? They will mean more C02 leaking out the holes. The parliamentary secretary made mention of the Environmental Assessment Panel and the study conducted on Hibernia in 1985, and as he correctly noted, they came up with 50 recommendations. But that study did not even consider CO2 emissions. It was never on the agenda. It was not considered and no recommendations were forthcoming. You can bet that people in Atlantic Canada will be very interested in whether the changes in design will affect the project's safety.
OSLO will doubtless mean a greater burden of sulphur dioxide emissions on to the soils in northern Alberta and even more in Saskatchewan. During the recent environmental review for the ALPAC pulpmill, it was pointed out that the vast majority of these soils are very sensitive and prone to acidification.
When it comes to carbon dioxide, environmentalists know and have told us that heavy oil is particularly bad from a global warming perspective. A recent paper by H. G. Hengeveld, on staff at Environment Canada's Atmospheric Environment Service, titled "Climate Change Implications for Energy" points out that on the basis of emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of energy, energy from oil sands is worse in the sense of being a greater producer of CO2 than biomass energy, gas, oil and even coal. I hope that our scientists in the various pertinent departments are studying this aspect in some detail, because CO2 emissions are clearly going to be an important issue when these bills get to committee, especially when there is considerable pressure for Canada to reduce over-all CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005.
The best estimate that I have seen is that these projects combined will cause, and contribute to, the emission of between 20 and 30 metric tonnes of CO2 each year. That is one hell of a lot of CO2. It is an increase in total current Canadian CO2 emissions of between 4 and 7 per cent, and that is just between these two projects.
Even the energy minister is worried about CO2 emissions and global warming. I was delighted to read in the transcript of the hearings of the environment committee on December 11 last week that the minister stated, and I quote from the transcript:
Based on every information I have received in the department from the scientists and others who are working on global warming within the department, I am convinced that we have to reduce emissions, that they have negative effects on climate, that they have negative effects as described by those who have studied the project in detail.
Admirable, Mr. Minister. Unfortunately, these projects fly in the face of that statement. However, I consider that to be the minister's problem, not mine.
Let us ask for the moment what will the projects mean for jobs and regional development. There is no question that jobs will be created. Any large capital project creates jobs. When you are talking about $4.5 billion in maximum total contribution to the two projects, you have to be talking about a lot of jobs. The question is how many jobs and at what cost per job?
Canadian experience shows it is quite common for large projects to be very inefficient creators of jobs. Indeed, I would note parenthetically that decentralized energy efficiency programs would probably be much more effective job creators. In Atlantic Canada, people are more deeply concerned about jobs than ever because of the actions of this government. I note, for example, the cuts in unemployment insurance benefits; the ACOA funding being spread over even more years and, of course, for all the reasons that will be made clear during the emergency debate tonight, the threats to all of the jobs in the Atlantic fisheries.
Yet the number of jobs for Newfoundlanders and for Albertans that will be created by these projects will, I think, be few in terms of the capital invested. We know from past experience with energy megaprojects, that the

Government Orders
dollars per job created is incredibly high by any kind of economic average. But I assume that this too will be the subject of extensive study in the committee.
In that committee, we will also be looking at the question of royalties and tax revenues that will accrue to the provinces involved and to the federal government. Many people doubt the glowing estimates that were made just a few years ago, and they have reason to.
If I may, I would like to return to the question of the government funding, especially in light of Section 3(2)(a)(i) in each of the bills. Those are the sections in each of the bills that mandate the gifts of money, the $1.04 billion for the Hibernia project and the $425 million for the OSLO project. These are gifts. This is free money. No strings attached. It is an incredible thing. I have not really encountered anything like it before.
At the Ottawa Airport this afternoon when the plane came in I was talking very briefly to a member of the government benches who expressed surprise to me when I told him that this was not equity for the federal government, these were gifts. We get nothing in return for this $425 million and $1.04 billion. That is absolutely astonishing. Even in Alberta we know from our experience with the Syncrude project that you can get equity in an energy megaproject for the government that is shelling out the money. We did that in Alberta with Syncrude. That, too, is something to which we will be paying very close attention in the committee study of these bills.
I would like to conclude by reviewing the four conditions for these projects that my party set in a news release and background paper on November 7, 1989, the same day the minister introduced Bills C-44 and C-45.
The government is obviously going to press ahead with these bills. Consequently we want to have on record for the government's consideration, as well as the consideration of others, those four very constructive suggestions that, I will note, received the approval of the energy and environment critic for the federal New Democratic Party in this House, and as well, of the energy and environment critics of the New Democratic Party in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta-that all four of these individuals could come to an agreement on anything is little short of miraculous; in this instance, I think it doubly so.
Let me note very clearly that we are not opposed in principle to these two projects. We are opposed to the fiscal arrangements set out in the bills, and we are opposed to the government's energy policy generally because of the lack of cognizance it takes of environmental concerns.
However, with specific regard to the two projects, the following four conditions constitute the minimum acceptable for the projects to enjoy the support of the New Democratic Party.
First, no investment of public money without equivalent equity held by the Crown.
Second, guarantees, in the agreements among the parties, that production costs will not be subsidized, now or in the future, by the public purse, unless, I will note, such floor price subsidization applies to all oil and gas production in the country.
Third, the immediate restoration by the federal government of expenditures on research into, and development and commercialization of, energy alternatives and conservation up to a minimum of the $400 million budget in 1984.
Fourth, concrete steps and guarantees to minimize the environmental impacts of the projects, including: (a) complete, thorough, joint federal-provincial environmental impact assessments, with extensive consequent public hearings featuring full intervenor funding, to be undertaken in each instance prior to any project commencement; (b) in addition to all measures implemented or planned for the purpose of reducing Canada's CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005, the further reduction of CO2 emissions, principally through conservation and greatly enhanced use of fuel ethanol and propane, to a degree equal to the total CO2 emissions from the projects, such that the projects result in no net increase in Canadian CO2 emissions; and, (c), the use of best available technologies for pollution abatement and emissions control, especially with regard to CO2 and
so2.
These are not unreasonable conditions. In fact, these are conditions that I think most Canadians, on reflection, would find not only warrantable but indeed necessary.
I would just note that because the government at the moment cannot for whatever reason see its way clear to accepting these conditions, especially with regard to these two projects, we cannot, in conscience, accept the principle of the fiscal arrangements set out in the bills
:C:
'itSlsf

December 18, 1989

and consequently will not be supporting them at second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.29 p.m, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock, when
Government Orders
the House will proceed with the emergency debate on the situation in the Atlantic fishery.
At 6.29 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.
[Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Volume B.]

Monday, December 18, 1989
[Editor's Note:	Continuation of proceedings from
Volume A.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has granted leave to the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the situation in the Atlantic fishery.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso) moved:: That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that an arrangement has been entered into among all three parties in which it is the disposition of the House to hear the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but on the understanding that the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso will be heard later. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for moving the motion which we are debating before Your Honour tonight.
This young member has shown more compassion and more concern for Atlantic Canada in one year than the federal Conservative government has shown in the last five.
What we are debating here this evening is not just another crisis. It is not just another local problem. What
we are debating here this evening is the collapse of the entire Atlantic fishery. I want the people from other parts of Canada who may be watching this debate this evening or following Parliament to understand the depth of what we are saying here.
For many Canadians, Atlantic Canada seems remote. Put yourself in a situation where the entire steel industry of Sault Ste. Marie or Hamilton were to be closed down, everybody thrown out of work. Imagine what the reaction would be in the province of Ontario, particularly when the Prime Minister of Canada told them they never had it so good. It is as though the financial district, Montreal or Toronto, was closed down and then the prime Minister were to tell the workers, clerks, office people, they have never had it so good. This is what this Prime Minister has said to the people of Atlantic Canada.
It is more than a crisis. It is a calamity. It is a calamity which is driving pepple out of the Atlantic provinces, a calamity which is wiping out whole towns and villages, a calamity which is destroying a way of life. What has this government done? Let's look at the record of the Prime Minister who in 1988 said during the last federal election in Saint John, New Brunswick on October 13, 1988:
I feel something special for Atlantic Canada and its needs.
If that is something special, the people of Canada want something different and they want something different fast. What are we seeing? We have seen the Marine Ecology Laboratory at the Bedford Institute disbanded, repeated cuts in the fisheries staff, mismanagement of the fish stocks, slashed unemployment insurance payments to Atlantic Canadians.
The federal government has withdrawn the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, reduced commitments to post-secondary education and health care. The provinces of the Atlantic are particularly vulnerable. It failed to renew regional development agreements, closed Armed Forces bases in Atlantic Canada and announced a new national sales tax which in most crippling to Atlantic Canada, because the

December 18, 1989
farther a region of the country is from the source of production the more transportation is needed to bring that good to market, and the more that tax will bear.

To this show of serious concern on the part of the Prime Minister shoud be added the pirating of our fish stocks, something the government does not seem to want or be able to stop. It lets Spanish and Portugese fleets pillage our fish stocks, it lets France steal what is left, and it lets the Europeans set incredibly high quotas.
The present government is being made a fool of by others and, instead of defending the interests of our fisheries, yields to the demands of other countries.
France wants more fish? Our government sees no problem! Just reduce the quotas for our own fishermen. If French traulers don't catch enough fish, our government gives them a consideration to compensate for their loss.
Spanish and Portugese fleets sailing under flags of convenience exhaust the fish stocks just outside our territorial boundaries. What could be more normal.

Let us turn to the United States. The Americans do not like our fish processing regulations. They are the regulations which used to ensure that fish caught in Canada would be processed in Canada. It meant that the Canadian fish plant workers on both coasts, on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, had jobs. This government sold out the fish processing industry in the trade deal with the United States because it gave up our right to impose an export tax on fish, thereby allowing us to be competitive in the fish processing markets.


Mr. Crosbie:: What does that have to do with it?


John Napier Turner: That export tax was permitted under the GATT.


John Carnell Crosbie: Show us the relevance.


John Napier Turner: The Minister for International Trade is here and he ought to be ashamed because he sold out our remedy to the United States.


An Hon. Member:: He sold out his province.


John Napier Turner: And who is paying for the mistake of the member for St. John's East?


Mr. Tobin:: West.


John Napier Turner: St. John's West. He will be St. John's nowhere in the next election, I can tell you. Who is paying for his mistake? The people of Canso. In the town of Canso in the constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, 742 plant workers have just lost their jobs, in a town of 1,200 people.


John Carnell Crosbie: Malarkey.


John Napier Turner: What does it mean to the people of that community, or any community of that size? Not only the fishermen and the fish process workers, but take any small business in the town, the general store, a real estate operator, a food supplier, a clothing distributor, take any professional; who is going to pay for the service? Who is going to pay for the food? Where is the money going to come from? What is going to happen to the only equity that most of the people in Canso have, namely their own homes? What is going to happen to home values as people try to get out, finding no market for a lifetime of saving and equity based in that home.
What is a fisherman going to tell his children on Christmas morning? What is he going to give his teenage son or teenage daughter? It will probably be a one-way ticket to Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver because there will be nothing left for them in Canso.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: The only choice they have is to move out. The irony of it is they will not even be able to take the train out any more because the government has cut the VIA Rail service to that part of Nova Scotia.
It is the same story in North Sydney where another 280 workers are losing their jobs, and in St. John's, Newfoundland where 492 workers are being let go without even getting a severance payment. It is going to be a bleak Christmas for Atlantic Canadians. An estimated 6,000 more jobs are expected to be eliminated in the next few months. Fishery Products International is expected to announce major layoffs very soon.
What about National Sea's U.S. operations on the east coast, their operations in the state of Florida and in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Why is this Canadian company closing Canadian plants when it's U.S. plants are not affected? It's former president was one of the great promoters of the free trade deal. In 1987 he said

the deal would create 400 new jobs. Now, only two years later, his company is closing its Canadian plants.
How did the Prime Minister react when we raised the question here in the House? He had no answer and no plan. He brandished statistics. He said the Atlantic region was doing well. He even quoted double-digit unemployment in Newfoundland as if it were an achievement, and the trained seals behind him applauded enthusiastically.
The answers given by this Prime Minister and this government are invariably the same: it's all the Liberals fault! Mr. Speaker, I think we should recall that the Conservatives have been in power for five years, and it was the Conservatives who formed this government.

The Canso closure is a direct result of this government's mismanagement of the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Chalk up yet another ghost town to the Tories.
Premier Joe Ghiz was in town today, talking to the Prime Minister about Summerside. Summerside, now Canso. That is something this Prime Minister has been well trained for because he closed Schefferville. At least in those days he was only taking orders from Cleveland. Now he gets them direct from Washington.
The Prime Minister also promised that a committee of cabinet would investigate and come up with a plan to deal with the crisis.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is your swan song, is it?


John Napier Turner: They said that there would be compensation for those thrown out of work. They said that there would be other programs, other initiatives. Where are those other programs? The fish processing workers on both coasts are still waiting. They are going to join that long line of other employees across the country who are being thrown out of work by the trade deal, waiting for the adjustment programs the Prime Minister promised and continues to promise.
Do you remember those programs, Mr. Speaker? Do you remember that commitment? The only people in Canada who no longer remember that commitment are the Tory ministers who made it.
One of the main reasons they have done nothing is that under the trade deal with the United States they have agreed over the next five to seven years to negotiate the definition of an unfair trade practice or a subsidy with the American government. What has happened is that the government's own trade deal has tied its hands. This government is afraid to come to the aid of a threatened fishing industry because the Americans have told them that any financial support for that industry, particularly when it is export-based, will be considered to be an unfair subsidy by the United States. We are being told by the Americans now much we can finance and rescue our perishing industry in Atlantic Canada.
What about the rate of exchange? The high value of our dollar is killing our exports of fish.


John Carnell Crosbie: What was it when you were in?


Mr. Ttimer (Vancouver Quadra):: I believe, as do many others, that there was a side deal-


John Carnell Crosbie: What was the dollar when you were there?


John Napier Turner: -there was a side deal transacted with the Government of the United States by the minister's predecessor, which allowed our dollar to rise because the Americans would not have considered this kind of an agreement if they had not got a commitment on our exchange, as well. What about the U.S. lobster law signed by President Bush?


John Carnell Crosbie: What about your dollar?


John Napier Turner: We have the hon. minister from St. John's. I tell you he ought to feel red as one of those lobsters because even he couldn't be exported to the United States under those rules. He is as red as a lobster tonight when he listens to the truth here in the House of Commons.
What about that U.S. lobster law? It was signed by the president. Has our Prime Minister told his great friend, the President of the United States, that this is a serious blow to Atlantic lobster fishermen? Did they discuss the issue at all, at his last visit? Or is a Kennebunkport

December 18, 1989
lobster worth more to the Prime Minister of Canada than the lobsters from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the east coast of Quebec?
Take another little incident. What about the ramming of the Canadian destroyer Saguenay by the U.S. scallop dragger The Concordia. In this and other instances of American overfishing our government has allowed us to be internationally embarrassed by the fact that we cannot arrest American boats which flagrantly fish illegally in our waters. The minister should refer back-


An Hon. Member:: What would you have done?


John Napier Turner: There is a backbencher who is skulking, he is skulking-


An Hon. Member:: What would you have done?


John Napier Turner: I will tell you what I would do. The minister and the back-bencher who has just spoken, behind the curtain, should refer back to the? I'm Alone case of 1929 to understand the international rules of hot pursuit moving from within territorial waters into international waters. In 1929 the U.S. Coast Guard pursued a Canadian vessel, the I'm Alone for two days and nights in international waters and finally sunk it when its captain refused to surrender.
I am not suggesting that we need to blow U.S. fishing boats out of the water. What I am saying is that it is about time that we started to uphold our rights to protect our fish stocks from this kind of piracy from American and French boats by arresting them and bringing them back into Canadian waters.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is here and he is one of the nice guys, one of the international patsies on behalf of Canada. When we have got a problem he cannot stand up. We concede, we make concessions, we yield but never when there is a confrontation do we stand up and protect our rights.
As if our fishing industry were not in enough trouble, the government has slashed the unemployment insurance scheme. The Minister of Employment and Immigration who has defended the cuts to the unemployment insurance program tells us that by cutting benefits and putting money instead into training her department is doing a great and wonderful thing.
We all ask the question, on this side of the House, training for what? Are you going to train a New Brunswick fisherman to be an automobile worker? Training for
what? Where are the opportunities? Where are those other industries? The minister can talk all she wants about her training programs. It is a wonderful theory, a wonderful plan on paper, but what does it mean to the people in those communities where there are no other job opportunities.
In the words of one local co-ordinator: "It is a disguised resettlement program". In other words, if you want a job to use that retraining, move to Halifax or Montreal or Toronto.

And the Prime Minister blames the Senate for delaying legislation on unemployment insurance reform that will raise variable entrance requirements from 14 weeks to 20 weeks.
The Prime Minister failed to tell Canadians that every year since 1977, we agreed here in the House to an exemption for our fishermen which set this requirement at 10 weeks. His government has failed to table a similar bill. In fact, the present government has put everything into one single bill, and is trying to blame the Senate for its own incompetence. The Maritime Provinces and the rest of Canada will not swallow this explanation, Mr. Speaker.

The government has been talking about taking action to meet the crisis in the fishing industry. It has been talking for months about the crisis brought about in large part by the mismanagement of the industry by this government. It is all talk and no action. The government is bankrupt of ideas. It is about time they faced the brutal truth. It is their own mismanagement which has got the Atlantic fishery into this mess.
In October the minister of fisheries, who is here in the House, said the industry was in good health. That is about the dumbest thing that any fisheries ministry in this country has said since Confederation. Here is how Brian Giroux, Executive Director of the Nova Scotia Dragger Fishermen's Association responded to the minister's ridiculous statement. He said:
Maybe he should have his salary tied to our fish quotas. We have
got to take a 30 per cent cut in our quotas. Maybe if he had to take
a 30 per cent cut in his pay he would think different.
Well, I would think different too. A 30 per cent cut. That minister ought to have a 100 per cent cut.
December 18, 1989

This same minister is now telling impoverished east coast fishing towns that lose their fish processing plants that, in the minister's words, and I quote The Globe and Mail of December 12, 1989: "They have a bright future". The people of Canso, the people of the Avalon Peninsula, the people of the Acadia Peninsula, Caraquet and Tracadie, you have been told by the minister of the Crown that you have got a bright future. What a minister.
Here is another example of his great compassion and understanding at a time when thousands of Atlantic fishermen are being laid off and thousands more are facing incredible hardship. The minister said this, and I am quoting The Toronto Star of a conversation he had December 17, 1989: "Some of those guys are making over $100,000 a year. You sure would not know it the way they sing the blues". If that is sensitivity, I want to hear something else.
We have a Prime Minister who has joined the jet set, burning up fuel not to mention taxpayer's dollars with fleets of government jets to take them all over the capitals of Europe, Africa and Asia, not to mention those obligatory stops in Washington. What does he do when he gets there? What does he talk about when he meets all those leaders? Why has he not been able to convince his counterparts in Europe that the quotas they set for the northwest Atlantic are totally unrealistic? Has he ever raised the issue with those governemnts or is he just there for a few photo opportunities and really does not want to deal with the tough questions?
This government has cut Atlantic Canada adrift. This is not nation building. This is not national reconciliation. This is not building a stronger, more prosperous, more independent and sovereign Canada. This is the destruction of an entire region of Canada, the destruction of a way of life, the destruction or the dreams of thousands and thousands of people who trusted their government to defend their interests.
Frankly, I bleed for the people, the fishermen and the fish workers of Atlantic Canada, good hard-working honest Canadians who have been sold out by their government. My cry to the people of the country and to this House of Commons: Let those of us who are
members of this place take notice of the negligence of this government. Let us condemn this government for that negligence, condemn it for the shameful and utter disregard of the people of Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed-


Ronald MacDonald: Where is the minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: -that in the light of these very serious problems being faced by the citizens and by the communities of Atlantic Canada-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will the real Mister of Fisheries please stand up?


Charles Joseph Clark: -what we received from the right hon. Leader of the Opposition tonight was just another partisan speech, partisanship as usual. He talks about free trade. Free trade has nothing to do with this problem as he would admit if he were seriously interested in the concerns of the people of Canso, North Sydney, or St. John's.
He suggests we go to war with France, with Spain, with Portugal.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is ridiculous.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is pure bunkum, and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows it. He insults the people of Atlantic Canada by putting his shrill partisanship ahead of their real interests.
Sir, we are discussing tonight a very real national problem. It directly affects whole communities of Atlantic Canada. It affects directly the livelihood of thousands of our fellow Canadians. It is not just a regional problem, but one that requires national attention as earlier crises in Canadian agriculture have required national attention and received it from this government.


Fernand Robichaud: What are you doing about it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Nor is it just a fishery question. It involves the broader question of the long-term health of Atlantic Canada. Nor, Sir, is it just a federal matter. We have our responsabilities as a national government and we intend to continue to meet them, but the policies of provincial governments have

contributed to the problem and naturally provincial governments must help contribute to the solution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Because it is a major national problem with significant international implications the Prime Minister established a committee of senior ministers in May to design effective-


Ronald MacDonald: You are trying to blame the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I find it surprising that having sought this debate, having sought a discussion of serious problems affecting the communities and individuals of Atlantic Canada, instead of proposing anything, the Leader of the Opposition simply repeats partisanship as usual and now his colleagues, when I try to set forth some of the action this government is taking to respond to that serious problem, try to shout me down.


Ronald MacDonald: You guys are to blame.


Mr. Speaker:: I should remind hon. members that when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking he was extended the courtesy to which he was entitled.


John Napier Turner: From time to time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister established a special committee of senior ministers to design effective short-term help and constructive long-term measures to assist communities and individuals who would be affected by serious changes in the Atlantic fishery. I chair that committee which has met a dozen times and drawn together ministers with a particular interest and responsibility in Atlantic Canada. It is supported by a task force of senior officials chaired by Ken Stein, a task force which has met extensively with the fishermen, with the industry, and with provincial governments.
The problem, Sir, is the following: In January of this year federal scientists determined that northern cod stocks were not growing as fast as predicted. There were fewer fish to catch. Unless the quotas were reduced we would seriously jeopardize future stocks and thereby put the industry at even greater risk. Quotas for 1989 were reduced from 266,000 tonnes to 235,000 tonnes. Dr. Les Harris has been asked to check those scientists' findings.
If his report confirms the lower growth of the stock an even lower quota will be required for 1990.
Members of the House should understand that the northern cod stock is the largest commercial fish stock in the northwest Atlantic. The fishery is the sole source of employment in hundreds of communities in Atlantic Canada. Many of those communities are isolated from other economic opportunities.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We knew that a long time ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: In Newfoundland the fishery accounts for more than 20 per cent of total provincial employment. In Nova Scotia it accounts for more than 6 per cent. A week ago-


Brian Vincent Tobin: I don't believe this. What insulting pap.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. An application was brought to the Speaker for an emergency debate. After appropriate consideration we are now having it. I want all hon. members to respect each minister or member who is speaking. When this is done I would hope that some of the people who are a lot more unfortunate than others in this country may feel that at least there had been an appropriate exchange.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A week ago, as the House knows, National Sea Products announced the closure of fish plants in St. John's and Canso and the significant downsize to the plant in North Sydney.
That day my colleagues, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Public Works announced an immediate assistance plan to help the individuals and the communities involved. That plan involves counselling, training, income assistance under unemployment insurance and special help under the program for older workers. These programs are designed to provide immediate help to the individuals and the communities concerned.
Once the full extent of action to be taken by large companies is known, we will be able to give more details about the amount of assistance. What is important at this stage is that each and every affected worker has complete access to the short-term programs that we will have available. The larger challenge for all of us, Sir, is
December 18, 1989

to deal with the long-term impact of these changes in the Atlantic fishery.
We have been reviewing the role that the federal government plays in areas such as scientific assessment, enforcement and regulations. We believe there are ways in which these functions could be better carried out and in some instances we have already taken action. We expect to receive the Harris report before the end of this year.
We are continuing our work with the provinces with a view to identifying the most effective means by which we can encourage the long-term diversification of the New-foundland-Nova Scotia economies. Newfoundland, in particular, is far too dependent on a resource that is cyclical. Obviously, this is due in part to a lack of other viable options. We will do our utmost to identify effective options for viable diversification of these economies and to create a more viable and a more reliable fishery.
While it is important to find alternatives to the fishery it, of course, will continue to play a major role in the economy of these provinces. We must take steps now that will allow these important stocks to grow at a sustainable level. No quick or magic solution is available. What is needed is years of prudent conservation oriented management. The temptation to artificially prop up the industry is strong, obviously. However, it would be in no one's interest to do that. The problem we face today has been faced and avoided too often before. If we put off dealing with these problems now they will only return again as they have consistently returned throughout the past.
What I can promise tonight is the commitment of this government to find viable and effective options for those communities and those individuals who have been affected or will be affected. The work of the Stein task force, the Hache task force, the panel of Dr. Harris, will all be important parts of the process determining what action we can take and should take.
In addition to the work of the cabinet committee, my colleagues and I have been actively pursuing the problem of overfishing outside the 200-mile limit of Canada. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, known as NAFO, was established in 1977 to ensure that the fisheries in the areas outside Canada's 200-mile limit are harvested in accordance with sound conservation principles. From 1977 until 1986 when Portugal and Spain
joined the European community NAFO operated effectively and all members benefited from this co-operation.
There are 12 members of NAFO. The European community is one member. NAFO traditionally reaches decisions by consensus and until recent years that consensus was respected and maintained. The NAFO agreement contains an opting out procedure which enables a member to object to its NAFO quota and to set its own quota instead. Clearly such a procedure was intended for exceptional circumstances since to use it frequently would undermine the whole system of conservation management. If NAFO were to collapse chaos would ensue with every fishing fleet battling for as much as could be caught. Harvesting in those circumstances would become strip mining. There would be no winners.
Every year since 1986 the European community has invoked the exceptional objections procedures and has established its own unilateral quotas at levels often many times higher than those approved by NAFO. Those quotas have been so high that they have never actually been caught. Even so, the actual catches, mainly by Spanish and Portuguese vessels, have far exceeded the European community quotas set by NAFO. Thus the European Commission has abandoned in the north west Atlantic the very conservation principles it applies off its own coast. The problem of overfishing has been exported to the other side of the Atlantic, to our side.
All other members of NAFO, including the U.S.S.R., Japan, Norway, Cuba and eastern European countries, have continued to accept their NAFO quotas and abide by the NAFO conservation regime, sometimes at great sacrifice. Only the European community has resisted doing so in spite of two NAFO resolutions appealing for respect of NAFO decisions. The result, Sir, is a very serious threat to important fisheries stocks, an obvious and an unnecessary threat. Much damage has been done and we are seeing the price that must be paid for that damage here in Canada. The situation can still be remedied, but the point of no return is approaching rapidly.
In the past several months, the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I have put substantial effort into making the European community aware of the serious consequences of overfishing. The right hon. Leader of

December 18, 1989
the Opposition asked the rhetorical question as to whether the Prime Minister has raised the question. Of course he has with the leaders of Spain, with the leaders of Portugal and with the leaders of the European Commission directly. We will continue to do that. We have stressed the importance of consistent conservation rules for the long-term viability of these stocks. This has been done through political pressure and through diplomatic pressure, and it will continue to be done until the problem is resolved.
The Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I have met several of our counterparts in the European member states. In Brussels last week, I took the opportunity to discuss our concerns again with Hans Andriessen, the European Commissioner for External Relations and Trade, and with the Foreign Minister of Portugal, de Deus Pinheiro. We have also done this through a public information campaign in which federal and provincial governments, parliamentarians, industry and labour have all participated. To enhance and co-ordinate those efforts, we designated a special ambassador for marine conservation, Mr. Alan Beesley, who has been leading our campaign since the summer.
We have been able to correct some misconceptions regarding the seriousness of the problem of the fishery in the north west Atlantic and to establish the urgency of addressing these problems. We have made some progress that would not have been made without that kind of pressure.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What about the progress?


Charles Joseph Clark: I will tell you about the progress.
This year, for the first time since 1985, the European community has recommended unilateral quotas which in some cases accept NAFO quotas and in other cases reduce the European community quotas below the level of actual European communicty catches in recent years.
We were particularly interested to note that the commission was proposing a reduction for two flatfish stocks, American plaice and yellow tail flounder, and for one cod stock, 3NO cod on the southern tail of the bank.
This is a positive step and is consistent with decisions taken by NAFO.
Unfortunately, however, the proposals of the commission include quotas which far exceed those of NAFO for the 2J3KL cod stock. Some 27,000 tonnes of stradding stock cod are proposed as the unilateral European community quota, as opposed to a quota of zero set by NAFO.
Clearly there is still a long way to go on this problem, and it is essential that Canada continue the discussions with the community on all aspects of fisheries managements and fisheries relations.
While this first step taken by the European community is important and welcomed, I urge the community to take a giant step now and work with all other NAFO members along the difficult but rewarding path of sustainable development, because if they do not, as the Prime Minister has made clear in his representations directly to European leaders, it is not simply Canadian fishermen who suffer. When the stock is depleted regularly as is now the case by overfishing by European nations, it affets the livelihoods and the future of fishermen everywhere. It affects them here directly, of course. It affects them in the community as well.
The problems that we face in the Atlantic Canada fishery are complex and they are difficult, but they are problems that affect the lives of thousand of Canadians and we must alleviate that burden as much as possible.
Over the coming weeks and months, my committee and our officials will continue our work in this direction. We will be continuing our discussions with the provinces on a long-term diversification program in which we expect them to play a full part. We will be providing the short-term adjustment programs that are necessary in these difficult times, and we will be looking into decisions that we can take that will help us to better manage this important resource. We recognize that the effect of this problem upon the lives of Atlantic Canadians is considerable and it is difficult.
I can assure this House that we will do our utmost to ensure the long-term economic security of the affected regions and to ensure also adjustment assistance for the affected individuals.
December 18, 1989


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as we go into the Christmas season there is a sense of desperation in Canada. It affects many communities. It affects many family homes, many apartments. I would be the first to admit that it does not hit each family in each community, but its grasp is extensive and it affects the lives of many Canadians.
Communities will lose their train service next month, farm families will lose farms that have been in the family for generations, miners in my own community of Lynn Lake will not only lose their severance pay as a result of a mine closing. Towns like Portage la Prairie have not only had the government action of closing down a military base but have also had Campbell's Soup announce that it will be closing its plant as well.
There is desperation for many Canadians who only have short-term jobs and know that they will lose their UI benefits. There is desperation for families who are hard pressed to pay their own bills and who found out on Friday that their children's education is going to have a surcharge put on it, that the government wishes to charge hundreds of dollars to an average student in order to pay for the privatization of the Canada Student Loans Program.
Area of this country that had hope for their own future now see cut-backs in regional development programs, in tourist programs, and in forestry agreements. People are uncertain whether under the free trade agreement this government will ever again help their region or help their industry. People feel that the government is continuing to turn its back on the Canadian people. Nowhere is this more true than in Atlantic Canada and no industry was more directly hit than the fishing industry.
Last week we heard question in the House about the closure of National Sea Products, one of the two largest fishing corporations in Canada. It announced a series of plant closures that will affect 1,500 workers and their families in Atlantic Canada. The plant in St. John's, Newfoundland will be closed and will eliminate 492 jobs. The facility at Canso will close throwing 742 people out of work. This processing facility is the largest single employer in that community. The plant in North Sydney, Nova Scotia, will be converted to a salt-fish operation with a job loss of 280.
Earlier in the year, the National Sea Plant at Locke-port, Nova Scotia, was closed with a job loss of 220 people. Another 150 jobs were lost when the Port Mouton facility of Clearwater Fine Foods closed in March, while another 100 plant workers in New Wave Fisheries found themselves unemployed when their plant closed. That is the action so far and we are now awaiting the Fisheries Products International announcements which are also expected to be very devastating to Atlantic Canada.
One of the most upsetting things about listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak earlier today was the appearance that this was a new problem, the kind of feeling that he was trying to give people in Atlantic Canada and people in the House that they set up a committee six months ago because they discovered there was something new, something which was very damaging to the Atlantic Canadian fishing industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have known for years that the fishing industry was in jeopardy. As far back as 1981, when the government through its own report Resource Prospects for Canada's Atlantic Fisheries, 1981-1987 allowed for a projected increase in the resource, it stated the following:
While 1981 predictions are based largely on formal calculations- projections of stock status in later years are to considerable extent best guesses, based on inadequate knowledge.
No action was taken. In 1982 the Kirby report, while projecting a northern cod stock viable enough to have a total allowable catch for 1987 set at 380,000 tonnes, contained the following statement:
A reliance on growth cannot be sustained indefinitely and in many stocks the biological limits of prudent harvesting have been reached, or nearly so.
Again no action was taken, except that Kirby went to the Senate.
In 1987 the federal government commissioned the Alverson report which examined the trends of the cod stocks off Newfoundland. This report warned, and again I quote:
Estimates of the growth in the total stock may have been overly
optimistic and -has not reach expected levels.
Again no action was taken.

December 18, 1989
Finally in early 1988 there was the Canada-Newfound-land Inshore Fisheries Agreement which contained the following:
With few exception the fishery resources of the Atlantic have
reached their maximum utilization and in some cases there is an
indication that overexploitation is occurring.
Again no action was taken.
There have been years and years of Liberal and Tory governments, years and years of government reports, and years and years of Liberal and Tory inaction on a very important process.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Years and years of NDP whining.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, one of the Liberals sitting in his little box back there says that we were whining. Yes, we were whining. We were complaining about Liberal inaction just like we are complaining about Conservative inaction now.
It comes to the same issue when it comes to foreign overfishing. It is nice for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to get up and say that we have had a special high ranking commission, with he himself as the head of it and with senior cabinet ministers, that has been meeting for six months. In addition we have officials, all of a very senior level, and they have been meeting for six months. Why were they not doing something when this was a problem four, five and six years ago?
The problems that Atlantic Canada faces now in the fishing industry are not new. They are not something which occurred six months ago. The overfishing is not something that occurred six months ago. The only thing new is that now government is trying to do something to save its own political rump, while Atlantic Canadians are losing their jobs and their homes.
There are things that could have been done and there are things that can be done now. In Iceland, for example, there is a program to make sure that there is no overfishing in the spawning season. We have a spawning season in Atlantic Canada for the cod, which is basically mid-March to mid-May. Why do we not have a similar program in place? Why was this not in place not six months ago but six years ago? Why has that not happened? When is the government finally going to announce that we will have a similar program in this country?
Again, with all the concern that we have as Canadians about our lack of ability to have adequate surveillance off the Atlantic coast, why has the Government of Canada announced this year that the work of the Tracker aircraft will be suspended in that region? Why is it, in the same year that a Canadian destroyer cannot adequately protect our shores, the government is not announcing something to ensure that we can have the necessary surveillance both by ship and by air of our Atlantic fisheries?
Again, this is a government that has prided itself on environmental assessments, saying it is necessary for every major undertaking of the government. Why have we not had a full environmental assessment of the process by which quotas and allocations of our fish resources are set? Why has that not been done? These are not new ideas. These are ideas that the government could have been acting on for years.
Why have we not had Canadian leadership to fight the foreign overfishing off our coasts? Why have we always reacted? Why have we reacted to the lobster decision? Why have we allowed Portugal and Spain continuously to overfish in our areas and off our 200-mile limit?
We listened to the government. We sense that government members really do not have a plan. With each and every decision, whether it is by National Sea or by Fisheries Products International, we get the sense that all of this was a surprise, that they did not know the decision was going to come down, and that they did not know the Americans were going to make the decision on the lobsters. Yet, they have reports in the Deparment of Fisheries and Oceans which indicate that they knew what the American decision was going to be. For that matter, from the department's own report, they actually defend the upcoming American decision with regard to the lobsters:
For conservation reasons, the U.S. government is trying to
increase the size of lobster that can be caught or imported into the
United States.
This government, in its own report, knew what was coming. You would never know it from the reaction of the Minister for International Trade who shouted once the decision was finally made that the full weight and influence of the Canadian government will be brought to bear on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. administration in
December 18, 1989

an attempt to settle this very serious problem in the interests of our fishermen in eastern Canada.
We are waiting to see what reaction is. The people of Atlantic Canada are wondering why there was no protection earlier. Obviously the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knew that this was going to happen.
The same thing is true with regard to the situation with Spanish and Portuguese overfishing. Why do we continue to pretend that this is a new problem? Why do we continue to pretend that the first time ever we have to go to Spain or we have to go to Portugal to deal with this matter?
We have known about it for years. If it is this most recent government or the government that preceded it, it has basically been a program of reaction, a lack of any leadership, a lack of any planning.
I mentioned in my opening remarks there is a sense that the Canadian government has turned its back on many Canadians and that is especially true in Atlantic Canada. When you see your train service going and you see your fisheries going; when you realize tourist programs are not being renewed; when you see that the government cuts back on its own touted Atlantic Canada Development Agency; when you see forestry agreements not being renewed; or agreements when they are renewed, such as the tourist agreement, have only half as much money put into them; when you know that you can no long afford to send your children to university and the government says "go get a student loan and we will charge you a surcharge on that now," costing as I mentioned earlier, hundreds and hundreds of dollars to an average family; when you get that happening time after time, day after day, how can people in Atlantic Canada say that the federal government is going to represent them?
How people in Atlantic Canada say that their members of Parliament from that region really are concerned with the decisions that are made in cabinet? How can any Atlantic Canadian feel that this Parliament and this government is addressing his or her concerns?
I have received more phone calls today on this issue after it became known that I would be speaking for our caucus, than I have on a number of other issues over the
last few months. There is a real desperation out there and without all the political rhetoric there is a real need for real government action to make people in Atlantic Canada feel that we care and that government is going to do something more than hold a committee for a mere six months.


Mr. Reid:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find that there have been discussions and that all sides would consent to allowing the debate to proceed past midnight so that all members can be heard on such a particularly serious issue and an issue of such great concern to all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, as the spokesman for the Official Opposition, I confirm that we would extend the hours as the parliamentary secretary has indicated.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Will the ministers speak?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for South West Nova would leave it to others who have been designated to assist the Speaker.
I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops.
Mr Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that we in the New Democratic Party would be more than willing to co-operate on this most important matter and to indicate that our leader will be speaking later in the debate when she returns from the west coast.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is with gravity and emotion that I rise this evening to address a matter of the utmost importance for Atlantic Canada and indeed for the country as a whole, that is the crisis of the Atlantic fishery. That industry employs 10 per cent of Atlantic Canada's workforce, contributes millions to the Gross Provincial Product of the four Atlantic provinces, sustains hundreds of coastal communities and is a way of life for thousands of families throughout our region, a way of life which is now in peril.
I want to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to Your Honour for granting this emergency debate and thereby raising the profile of this issue to the top of the national agenda. My colleagues from Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will speak to the dimensions of the crisis in their provinces. I will focus my remarks on Nova Scotia and in particular on the town of Canso.

The town of Canso is located at the eastern apex of mainland Nova Scotia and has been the heart of the fishing industry in that area for nearly 400 years. The communities which surround Canso have been dependent upon the fishery, on inshore fishery and on the offshore fishery, for generations. The Canso plant, now known as the National Sea Products plant, has through successive ownerships sustained an industry and an economy stretching from Canso all the way to Antigon-ish. It is the main employer in that area.
A week ago, National Sea Products Limited announced the closure of its fish processing plant and its trawler port thereby directly affecting some 800 to 850 workers. If the decision is not reversed, a $1 million monthly payroll will dry up. Local services which depend on the fishery will be crippled. The town and county, faced with the loss of its tax base, will be unable to cope. The closure of the National Sea Products plan in Canso, if it is not averted, will mean the devastation of not only the town of Canso but of the entire county of Guysbo-rough and much of eastern Nova Scotia.
I was in Canso on the weekend, I spoke with workers at the National Sea Products plant. I spoke with trawler workers, those hardy souls who pursue their livelihoods on the stormy seas of the north Atlantic. Across the street I met with Cansonians doing their pre-Christmas shopping at the co-op store. I met with the mayor, Mr. Ray White, and members of his council on the prospects for the town and surrounding communities in light of the National Sea Products decision. Mayor White and the warden of Guysborough County, Herman Long, have travelled to Ottawa to attend this debate and are in the gallery tonight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis G. LeBlanc: They and the council of the town of Canso want to underscore the importance of this industry to their future.
The reaction of Cansonians to the National Sea announcement has been one of disbelief. They do not believe that a company which as recently as a month ago praised the workforce at its Canso plant and on its trawlers would suddenly close the entire operation. They cannot believe that a community which has survived on fishing for 400 years, a community where no other conceivable economic alternatives exist, would permanently shut down because of a temporary depletion of fish stocks.
That National Sea Products would choose to pull out of Canso and close its other Atlantic plants after spending millions of its recent profits to acquire a vast international empire, including processing plants in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in the United States, is unbelievable to the people of Canso.
What Cansonians find most difficult to believe or what they cannot accept is a Canadian government, which purports to speak for all Canadians, which is a shareholder in this company, and which has known for months that the situation facing the Atlantic fishery, has so quietly acquiesced to this corporate decision.
The crisis facing the Atlantic fishery was not begun with these recent announcements of plant closures by National Sea Products. The writing has been on the wall for many months. Little has been done to offset this crisis.
When questioned on the matter, the government has always evaded the issue by stating the facts and figures of scientific studies which have been proven to be an inaccurate measure at best. Then they stalled by saying that they are waiting for the reports of Harris and Hache.
It is fine to have independent studies done, but why have they not come up with a strategy for saving this important industry? As usual, the cart is before the horse with this government and the blame falls on poor leadership and mismanagement by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The government response to the plant closures announced by the Minister for International Trade in St. John's last Monday, and echoed I presume by the Nova Scotia minister in Canso, is a slap in the face to the workers who have invested their lives in this industry.
What is new about telling workers they will be able to qualify for UI? What is new in that? What is new in telling them that they can be retrained for some other industry? What is new in that? What is new in telling them that they can retire early? What is new in telling them that they can leave Canso and find jobs in some other industries elsewhere? That is not a response to an urgent crisis.

The response of the Minister of Fisheries is even more contemptible. He says the fishing industry is fine. His response to the workers is: "Don't worry! Be happy''. They are worried in Canso and they are not happy. They are worried about their future and they are worried about the loss of their livelihood.
Phyllis MacDonald spoke for all fish plant workers in Canso when she told me on Saturday: "I've worked for ten years at this plant. I'm trained to process fish. I'm good at what I do. I don't want to be trained for something else. I don't want UI. I just want to work."
Canso has become a symbol. It is a symbol of the neglect of Atlantic Canada by this government. It is a symbol of the insensitivity of this government to the regions of this country. And it is a symbol of the gross mismanagement by this government of the Atlantic fishery.
How else can one explain the sudden revelation that fish stocks throughout Atlantic Canada are seriously depleted? Who has been managing these stocks for the last four years? Who is responsible for licensing and regulating fishermen and fishing vessels? Who determines where and how much can be fished? Who monitors and collects information on fish landings and on fishing activity? Who polices, or does not police, illegal overfishing by foreign vessels in Canadian waters? Who has been issuing foreign licences to foreign factoiy-freezer trawlers from Russia, Spain, Portugal, Poland, from everywhere? Who has turned a blind eye while the mid-shore dragger fleet off the Scotia shelf suddenly tripled in capacity at the same time as stocks in this area and in Georges Bank were being decimated? If this is not mismanagement, Madam Speaker, then what is it?
This government talks about diversification. It promises a community development fund to wean fishing communities off fishing and onto other activities. But who can believe the government when it slashes regional development spending in Atlantic Canada, when it pulls out of towns like Summerside after promising the moon during the election campaign and when the minister for ACOA announces in Port Hawkesbury, two weeks before the election, that Thyssen of Germany will invest
$58 million and create 500 jobs in the Strait of Canso area, and a year later nothing has happened?
The people of Canada are fed up with empty Tory promises. This government, unable to come up with solutions of its own to the messes that it has created with its policies, is constantly asking the opposition, and in particular the Liberals, for solutions. Well here are some solutions.
Begin by lowering interest rates and the value of the Canadian dollar, a policy which is crippling the export industries of the Atlantic region. Sit down and, in return for a package of assistance, oblige National Sea and Fishery Products International to spread out its quota among Atlantic plants so that towns like Canso, with an historic attachment to the fishery and no alternatives, can continue to survive and stay in the fishery until fish stocks improve. Find innovative markets and uses for under-utilized species, encourage Canadian fleets to catch these species and process them in Canadian, not foreign, plants. Put in place stock-management programs that make sense and that provide benefits to Canadians, not to foreign governments.
I recognize that the Atlantic fishery must continue to be economically viable and that to force companies like National Sea Products and Fishery Products International into bankruptcy would not contribute to its health. However, the Government of Canada can never forget that the fishery belongs to the people of Canada to be managed for the benefit of Canadians, in particular Canadians in Canada's coastal communities who depend with a larger stake in the Atlantic fishery, with a more legitimate claim to this resource, than the town of Canso and the surrounding villages of eastern Nova Scotia. They must not be allowed to die.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, to paraphrase my colleague who just spoke, the Government of Canada will not forget the communities of Atlantic Canada and does not overlook the fact that the fish stocks of Atlantic Canada belong to Canadians, but especially to those of Atlantic Canada who have depended on them for their sustenance and livelihoods for centuries.
I understand the intensity that the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso brings to this debate and I compliment him on requesting that this debate be

held this evening. I listened carefully to his comments. Having grown up in a small coal-mining town myself and having seen a succession of mine closings I think I can personally feel the hurt, the anxiety and the frustrations that are being experienced in communities like Canso as we approach the holiday period.
I recognize that Mayor White and an alderman from Canso are in the House tonight. I have had the privilege of visiting communities like Canso, Black Tickle and Meteghan up and down the coast of Atlantic Canada. I know that there is no option that the fishery, particularly the inshore fishery and the fish plants, is really what give people an adequate income in a situation where they can properly raise their children and look forward with confidence and optimism toward the future. So I do not take lightly any of the contributions that have been made this evening to this point and I will listen with great interest to the balance of the speeches this evening.
I think we all feel a special admiration for men and women that go down to sea and we must share their sadness when tragedy strikes, as occurred last week when the Johnny and Sisters II sank in a fierce storm, losing Captain Harry Thorneburn and eight men of the crew, including his son. I think all members of the House would want to send our heartfelt regrets to the families of these lost fishermen.
The problems of the Atlantic fishery are not problems that have just sprung upon us. Were I sitting on the opposition side I would probably be as wont to finding simplistic excuses or criticisms to offer. These problems have been a fact of the fishery for as long as it has been conducted but have become increasingly difficult in these times when we have modem, sophisticated industries and technology allowing us to sell a very valuable product into an international marketplace where we are very vulnerable to the swings of supply and demand and exchange rates.
Even more seriously, we are constantly faced with the increasing advancement of technology and the ability to find fish wherever they are, to put large nets in their path and to harvest them in abundant quantities. Coupled with that, we have to face the real problem that our science is not as highly developed as it ought to be because there are many things that defy the ability of scientists to make accurate predictions about the magnitude of the fish stocks.
I want to point out for the benefit of members that the life cycle of the Atlantic cod being eight years plus makes it very difficult to learn about the first two or three years of that life cycle in order to be able to predict the abundance and set quotas for that stock from five to ten years after it was originally spawned.
We have developed a very elaborate system over the past 15 years, at least since the extension of jurisdiction, to involve all of the interested parties, all of those whose future hinges on the health of the fishery to be a part of the quota-setting process.
So we have an elaborate system of consultation which involves the input of scientific advice produced by our scientists who we believe are among the world's finest. They present, through the Canadian Atlantic Fishery Scientific Advisory Committee, quota proposals based, as I conceded a few moments ago, on an inadequate understanding of how many fish lurk beneath the surface of the sea and how they are managing in terms of food supply, in terms of water temperature and currents and the presence of predators. We take this scientific advice and we then sit down with all of the industry groups each autumn through a structure called the Atlantic Ground-fish Advisory Committee and together with scientists and officials discuss what the quotas should be for the coming year.
That consultation culminates in a meeting each December between myself and the Atlantic provincial fisheries ministers at which the proposed groundfish management plan is further discussed and at which time I try to seek the support of the four maritime ministers, the Newfoundland minister and the Minister of Fisheries for Quebec as we finalize a document which contains the proposed quotas for some 50 groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada.
This process has evolved, as I mentionned, over some 10 to 15 years and it represents the finest example of consultation in reaching decisions which contribute to the orderly and sustainable management of a finite resource. The policies within which those decisions are taken are modified as a result of suggestions from the Atlantic Regional Council. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, in another incarnation, created this policy advisory group which helps us to decide the forms of policy by which the Atlantic fishery is managed.
December 18, 1989

All of this to say that the question of what went wrong is not simply a matter of accusing or laying the blame at the feet of any particular individual or agency of government. This is a complex process and one which has improved and evolved. I think it was the member for Selkirk who made some helpful suggestions of things we should be doing to better assess the environmental sustainability, I think was how he put it, of these precious stocks of fish. In fact, that is what we have been doing. For some two to three years now we have been working to improve our knowledge of this resource and the means by which we predict the quotas.
I would like to just list a few of the things that I have been privileged to initiate in the more than four years that I have been Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to state that we would not have taken these initiatives if we were not concerned about the future stability and integrity of the Atlantic groundfish industry.
In January, 1986, at an Atlantic Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting in St. John's we tackled the problem of foreign fishing within and beyond the Canadian 200-mile limit. As a result of that and numerous meetings that I have held with Atlantic provincial ministers, we announced a new policy in June of that year which involved the re-arming of our fisheries patrol vessels, an increase in fines under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act from a level of $50,000 for a summary offence to over $500,000. We introduced armed boarding parties. We apprehended and pursued vessels half way across the Atlantic and beyond. As a result of the intensification of our enforcement against foreign vessels that would violate our fishing zone, we saw in the subsequent years, 1987 and beyond, a substantial decline in the number of sightings of and alleged offences by these foreign vessels. We introduced full observer coverage on all foreign vessels fishing within our waters.
Another important initiative that we decided was that no longer should the right to fish our precious, non-surplus cod stocks in Canadian waters be tied to some kind of market access consideration. We said the only quotas available within our waters would be of surplus stocks, that is, those which were not of interest to the Canadian fishing industry. We said the countries, in most cases members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, which qualify for these quotas would, in turn, have to exhibit good behaviour in terms of meeting our conservation requirements. We introduced increased aerial surveillance, with both fixed-wing aircraft and
5. ft 52
helicopters, in both the Newfoundland and the Scotia- Fundy region.
One of the most important initiatives of all that I recall taking arose from my visits to small inshore communities in Newfoundland in the summer of 1986, and then Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador in the summer of 1987. I listed to fishermen. I visited them at the wharves early in the morning to learn that they were extremely alarmed and troubled by the shrinking size and the disappearance of the inshore cod that they had been traditionally accustomed to catching.
I was troubled by this to the extent that we took major initiatives early in 1987 to end the practice of discarding young fish at sea and to placing observers on our domestic offshore vessels when they were fishing in areas where the cod would be spawning at that time of year. We introduced stiff penalties for the discard and wastage of young northern cod and required that the fishing effort be spread out among the three sub-regions known as 2J, 3K and 3L. This had some initial effect, we believe, in helping the inshore fishery to begin to recover as it appeared to do in 1988.
But when I returned in the summer of 1987 the fishermen were still alarmed. They felt that the quotas which had been set in the mid to late 1980s as a result of the projections of scientific advice in the late 1970s and the advice of the people who advised the Kirby Ihsk Force apparently were too high. The inshore fishermen banded together and created a group called the Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Association and demanded that we set the quota lower. Contrary to scientific advice, I set the quota lower and at the same time I commissioned a group of eminent international scientists headed up by Dr. Lee Alverton of the University of Washington, Dr. Pope of the University of Lowestoft in Britain and other acknowledged experts to find out whether our scientists were properly predicting the abundance of the northern cod stock.
As we look back now we can see that those were the beginnings of a process which has led to a much more accurate means of predicting the abundance of cod stocks. The age classifications and the survival rate of each age group is much more carefully taken into account. The result was that the scientific advice presented for northern cod last winter suggested that our quotas had been far too high, that the overly optimistic notion that we could extract some 400,000 metric tonnes of cod from the northern cod resource was vastly

exaggerated and that we would have to lower the quota to about half of that and perhaps even less still.
In February of 1989, early this year, I had to take the difficult choice, notwithstanding all of the consultation and all the advice we had received, of reducing that quota temporarily to 235,000 metric tonnes. I commissioned Dr. Les Harris, President of Memorial University; Dr. Alverson, other scientists and other leaders of the Newfoundland fishing industry to re-examine this whole question as to whether we were using the proper scientific methodology to predict the abundance of these stocks.
I am elaborating on this because the member for Selkirk seemed to suggest that we should be doing some kind of a comprehensive environmental study of this resource. In fact, that is the process that has been evolving for three years. We are trying to find the cause of the problem to fix it. I am sorry to say that our findings are not producing popular results. In fact, there are many people who do not want to believe the scientists and do not want to believe these international experts. Those who have made investments predicated on a continuing healthy offshore fishery have now had to re-assess those decisions.
We have all had to re-assess the size of this industry in terms of the capacity that was encouraged by the restructuring of 1982 and 1983, by a royal commission of inquiry at that time, by the pouring of tens of millions of dollars into creating and industry predicated upon certain expectations about the abundance of the resource only to find, as we have suspected for some time, that the resource cannot sustain the levels which had been envisaged for it.
Something has gone wrong in the projections of the resource but all is not disaster in the Atlantic fishery because we have some 50 stocks of Atlantic groundfish producing over 850,000 metric tonnes of abundance. We have the problem of an excessively high price for cod block in 1987 which collapsed in 1988. We have the problem of a declining appetite for fish in the large United States market which is important. Most of all, we have the problem of communities dependent on fish plants which are the very heart and soul of those communities.
We have to find solutions through the package of economic measures which have been described in this House this evening and last week and which we will elaborate upon in the coming days. No amount of economic assistance, no tens of millions of dollars will restore the self-respect, the sense of pride, the sense of fulfilment and happiness that we wish for all Canadians at this time of year.
I hope through the findings that I have described tonight, this new scientific advice, through measures we are taking to tighten up on the overcapacity in the industry, through increased fines under the Fisheries Act for domestic violation, and through the initiatives to end the blatant foreign destruction of our stocks beyond our 200-mile limit, that we can create a greater sense of optimism about the fishery of the future.
It troubles me no end that we have something in the order of 325,000 to 350,000 tonnes of very fine protein in the water of Atlantic Canada which our Canadian industry is not interested in catching; whether this be in the form of redfish, turbot, Greenland halibut, capelin or other species. Under the international law of the sea and Canada's international obligations, if Canadian interests-fishermen and investors-are not willing to harvest that resource, other nations, in this case through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, have an opportunity to ask our permission to harvest it. It does not belong to Canada but as the coastal state we have first refusal on it.
Last year some 160,000 of those surplus species were allocated to Canadian companies and something less than 50,000 tonnes were harvested. There is a surplus there of about 120,000 tonnes of these species which I believe we can further develop and further exploit for the benefit of communities such as Canso, St. John's and others.
I am not saying that this is the solution to all of these problems but we are putting together a pool of these under-utilized species, and I believe that with the kind of assistance available through the Community Development Program and the economic diversification initiatives that this government will be funding we can help some enterprises in some of these communities to find ways to harvest that significant amount of Canadian resource which, for many years, has been left in the
December 18, 1989

water or given away to the foreigners. In fact, we could claim the full 325,000 or 350,000 tonnes if we could make it work for us.
That is the commitment that I am making together with a commitment for additional measures to bring the capacity growth under control, to create a fishery in which we all show more responsibility toward the resource. In a more personal sense, we need to create a future, to create an industry and to add diversification to that industry in the communities such as Canso and Lockeport and other which have not yet been named to ensure that ther is a continuation of a strong and healthy fishery in their futures.
I ask all members of this House to try to understand the complexity of the issue but yet to share with me the optimism that the problem can be solved for the greater good of all Atlantic Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and there is an agreement that, at least in so far as the members of the Official Opposition are concerned, speeches from this point on by members of the Official Opposition will be limited to 10 minutes each. So we would have two 10-minute segments for each member of the Official Opposition recognized.
The government may wish to do that in so far as members on that side are concerned after the speech of the Minister for International Trade. The New Democrats may choose to do so after their Leader has spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition put by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I take it that there is agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. LeBlanc) for persevering in his request for this emergency debate. I also wish to thank the Speaker of the House who approved this request. It is a sign that the Chair has fully understood the seriousness of the situation. There are more than enough problems in the fisheries, whether we are talking about the Atlantic, Newfoundland, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, eastern Quebec and New Brunswick, or about the West Coast, with the salmon and herring fishery. We also have problems with pollution in certain waterways on the coast of British Columbia. We have problems in the Artie fishery. We have problems in the Great Lakes. We have problems across Canada, but we have one major problem, and that is that our fisheries have no one to defend them. We saw an example of that this evening. When it is time to talk about the fisheries and to provide solutions, who rises in the House to talk about the fisheries ? The Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Clark). That is the problem. Because the Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has been given a free rein to visit foreign countries and conclude all kinds of agreements, we have lost the fisheries. The Minister is simply out to lunch as far as the fisheries are concerned. That is our major problem.
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the Atlantic region, what we are now seeing is a major crisis. For us, in the Atlantic region, it means our economic base is crumbling. Our cod stocks are disappearing. We are faced with overfishing by foreign fleets and a government that refuses to act, a government that lets everything pass. We have been hit by unilateral action taken by the Americans, a decision that restricts exports of lobsters to the United States. The crab season has been a real disaster. There again, stocks are exhausted, which has a particular impact on New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
In New Brunswick and elsewhere, we have been hearing about plant closures, which in some cases, especially in Canso, will cause an entire community to disappear. The community will close down. And what does the government do? What does the government say? Not much! And the worst of it is that the government is siding with the big corporations instead of defending the interests of fishermen and plant workers. What the government fails to understand is that the fish stocks in the sea are there for all Canadians and for the communities that depend on them. So far, this government has refused to protect this resource for those communities. The government has preferred to listen to the corporations which want to do what suits them and transfer fish stocks from one location to the other. In the

December 18, 1989
case of Canso, the whole economic base will disappear. There will be nothing left in that part of the province. We have a government that promises assistance, assistance that has yet to materialize, although the plant closures have already been announced. Those are a few of the reasons why I support the motion by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. This perseverance is truly admirable.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the serious impact of this crisis on the fishery in New Brunswick. I realize that my colleagues from other provinces will consider the specific impact on their respective provinces.
We in New Brunswick sympathize with other Atlantic communities because we know what it means to lose a community's only source of income. I would like to quote what was said by the hon. Denis Losier, New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who stated: "New Brunswick's economy will lose as much as $130 million this year because of declining snow crab stocks and the low prices offered for lobster and herring roe".
The snow crab fishery is in trouble. We had a terrible season last spring, catches were very low and quality was poor. A number of communities have been affected, including Caraquet, Shippegan, Cap-Pele and Shediac. Some examples: Chaleur Bay Packers closed down in Bas-Caraquet; 160,000 people are out of work. Three hundred people lost their jobs when Connors Brothers closed in Shippegan; 250 jobs were lost at L. Gauthier and Sons in Shippegan. The situation has taken on crisis proportions, and this is just in the snow crab industry.
Now a few words about herring roe. Here again, the season was a disaster, not because there wasn't enough fish, but because prices were so low, it wasn't worth the effort.
And now about lobster. Last summer in my riding, fishermen were practically giving the lobster away. They were selling it for $1.50 a pound. Why? Because the packers were stuck with big inventories. Why were they stuck with big inventories? Because our lobster was too expensive for the American market. They were too expensive because the Canadian dollar was too high as result of this government's high interest rate policy. The government refuses to budge. Our lobster is no longer
competitive on American markets. We are losing our export markets.


An Hon. Member:: Not true! -


Fernand Robichaud: Not true-Tell that to the people of New Brunswick! Tell that to the packers! Just look at the inventory they have. Just try and sell lobster to the United States. You can' sell it. You'll have to give it away.

Madam Speaker, as if we did not have enough problems, the Americans have given us some more. They came up with legislation that will limit the import of lobsters to the United States. This will affect about $30 million worth of lobsters.
This means that we will have to process that lobster. We will not be able to sell it live on the American market. Why? Because the Americans decided to bring in a regulation that limits those exports, after the Prime Minister said that he would do everything to stop that measure from going through. What did he do? Well, we do not know. We know that whatever he tried did not work.
And what do we hear from this government? [Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have come to the end of my speech. We would like to see a far more positive reaction from this government. The government has to act aggressively. It must be prepared to do some serious funding. It must ensure that funding is available to promote the use of under-utilized species. It must help fishermen make the necessary adjustments to be able to catch those species. It must also help the processors and the plants to change their equipment so they can process these fish.
The government must also make and effort on the marketing end, to promote species that will no longer be under-utilized, species that our fishermen will be able to catch.
Finally, Madam Speaker, this government must provide assistance to communities and help them through this crisis, so that as soon as fish stocks have been rebuilt, these communities will still be able to make a living from the fishery.
December 18, 1989


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I understand that by virtue of a prior agreement I have only 10 minutes to speak on behalf of-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will try to be helpful to hon. members who are sharing a 20-minute period.
If one hon. member takes 12 or 13 minutes, to be fair to everyone in the House I will have to cut the other member short after seven minutes. I will try to be helpful to hon. members and let whoever has the floor know when there is a minute left in the 10-minute period. After that I will have to cut short the intervention in order to be fair to everyone.


Roger Simmons: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, I have only 10 minutes to make some points on behalf of no fewer than 16,000 or 17,000 fishermen and plant workers who live in the riding of Burin-St. George's. I understand the reason for the agreement and I respect it because so many people in the Official Opposition want to speak on this very important issue.
First, let me deal with a very important specific that has come up already in this debate. I hear members of the NPD with their fairly limited knowledge of fishery from the perspective of that great ocean-going fishing port of Churchill tell us that it is not a new problem. No, it is not a new problem, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says it is not a new problem. But it is a problem that has taken a new twist in the last few years.
When we talk about overfishing I invite members to look at the figures. The overfishing began in 1985 and 1986, after this government took office and after it sent out a very different signal to the foreigners than was being sent out by previous governments. The basic signal being sent out by this government is, "Rape my fish, but love me. As long as you love me, as long as you smile at me, what difference about the livelihoods of fishermen and plant workers?"
My friend from St. John's East, myself and others were in Portugal in November of this year. We had the Director General of Fisheries, Dr. daBreto, look across
the table at us. He said to us in the fall of this year, in November, "If the overfishing problem is as serious as you fellows say it is, why are we only hearing about it now?" Why did it take four years to realize that maybe the minister of fisheries, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister for International Trade, should saunter over to Europe and tell the boys and girls over there, we have a problem? Yes, we have a problem, a problem these people created by not sending out a signal that they were going to fight for the fishermen and the plant workers of Atlantic Canada.
Now we have another problem. It is not called the overfishing problem, it is the underfishing problem. The ever-accommodating minister of fisheries took time from his busy schedule to rush into cabinet one day last month to say, "Look, our good friends the French have not caught quite enough fish, I think we owe them a few bucks". He then goes and pays them $456,000 and has the gall in the process to say it is because they have reduced quota. I know he has his usual good academic explanations for this, but it is another example of his not knowing what side he is on or who he is fighting for.
I am glad he spoke because he gave us what must be the best academic discourse we have had in a long time. What was lacking from that minister tonight, as is always lacking, is something in the gut, some feeling for the fishermen and plant workers he is supposed to be fighting for.
If the government is looking for suggestions-and I noticed my good friend from St. John's West is writing very hastily over there-why does he not put down this one as a first step? Step one, get rid of the minister of fisheries. Thke over the job yourself, boy. At least you know what it is all about. You know one end of a fish from the other. At least you will have something in the gut for those people down there. God help us if you do not have any more in the gut than you had for your own people in St. John's last week, though, when you stood by and let the facility down there be shut down.
The minister of fisheries tells us that he believes in the future of the fishery, that it is going to be a stable fishery. He should compare notes with the fellow who spoke before him, the Secretary of State for External Affairs who was talking about diversification. That is a fancy

term for saying we are going to have the fishermen do something else other than fish.
What is it they are going to do in Ramea, an island off the south coast of Newfoundland. Are they going to have a chocolate bar factory there, maybe, for them? How about a car plant on the island where Gaultois is located, on the south coast of Newfoundland? Maybe there could be a bit of agriculture in Habour Breton, if you can find room to get the roots down between the rocks. Maybe we will move the Canadian Mint to Grand Bank. That ought to do the job. And what are you going to move to Fortune, to Burin, to Marystown and to Burgeo? How about St. Lawrence, Rose Blanche, Codroy, and Belleo-ram? You are going to need a lot of diversification.
I have a better idea. Why do you not have these people do what they know how to do well? Why go through the handstands of diversifying, of training, of retraining? These people split fish very well. They catch it very well. And if as the academic the minister of fisheries tell us, it is only a matter of time before the scientists get this thing in hand, and if it is all going to bounce back in four or five years, then does it not make some sense to you, Madam Speaker, that we ought to preserve our facilities, keep the skills in those communities so that when the fish stocks rebound there will be people there to catch the fish, to process the fish, to get a livelihood from the fish, to continue the way of life that they have had for four or five centuries on that particular coast? Why diversify? Why not find something, maybe a share of the paying process? Maybe we cannot have all the plants operate 12 months around. These people have said community by community that they are prepared to have something less than a full loaf during the short term for the next four or five years.
If the government wants a plan of action, I have a plan of action for it. And it is not fancy words like "diversification". It is the suggestion that it draw on the strengths of those people.
What this government needs to do is to go out and take the initiative, with a bit of seed money, and undo that terrible decision of National Sea last week as it affects St. John's, North Sydney and Canso and forestall the decision that we hear FPI is about to let drop on us in some of the communities that I mentioned a few moments ago. Find a bit of seed money.
Do you know why the government cannot do that? Because just as it sold down the river is landing rights on the British Columbia coast and sold down the river its option to do anything for the lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada, it has also sold down the river to the Americans under the free trade agreement the ability to subsidize a bit, to shore up this industry a bit, at this particular time.
This is what puts the lie to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this has nothing to do with free trade. This has everything to do with free trade. The government's response or lack of response, its mealy-mouthedness talking about diversification and so on and so forth is uncoded, an admission that because of the free trade agreement the government is now leaving 16,000, or most of them, fishermen and plant workers in my riding, plus tens of thousands of other fishermen and plant workers throughout Atlantic Canada, dangling. Why? Because our friend the Prime Minister had to choose between Ronald Reagan and George Bush and some fishermen. And guess who he chose, one more time?
It is not fair. It is not good enough. I see the gentleman from St. John's West is getting in gear. When he gets up, after he gets through with the bafflegab and waving his arms, I want him to respond to my suggestion. If the stocks are going to rebound, as his colleagues have been telling us all night, will he in the interim put to cabinet the idea that the limit of stocks ought to be shared among the several plants to help them continue do do what they do well until the stocks do rebound? Will he do that for us.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself tonight to the people who may be watching, in particular those from the district of St. John's West, Trepassey, St. Maiys Bay, St. Joseph's-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You'll need all the saints to save you after this.


John Carnell Crosbie: -from Peter's River, Fermeuse, St. John's from elsewhere in Newfoundland because we do have a serious problem, and not for the first time in the Atlantic fishery.
December 18, 1989

The last time we had a severe problem it was caused by human mistakes. The crisis of 1981 to 1983 was caused by record high interest rates, by double digit inflation, all during the time of the previous Liberal government. That is what induced our last fisheries crisis in eastern Canada. That compares to the fisheries crisis that we have today, which is not caused by anything this government has done or not done. It is caused by a lack of fish, as reported to us with a changed estimate by our scientists earlier this year.
The brilliant analysis is this. Our problem is caused by the fact that we no longer have fish in the water in sufficient quantities to feed the plants that are in trouble now or may be in trouble in the next several months. The fish are no longer there. Why are they no longer there? I do not know why they are no longer there, but I know this. Last year, 1988, the fishery scientists of the Government of Canada said that the total allowable catch for northern cod could properly be 295,000 tonnes. I know that we set the total allowable catch in 1988 at 265,000 tonnes to make sure that we were not taking too much fish.
I know this too, Mr. Speaker. In January and February of this year the same scientists came along and told the Government of Canada that the northern cod fish stock was not as they had thought it was, but that this year, 1989, we could take only 125,000 tonnes fish as our total allowable catch, a reduction from 295,0000 tonnes to
125.000	tonnes, which is a reduction of 170,000 tonnes in just a few months in the estimates by our scientists of what we could take. That is what has caused this present situation.
We set the total allowable catch at 235,000 tonnes this year. Why? Because we were not going to wipe out the whole eastern Canadian fishery on the whims of scientists who one year say that it is safe to take 295,000 tonnes and the next year tell you that you can only take
125.000	tonnes. Whole communities, whole economies cannot be held up to ransom at the whim of scientists. No.
We saw that the total allowable catch for this year was set at 235,000 tonnes. That is a reduction of 31,000 tonnes from the actual amount set last year of 266,000. We appointed Dr. Harris and the eminent people serving with him to review what had gone wrong in the scientific assessment and to tell us what the safe total allowable catch might be for next year and the years to come and
what needs to be done so that this does not happen again.
We are advised in an interim report that the safe TAC for next year of northern cod might be 190,000 tonnes. If it is, that means that the catch has to decline again next year by a further 45,000 tonnes. That is why Canso is having the difficulty that it is having. It is being told by National Sea that the Canso plant must shut. That is why the St. John's plant has been told by National Sea that it must shut. That is why other plants in my province are in danger of having their own fish plants shut as well. It is not by some human error of this government, not by interest rate policies, not by the economic conditions that a government allowed to be created, but by this totally unexpected calamity visited upon us that is no fault of ours but which we are trying to deal with.
I never heard tonight one suggestion as to what other approach we could take, other than the approach we are taking.


Fernand Robichaud: You did. You were not listening.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have serious matters I want to discuss with the people in my district and the members opposite are not interested. The people of my province are interested.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You're the minister for all of Newfoundland, not just for your own district.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to have to contend with the braying of the untutored and the uncaring.
I quote now from the Kirby task force report. Mr. Kirby was appointed by the last Liberal government to look at the crisis it created with interest rates and double digit inflation. What did he recommend? He recommended enterprise allocations. Fifty-one of these 57 recommendations were approved. One of them was enterprise allocations or company quotas to the large offshore companies.
He said in his report that the northern cod quota was projected to reach 380,000 tonnes by 1987. What was it in actual fact in 1987? It was considerably less than that. In 1987 the actual total allowable catch was 256,000 tonnes, not 380,000 tonnes. Even the great Kirby was far out in his projections.
Then there was an Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act. What was the purpose given in the legislation? To facilitate the development of viable Atlantic fisheries that are competitive and privately owned through the restructuring of fishery enterprises. That was what the last government did. The last government put over $300

million into these companies-Fishery Products and National Sea they eventually became. It put $300 million into companies.
It was the one who introduced the big company solution of 1983, which members opposite now decry and would they blame us if we give these companies any understanding at all or try to see that they remain viable economic units. There is nothing but scorn from the other side. These are the companies created by the big company solution, the Liberal solution of 1983. It was their restructuring which did nothing for the smaller companies and the inshore sector.
This time that is not the route we are going. We are going the route of helping the communities. We are going the route of helping the people and helping the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
We are looking at two things-a long-term solution which was never attempted by the last government. That involves the restructuring in Newfoundland and Labrador of our fishery. Just listen to these figures and give some thought to what they reveal.
Fishing contributes 6 per cent only to the Newfoundland Gross Domestic Product but 25 per cent to total employment. Is it any wonder that our people who are in the fishery and in fish processing have only low incomes to look to?
The average Saskatchewan farm family in 1986 had an income of $32,000-34 per cent from farming, 40 per cent from other employment earnings, nothing from UI and 26 per cent from other sources.
The average Atlantic farm family had an income of $33,750.
The average Nova Scotia fishing family had an income of $35,000-53 per cent from fishing, 25 per cent from employment earnings, 16 per cent from UI and 6 per cent from other sources.
In Newfoundland, the place that I am most concerned about, the average fishing family income in 1986 was $19,850 of which only 24 per cent came from fishing, 30 per cent from other employment earnings, 41 per cent from UI and 5 per cent from other sources.
Is this the state that we want to leave our people in who are engaged in the fishery in Newfoundland now or do we want to build a viable fishery? I opt for building a viable fishery, and that is what we are dam well going to do.
Just consider this. In 1975 we had 10,283 plant workers in the fishing plants in Newfoundland. In 1988 we had 28,446 just about triple.
In 1975 we had 15,812 part-time and full-time fishermen. In 1988 we had 29,826 full-time and part-time fishermen.
Is it any wonder that the people involved in the fishery have low average incomes with a large percentage of their income coming from UI. What can we do to change this?
There are two approaches to this problem that we are taking. One is to deal with the immediate results of plants that might have to close because there is no fish there to put through the plants.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why is there not fish?


John Carnell Crosbie: Why? I do not know. I can only tell you what the scientists tell us.
What is the approach? In a community where a plant has to close or is severely affected, all regular programs of course apply-UI, the industrial adjustment service, Community Futures, all of the help that can be given for training or retraining or helping somebody secure other employment. This is an industry where the workers have no rights to pensions. They do not even have a right to separation allowance in Newfoundland. We have the program for older workers which we have introduced and which the Newfoundland government is going to participate in. Those 55 and over who cannot get other employment will receive assistance up to $1,100 a month, 70 per cent if their UI benefit until they become pensionable.
Apart from that program which applies to those 55 and over, we are going further. We are introducing a supplementary plan in this extraordinary situation in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In this extraordinary situation we are introducing the same kind of benefits to those 50 and over who cannot secure other work or who cannot be retrained for other jobs. We are looking after

the people, not the big companies that were looked after by the Liberals in the early 1980s.
In addition, for the immediate crisis we are establishing a community diversification fund to help the local communities see what other job opportunities can be created, what other industries can be introduced and what other work can be made available. That is an additional program. That is for the immediate problem that affects the communities that are now affected by the plant closings. That is our approach, not the corporate approach, not the pouring of $300 million into two companies as was done by our predecessors.
For the longer term program, we are working in Newfoundland with the government of Newfoundland to see how we can build a viable fishery, to see how we can create diversification in the economy and other job opportunities, because this industry cannot support the number of people now involved in it as the figures show. It cannot support them with a decent income, so other measures had to be taken to try to give those people another income. That is what we are doing. We are not sitting in this House hurling abuse every day at someone else with no constructive alternatives.
What do some people in responsible positions think of that? If we look at what Premier Wells has been saying in Newfoundland, we are not getting a parade of abuse from him. I am reading from a transcript of a December 11 press conference where he states:
The federal government has clearly acknowledged its responsibility and is prepared to take it, and I express appreciation to the federal government for that.
That is a Liberal who is in a responsible position expressing appreciation. He said this at page 10:
1 think we're seeing the beginning of a significant change in the Newfoundland fishery, and we must stop burdening the fishing industry with the responsibility to be the employment opportunity of last resort. We must find the means, and this is what we've been saying for two years in the Liberal Party. We must find the means of providing alternative economic opportunities, and the federal government has a responsibility, along with the provincial government because they can benefit, in fact, even more than the provincial government can by doing so. But we must stop burdening the fishing industry with the responsibility of being the employment opportunity of last resort for our people, and provide other alternatives.
That is from Premier Wells, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland who approves absolutely of what we are doing. He is not sitting there cackling and abusing the government. He is saying the government is doing the right thing and the Newfoundland government is going to participate with us in doing the right thing, building a viable future for the Newfoundland people in the fishery.
Here is a statement made on the same day by Premier Wells which states at page 4:
We have worked closely with the government of Canada on this problem. Despite some early differences of view on the magnitude of the problem, our discussions have focused largely on appropriate response measures, and I am pleased to state that these discussions have proceeded in a positive atmosphere of common concern and common purpose.
Where is the concern on the other side of the House. Did I hear any concern expressed tonight? Not likely.
On page 5 of the same statement it states:
I wish to commend the federal and provincial task forces for the diligent manner in which they have conducted their work -I also commend the federal government for recognizing its ultimate responsibility for its resource management decisions.
On page 6 it states:
Considerable work and discussion have taken place on this proposed program which could be cost-shared by the federal and provincial governments.
Further down it states:
This would be a long term process and the province is prepared to provide a substantial sum each year for this program over the next 10 years.
That is what is going on. There is no lack of action. You will hear what the program is, Mr. Speaker, when we have finished and completed the details of it with the Government of Newfoundland.
What else are we doing? We are pouring more money into northern cod research with an additional $3 million being spent this year, additional electronic equipment obtained to improve the efficiency of the research, the computer upgraded at St. John's to handle the increased amount of the data, the Gadus Atlantica will be modified during the winter to utilize research acoustic equipment in ice-infested waters and the amount of acoustic surveying in 1990 to be increased significantly, including a doubling of surveys inshore. Additional tagging will be carried out. Other activities being funded include neces-

December 18, 1989
sary electronic equipment to go aboard fishing vessels to collect oceanographic data.
Those are some of the other things that are being done. Much is being done. Much is being done by our Minister of Fisheries whom hon. gentlemen opposite tiy to criticize and denigrate and knock down, but who is doing a great job on behalf of the fishermen and the people of Atlantic Canada.
In 1988 we had a TAC of 266,000 tonnes. I have in my hands a list of Fishery Products' various plants and how much capacity was utilized in the plants. Even when the TAC was 266,000 tonnes they could only utilize the capacity at Marystown 53 per cent; Trepassey, 60 per cent; Harbour Breton, 49 per cent; Ramea, 88 per cent; Gaultois, 43 per cent; Bonavista, an inshore plant, 29 per cent. There is the problem. Even in a year when the TAC was 266,000 tonnes, not 190,000 tonnes, this was the capacity utilization of their plants.
It is suggested that somehow they can keep all plants open and just open them for several months or a few months a year. That way they will go to their economic doom. If they cannot be economically viable entities, who is going to lend them money? Who is going to give them credit? Who is going to invest money with them? No one. Unless they can be economically viable, they are finished. If they are finished, who is going to operate these plants? Not the government. I hope to God it is not the government. That is the kind of problem that we have.
Let us look at the inshore and the offshore catches. In 1982, 113,000 tonnes were caught inshore, 117,000 tonnes caught offshore; 1983, 106,000 inshore, 126,000 offshore; 1984, 97,000 inshore, 135,000 offshore. I will skip up to 1988, 102,000 tonnes inshore, 156,000 tonnes offshore. Now we are faced with a situation where next year the TAC may be 190,000 tonnes. That is the problem. It was not caused by this government. It was not even caused by the last government because they knew nothing about the fact that the cod out in the water was not as the scientists were saying it was, that the mass had not quintupled, that it had only tripled, which we were told last February. It is not even their fault.
To set the record straight with reference to the free trade agreement, the free trade agreement does not prevent us from subsidizing plants. If we want to subsidize plants, it may or may not result in a countervail case in the United States. There was a case in the United States against the fishing industry in 1985. It has nothing to do with the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement does not give them the right to take a countervail action or not take a countervail action. They have that right under their own domestic legislation. They have that right under their own domestic legislation. They had it in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, well before 1989 which was the year of the free trade agreement. The Leader of the Opposition knows that but gets up tonight and says something different. Instead of going out taking the larger view, he is going out with this kind of-well, I will not even characterize it. I do not want to waste time.
The free trade agreement has nothing to do with this situation. If we want to subsidize plants, if that was the way to go, if that was the answer to the problem, we could do it and take our chances on countervail. There was countervail in 1985. There is a countervail duty now of 5.82 per cent on fresh. Atlantic groundfish. It is not the free trade agreement.
These are the people I represent, all these people in Newfoundland. I am the cabinet minister in this government who represents them and I have not had a worse six months in representing them since I have been here. I want to tell them tonight that I am making every effort that I can to see that this problem, this crisis, is resolved in the way that is best for them and in the way that is best for their children. If I don't succeed, they can let me know that they think I have failed them and I am quite willing to resign, or they can deal with me at the next election. I can tell you as long as I am here, every possible effort is going to be made to resolve this crisis. The people of Newfoundland, and the fishermen and the fish plant workers will be looked after to the best of my ability, or the best of the ability of any government that can do that.
I am confident that before this is over we are going to have a better fishery in Newfoundland, a more viable fishery, a fishery that contains fishermen and fisherwom-en who are better paid and better recompensed and fish plant workers who are better looked after, who are going to have pension rights, and separation allowance rights. That is what we are going to have in the next 10 years if

December 18, 1989

we are successful in the longer terra approach that has never been taken before.
I want to repeat here tonight something the Prime Minister said on December 13. The leader of this government said this: "We have taken some substantial actions and we propose to take more. Let me summarize for my friend. When the farmers of western Canada were hurting, this government took action, When Atlantic fishermen are hurting, we will take action as well."
That is the pledge of the Prime Minister. That is the pledge that I expect the Prime Minister and the government to fulfil. That is the pledge we are going to fulfil. There are going to be a lot of tough times. It will not be helped by hon. gentlemen opposite with their cheap shots, but by God, with the help of my colleagues in this government, with the assistance of the Newfoundland government, with the support of the Newfoundland people, we are going to overcome this problem, and when we leave we will leave behind a better, viable fishery, better for the people in it, better for the people who participate, better for their families. That is our pledge. We are going to go through some rough times, but they are going to find me by their side. They are going to find the government by their side and together we are going to lick this problem, not caused by us, but caused by events that were outside our control.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been some discussion with all sides of the House. Ordinarily, I would recognize a member from the New Democratic Party. I understand the hon. member who might have spoken wishes to stand down at the moment. I am informed that the leader of the New Democratic party is on her way and I am sure that hon. members would co-operate in that. Therefore, I will go onto the next on the list and look to the government side, to be followed by a member from the official opposition.


Coline M. Campbell: If you are trading, you trade with the Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: The New Democratic Party is not at the moment prepared to put up a speaker. They want to stand down and hope that their leader will be here. I have been informed, and I think members can accept my word, that she is on her way. I understand that.
In the event that she is not here, on the list that I think has been accepted by everybody, I must now move to the government side, followed immediately afterward by the official opposition.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to begin by thanking you for allowing this debate to take place this evening. I would like to compliment the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the House and for providing us with an opportunity to discuss these very serious matters.
It is my view that Atlantic Canada has generally fared very well under this government, and indeed the statistical data that we have seen from time to time brought before this House has made that abundantly clear. However, I have to say in all honesty that coastal Atlantic Canada today faces the greatest challenge it has faced sice the post-war depression of the 1920s. Fifty per cent of the economy of coastal Atlantic Canada, in particular Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, is directly dependent upon the fishery and that fishery is in a very difficult situation, especially I might say the groundfi-sheiy which has always been thought of as the backbone of the Atlantic fishery.
It is important to note that there are other sectors of the fishing industry that are doing extremely well. The shrimp fishery is healthy. The tuna fishery, the scallop industry, the sword fishery, the mussels and other mollusc industries are all doing extremely well right now. Indeed, our lobster fishery is healthy although we do have a problem to face with this pernicious piece of legislation that has recently been passed in the United States and which I am sure will be a temporary thing in view of the fact that it will be thrown out because we have access to a free trade panel as a result of the free trade agreement signed a year ago.
Our coastal communities grew up around the ground-fishery. The groundfishery and the plants as well as the fishermen are the key to the social and economic life of the communities along the coast of Atlantic Canada and in particular in Nova Scotia. When you close a plant you close a town. It is not like the prairies where the farmers have an idea of what their harvest is going to be. They are able to know pretty precisely what is going to happen. From time to time, they have to put up with the difficulties of grasshoppers, drought or whatever, but

December 18, 1989
they can see it coming and know it is going to be different the following year.
Fishing communities are in a very different situation because you do not know what the harvest is going to be in any particular year. You can set tax and quotas and so on, but when you go to sea, you go as a hunter and you are never quite sure what you are going to find or what you are going to bring back. As the people of Sandy Cove, Shelboume County, found out last week, and as everybody who lives in a coastal community knows, you are never quite sure even if the men themselves are going to come back. It is a hazardous and difficult life.
When the fishery is in difficulty, it has a domino effect throughout the community because within a fishing community you have not only the fishermen but you have the plant workers. Indeed, if the fishing industry is not healthy, not only do the plants have a problem but the boatbuilders and the people who support the industry, not to mention all the other people in town, the merchants, the grocers, the restaurateurs, everybody suffers if times are tough in the fishery.
When we look at what is taking place in Atlantic Canada right now, we see that it has a profound impact on communities that are frequently very isolated. I am not so sure, quite frankly, that people in the west or in central Canada fully understand the depths of this issue. We are told sometimes that we should consider it just a problem and not, as some of us have said, a crisis in Atlantic Canada. They say: "Let's not escalate this to be a greater problem than it really is."
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a problem and anybody who does not recognize the profoundness of this problem for coastal Atlantic Canada should have been with me in Lockeport on Saturday last when they opened a community support group in that town and asked the question: "Why is it necessary?" "Why do we not have the government solving our problem?" As we heard from the last speaker, it is not as simple as the government being able to create fish. Anybody who suggests that this is not a serious crisis should go to Port Medway. They should go to Port L'Hebert, Woods Harbour, Bear Point or Shag Harbour. These are only communities within my own South Shore riding that have suffered plant closures in the last year.
I see the mayor and a councillor from the town of Canso here tonight. They can tell you about the crisis that exists in the life of their community with the closure of a plant. It is a serious problem, one that we all have to recognize in a national context even though it applies to us in our small coastal communities.
The concept of crisis is a veiy simple concept. Crisis is something that happens to your town, to your community, to your family or to yourself. If you happen to be in a remote community that for 400 years has relied on the fishing industry there does not sometimes appear to be alternatives. Let there be no doubt in coastal Atlantic Canada there is a crisis today and a crisis to which the government must respond.
I would suggest that there are three means by which the government can respond. The first, of course, has to do with dealing with the resource itself. That is the responsibility of the minister and the Department of Fisheries. Their responsibility is to see that this problem is indeed temporary and that those stocks will regenerate themselves. At the same time, part of that process is allow the industry to rationalize itself in such a way that we have those numbers participating in it that the resource itself can sustain.
I must say that measures have been and are being put in place as a result of the capacity committee struck by the minister a couple of years ago, the outcomes that will occur from the various consultations in the Stein task force and the special cabinet committee and indeed the Hache report. It is tough to say no because everybody wants to go fishing. Everybody wants a licence. Everybody wants a quota. If the resource cannot sustain it, it is the responsibility of the minister to be the guy who has the tough job of saying no to people. Thank goodness that we have a minister today who has the responsibility and the integrity to put in place measures that within three or four years will see the regeneration of our groundfish stocks so that once again we will have a healthy groundfishery in Atlantic Canada.
The second responsibility of government, of course, falls within the domain of Employment and Immigration Canada and the special cabinet committee and that is to provide the support that is necessary to families and communities during this transitional three or four year period until such time as we can both have economic
December 18, 1989

diversification as well as the regeneration of a strong fishery in Atlantic Canada.
I look forward to the measures being brought forth. We have had announcements that there will be special measures brought forward. The hon. Minister for International Trade made some reference to it in his remarks tonight, but what I am looking forward to is support for families as well as communities, at least until we have the restoration. We have programs in place such as community futures and we were very pleased to see that program beginning to be put in place in the county of Shelboume. I look forward to it being put in place in Queen's County as well where the Port Mouton plant was closed.
We have excellent work being done by the industrial adjustment service committees in Lockeport and Port Mouton, and of course the changes that are being introduced to the Unemployment Insurance Act will make available more funds to improve the quality of the labour force development strategy programs, programs that are going to enable Canadians and communities to get back to work again.
Would hon. members opposite be kind enough to suggest to their colleagues in the Senate that they let the will of democracy be done and the government's will be done as it should be and stop the interference of that which on January 6 could cause grievous damage to people in Atlantic Canada.
We look forward to more support coming with the announced package. Particularly, I look forward to and urge the government to provide support to the municipal units involved. The town of Lockeport depends 55 per cent on its municipal tax base for the National Sea plant that has now been closed. With a reduction in the value of that plant, the revenues available to that town will make it difficult for the town to function as a municipal unit. There is a growing need to have assistance provided there to make these things work effectively for the town.
These support measures are an interim thing that are very important. We look forward to the government's announcement being made and I urge it to make sure that it is fully comprehensive and includes not only those communities affected by the northern cod difficulties, but the problems with respect to the Scotia-Fundy region as well.
I will be particularly looking to see support for Queen's County and Port Mouton and indeed for the town of Lockeport in particular.
The third arm or the third challenge to the government is in the area of economic diversification and development. Here I look to Industry, Science and Technology and ACOA, as well as the co-operation and participation of the provinces. Clearly the number one challenge we face in Atlantic Canada, and our greatest need, is to reduce our dependency on the fishery as a resource for economic development. We have to look to other potential industries. Tourism is an industry with tremendous potential in Nova Scotia, and indeed in the Maritimes. We have to see this as a potential primary employer and not simply as a secondary industry.
We need more Michelin plants. The government has said that Canada is open for business and we are attracting interest from potential investors all over the world, but we have to see the deals closed. We had an announcement that the Tissan Corporation was going to settle. What a marvellous thing that will be for eastern Nova Scotia when that first plant comes. We look at that company eventually having the impact that Michelin has in Nova Scotia, with its three plants providing 4,300 excellent jobs for people. But the deal is not done. Why is that deal not done? There is an industry anxiously interested in settling in the town of Bridgewater, but the deal and the contract is not signed. When can we expect that?
There is potential for development for Aspotogan. There is another for the north shore of Nova Scotia. I urge the government, and particularly the ministers involved in economic development to get on with getting these deals signed so that we can see the diversification beyond the fishery.
We also have to diversify within the fishing industry itself. The minister spoke about 350,000 tonnes of fish not being utilized by Canadians. We have to utilize those fish and we need to have an economic development diversification fund that will encourage the use of these resources.
Unfortunately my time is up. There are a number of things we have to do and in the last minute I will just mention some of the things we have to do in the fishery. All parties involved in the fishery must not see it as a partisan issue but work co-operatively together with it. We must get rid of the misconception and stick to the facts. Let us solve the problems that exist rather than those that do not. Our fishermen must be prepared to obey the law. We must use science but not be the

December 18, 1989
captives of science. We must preserve people and community as well as stocks. We need to work together and have effective working relationships with the United States as well as to see that they obey the laws that we have set and we must be prepared to enforce them.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence. I have to say this: it is a tough time and it is going to be a tough time for a few years for us in southern Nova Scotia, but we have had other tough times and we are going to overcome this one. As the member for South Shore, I am going to continue to work with the government and with members opposite if they wish to work with me to see that better days are ahead.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House and speak to the opposition motion requesting an emergency debate on the present situation in the Atlantic fishery, following the closing of processing plants on the east coast and U.S. legislation restricting imports of Canadian lobster in the United States.
No government can remain indifferent to the difficult economic situation now prevailing in the fisheries industry in the Atlantic region and the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Today, workers at National Sea Products in Canso and St. John's have been laid off. A few weeks ago, Madam Speaker, the entire Gaspe area was facing the same problem.
The Atlantic fishery is going through a difficult period, due to reduced quotas, overcapacity of fishing boats, a fiercely competitive market and the high value of the Canadian dollar. These are some of the factors that have made fishermen and their communities feel powerless, bitter and desperate.
Madam Speaker, I may remind hon. members that what we are seeing and experiencing today is a very complex phenomenon that would take some time to explain.
We are all aware of some of the factors that have led both National Sea Products and independents in Quebec to close some of their processing plants.
The crisis now facing fishermen and their communities is due to the natural environment, the present state of
our scientific knowledge, to administrative decisions and, of course, to market forces. The interaction of natural and human factors is constantly changing and thus unpredictable, hence the onus on the government to act with prudence and discretion.
Before considering the concrete measures that have been taken to deal with this crisis, Madam Speaker, I would like to recall a number of facts and figures to illustrate this complex situation.
About 65,000 registered commercial fishermen, nearly
30.000	fishing boats, 890 fish processing plants and about
309.000	plant workers, spread over 1,300 communities in five provinces in Eastern Canada, are involved in the Atlantic fisheries.
About 95 per cent of all fishermen are in the coastal fishery, which consists of relatively small fishing boats, not more than 65 feet long, which are owner-operated. These fishermen take about 60 per cent of all catches on the Atlantic coast.
Annual catches in this sector total 1.2 million tons, with a production value of $2.1 billion. Over 80 per cent of these catches are exported.
Groundfish, especially cod, is a very important part of the Atlantic fishery. Groundfish accounts for two-thirds of all fish landings and for over 40 per cent of the total value of those landings.
Catches of northern cod make up 50 per cent of cod catches on the Atlantic coast.
Madam Speaker, I would like to dwell on an increasingly serious problem in the Atlantic region which plays a decisive role in the present crisis, and I am referring to overcapacity of fishing vessels.
Nowadays, fishermen are more efficient than ever before. A recent study conducted in the Scotia-Fundy area reported that the groundfish fleet already had twice the capacity it needed.
Today's vessels are faster. They have electronic equipment capable of locating the fish and they have far more sophisticated fishing gear. Therefore, catches are larger and fishermen can now catch in one to three months the same number of fish they used to take a whole fishing season to catch.
December 18, 1989

In the past, an ordinary trawler could catch 33 tonnes of fish. Today, it can take 164 tonnes in the same fishing season. The cost of the trawler has gone from $200,000 to $750,000, which is a much bigger investment for fishermen.
As you see, Madam Speaker, any improvised solution to the problem of overcapacity could have disastrous consequences not only for the fisheries themselves but also for many fishermen and their families.
Our government reacted. If you look at our government's four initiatives, (1) the Special Committee of Ministers, (2) the Harris Committee, (3) the Scotia-Fundy Task Force and (4) our reaction to overfishing and plundering of fish stocks, you will have to admit that they show the government's determination and are a positive step to help ensure prosperity for the fisheries in the 1990s.
However, I would have liked our government to be more attentive to our fishermen's requests and to control the seal population which is so destructive of living resources.
If additional resources are required to help people, to diversify the industry, to develop new technologies and to discover new markets, our government is ready to consider these options. We will ensure that federal government agencies and departments are prepared to support the people of the Atlantic region as well as possible during this period. Furthermore, we intend to propose amendments to the Fisheries Act in the near future, partly as a result of suggestions from many representatives of fishermen and the industry who are demanding heavier penalties for fisheries infractions.
These amendments will stress stronger deterrents, more efficient enforcement and an updated and improved fisheries management system.
Madam Speaker, if we want our fishermen and plant workers to continue to earn their living from marine resources, we must stop dramatising. We must instead deal attentively with the problems, as we are now doing, find long-term solutions and apply management principles which will ensure the future of our fishing communities and provide them with a relatively stable income.
Only when we have finished analysing the present problems can we give lasting answers.
There are no miracle solutions, Madam Speaker, but if everyone in the fishing industry works together with management, I am sure that we will find innovative management methods to conserve and protect our precious resources for future generations.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I have been listening tonight to the most unbelievable, crass bunch of windbags I have ever heard from the government side of the House. Their completely preposterous arguments do not hold any water whatsoever. This is what they are giving as an excuse to the people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for the botched up policies of the fishery since they have come into power.
Canso has been a fishing community for 400 years. It has withstood the 30-year war, the 100-year war, the 7-year war, the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean wars, two World Wars, and the Korean war, but it could not withstand this Tory government. It could not withstand the Mulroney government. They are trying to tell us that after 400 years the fish lost their way and did not come into Canso.
It is unbelievable, crass and obscene to pass off the arguments they are making on to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
The Leader of the Opposition said that this is a crisis. Make no mistake about that, it is a crisis. I say to people in other parts of Canada who may not think this is a crisis that they had better wake up. Not only is this happening in Atlantic Canada. With this government in power it could happen anywhere in Canada because people do not matter. They do not matter.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is telling us that we brought forward a plan in 1983, that we are responsible for that plan and that we are responsible for the fishery. What unmitigated poppycock. Michael Kirby did not take those shares with him when the Liberal government was defeated and the Mulroney government came into power. Some 20 per cent of the shares of National Sea belong to that government in power on the other side of the House. What has it done with them? It has chosen not to represent the Government of Canada

December 18, 1989
at the board of directors meeting. It has chosen not to act upon its shares.
What happened in 1988 when the fishery was coming apart all over Atlantic Canada? National Sea chose to buy a Treasure Island fishery in the United States at a cost of $28.6 million. It chose to buy two French companies at a cost of $16.4 million. It chose to buy 50 per cent interest in an Argentinian company for $12 million, to raise its indebtedness to $200 million.
This is after two years of profits. In 1986 National Sea made $36 million. In 1987 it made $24.8 million. Where did those profits go? They went into buying foreign fishing companies, not into looking after the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. The purpose of expanding to the 200-mile limit was not to safeguard and make big fishing companies wealthy. It was to look after the fishing communities and the people in the fishing industry in this country.
This government has breached the faith with the people of Atlantic Canada. It has completely neglected to look after their interests. It has completely destroyed any confidence that the people of Atlantic Canada would have in this government now or for any time in the future.
If this government allows the trawlers to be moved from Canso or the fishing vessels to be moved from North Sydney or St. John's to another port, it is in fact saying that this fishery does not belong to the people. It is saying once and for all that it is acting in the interests of the big companies. That will result in nothing more than theft from the port of Canso, the town of North Sydney, the city of St. John's, Newfoundland and other fishing communities that may have the misfortune to have their fish plants closed in the future as a result of this non-caring, nonsensical government.
It is absolutely devastating to see what is happening, to experience what we are experiencing here in this House and what people are going through in Atlantic Canada. What are we getting? We are getting programs that are in the system for months. Yet, the Minister for International Trade said this evening that the government knew in February the quotas in the opinion of its experts were
going to be reduced from 295,000 tonnes to 125,000 tonnes. That is 170,000 tonnes in a few months.
It is not strange that these experts and this government were predicting 295,000 tonnes during the election campaign when National Sea was advertising in all the major newspapers in this country that free trade was going to mean the success of the fishery in Canada? What treachery. This government is in league with big business at the expense of the fishery and the fishing communities of our country.
We have seen the result in less than one year after we were told what a wonderful thing free trade was going to be. The Leader of the Opposition told us what free trade would be like. He told us about free trade because under the GATT we are not allowed to restrict the export of unprocessed fish and we could put an export tax on that fish so that it would not be able to leave the jurisdictions. Because of the free trade agreement we cannot place an export tax on that fish. As a result, we cannot restrict the export of that fish.
The United States wants to be given national status on point 105 of the free trade agreement. It wants to be able to buy over the side of vessels all of the fish it can handle while they are still at sea and before they come into port. How will we ever know, then, how many fish are being caught?
How will we be able to judge the quotas? How will we be able to judge the catches? This is a mess we are in. They are bailing out. They are not providing answers. They are running and hiding. They are falling over one another. They are whimpering and whining on their own behalf, not on behalf of the people who are affected. They say: "We did not know. Who could tell? Our experts told us. By gosh, what could we do?" The Conservatives tell us that 400 years is only a blip in time. Canso was bound to have a string of bad luck sooner or later.
The people of Atlantic Canada are not going to be fooled. This government has run out of any credibility in Atlantic Canada. It is an insult to the people of Atlantic Canada to have to listen to this nonsense day after day from this government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in this debate this evening. The crisis in the Atlantic fishery, particularly in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, strikes close to home.
Although the crisis has not struck my riding in the same magnitude as it has in St. John's and Canso, we in Cardigan certainly know the frustration, the hardship and the fears caused by this government's callous and incompetent approach to the industry which is a region's economic life line. In Atlantic Canada we are still reeling from the blows struck by the multinational corporation, National Sea Products, in the closure of its plants in Canso and St. John's.
My constituents and I feel for our Atlantic neighbours. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them as they face the bleakest Christmas they have ever known. I have some trouble reconciling this government's intentions and actions. On December 11, 1989 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in this House and said:
We are very much in tune with the needs, sentiments and anxieties
of the people living in these communities.
How do we reconcile these words with this government's inaction, its failure to avert this crisis? The people in St. John's and Canso have no where to turn.
Yes, a special cabinet committee is looking into the problems in the Atlantic fisheries. We have the Hache task report and the Harris panel, but what concrete measures has this government taken to save the industry, the mainstay of the Atlantic economy?
We are not talking solely of money, although that is certainly what the government cares about. We are talking about our history and our heritage, a way of life that is precious to us and Atlantic Canadians. This government seems to think it can solve this problem merely by handling out money in the short term while saying it has something up its sleeve in the long term. Who knows?
Maybe it will provide the unemployed fish plant workers with transportation to Toronto or some other thriving metropolis. It will not work. The Atlantic fishery must be saved. Fish plant jobs must be saved. The government must explore other avenues and alternatives. We need a solution that will allow Atlantic Canadians to stay in their homes with their roots and their families, where their children would grow up and continue their culture and heritage.
The problems in the fishery in eastern P.E.I. and Cardigan start at the very foundation. The basic infrastructure of the industry is literally rotting away. Our harbours and wharfs are in desperate need of repair. Maintenance and in many cases reconstruction are necessary.
My fishermen might as well be knocking their heads against a brick wall as asking this government to fix their wharfs and keep them in workable condition. How can lobster fishermen make a decent living when they have no room to moor their boats or set their traps because big sections of the wharfs are unusable? For that matter they may not even be able to get their boats to the wharfs because the harbour is not properly dredged. They run the risk of getting caught on the sand bar and damaging their vessel.
The lobster fishery in P.E.I. is equivalent to the groundfish industry in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in economic terms. Our lobster industry in 1989 was not as healthy as it has been in the past. Inventories were high, demand was down and prices were soft. These problems were felt in Cardigan in a concrete way. A fish plant in my riding closed its doors, leaving 150 workers unemployed and over 100 fishermen with no place to sell their lobsters, groundfish, herring and scallops.
More bad news came to the P.E.I. lobster fishermen with the passing of the U.S. legislation banning the import of Canadian whole live lobsters that do not meed the American minimum size of three and three-quarter inches.
This measure is based purely on protectionism. It will certainly distort our markets. It will close the doors on fishermen who would like to ship whole lobsters of the intermediary size to those states outside New England. It is estimated that the loss of these potential markets will cost Prince Edward Island lobster fishermen approximately $2 million. That is a large figure in a small economy. So much for open access to the American markets promised under the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Lawrence MacAulay: This government has to stand up to the Americans and stop allowing them to bully us. The handling of the case of the American scallop dragger fishing in Canadian waters was an absolute disgrace. The American vessel should have been stopped by our

warship. The crew of the American vessel should have been brought back to Canadian waters and arrested. Instead the dragger went back to its U.S. port where it will receive a much softer penalty.
This incident is especially frustating for the people of Summerside. It has been confirmed by a senior DFO official in Halifax that a Tracker aircraft stationed at CFB Summerside first spotted the American vessel in Canadian waters. This only spells the lack of logic in the decision by the government to cease the operation of the Tracker squadron at Summerside.
The government is cutting down fisheries surveillance at the very time we need more. Overfishing by the Spanish and Portuguese has gutted our valuable fish stocks, cutting off the life line of our region of the country. The government has been ineffective in controlling foreign plundering of our ocean's treasures.
In conclusion, there are families and communities in Cardigan and the rest of Atlantic Canada who are suffering at the hands of this government's mismanagement of the fishery. This government must take a good look at how it has contributed to this crisis, and it must undertake saving this industry which is at the base of our Atlantic economy.
It is about time this government proved that Atlantic Canadians are part of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this debate tonight. I think, like all members of this House, I would rather that this debate did not have to take place.
I, like other members in this House, sympathize greatly with the people of Atlantic Canada, and particularly the people of my province and my city who have felt the despair and hopelessness of this last eight or nine days.
The announced closing of fish plants in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland just before Christmas poses more than economic problems for workers and their families. For many, drawing a living from the sea goes back to ancestors who first settled our coastline many hundreds of years ago. Fishing is literally the soul lifeblood of many communities. I realize that asking whole towns to give up this livelihood is like asking someone to relinquish a precious family heirloom. It is an heartbreaking and emotional issue.
I want to assure the House that this government has already stepped into those communities most affected by the closing. The programs those people need to survive are already in place, but more than that, the assistance this government provides today is not going to last until plants reopen or entire towns disappear. The support that we offer today and tomorrow is propelled by a vision to stabilize the economy of Atlantic Canada and sustain the fishing resource.
It is a fact that the environmental realities of the ocean stocks are dictating the need for management. Scientific studies tell us that the oceans are not as fruitful as even a few years ago. Those who make their living from the fishery have no choice but to withdraw for a while so that the resources can renew themselves.
What does this intentional slowdown signify for those who work in the fishing industry? It means that fishing may be a more viable industry in the future. It also means that communities have to find an alternative means to survive and perhaps eventually to thrive. They need new industry and new skills so their economies can be diversified. We will assist them in those efforts.
National Sea Products announced the lay-off of 1,562 last Monday. Within hours Employment and Immigration personnel moved in with the Industrial Adjustment Services Program. They are setting up a committee of employers and employees to respond to the shutdown by helping workers find new jobs, training and counselling.
Also within a short time of the announced closings, unemployment insurance officials set up shop in plants to help the employees start their claims as quickly as possible. The aid programs that we have provided have had an immediate impact on the lives of workers and their families, but that is not all we are doing.
New skills and businesses can breathe life into communities that previously depended on fishing. Since 1985 Canadian Jobs Strategy programs have been operating in Atlantic communities to retrain people and encourage entrepreneurship. Building on the individual needs of a community and its citizens, innovative programs have been created to revive former fishing communities. In the long haul the initiatives under the CJS aim to equip
December 18, 1989

people and towns to be competitive and prosperous for a long time.
I need not tell members of this House of the success of the Community Futures Program particularly in a community like Port aux Basques in the constituency of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. Through a number of initiatives from the people and the employers in the area companies were recruited to open plants, including one Norwegian fabricating company that created more than 200 jobs.
As well, more than $1 million in Community Futures funding has been used to train 120 residents as high-tech welders, pipefitters and sheet metal workers. Some 70 are now working full time, another 30 are working part time and the rest are still in school. Further assistance was provided to 24 residents to start their own businesses through the self-employment initiative.
This is just one example of how innovative and flexible programming can serve the needs of communities that must adapt and that must change.
In the last fiscal year the government directly invested $17.4 million in Canadian Jobs Strategy projects in the fishery sector. Of course when the fisheries workers are without work so too are service workers, be they pharmacists or shop keepers, who depend on their business. The strategy helps those too.
Altogether in the last two years $434 million in Employment and Immigration Commission funding has helped 145,000 people in Atlantic Canada attain worthwhile skills that allow them to contribute to their communities. In addition, for several years now the government has responded with additional emergency job development money for fishing industry workers in the region and in Quebec. In 1989 we provided more than $5 million. About 4,000 workers are training and working on employment projects which will allow them to qualify for unemployment insurance while learning new skills.
Let me remind the House also of the recently announced community development fund which will allow for community directed investments to strengthen the local economy and create meaningful job opportunities. Fishing communities can use it to supplement existing adjustment programs. Moneys can be directed at attracting small businesses and establishing a base, for example, for a viable aquaculture.
Furthermore, as the Minister for International Trade announced last week and has said tonight, we are working with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop a program that will take care of the older workers affected by changes in the fishing industry.
Adjustment strategies for fisheries workers have not been developed in a vacuum. The fact is our attempts to create jobs and businesses for the long term have the approval of the provincial governments. Newfoundland and Labrador's Fisheries Minister Walter Carter said recently: "The fishing industry can no longer be the centrepiece of the province's economy. It can and must be an important employer however and, with the help of the federal government, new industry and training can help stabilize the economy".
Bill C-21, having passed through this place, sits in the other place today. The changes brought in by that legislation will free up $800 million which will be used to train UI claimants and encourage the start-up of new business ventures under the Labour Force Development Strategy. Under that strategy funding for industrial adjustment services would be doubled and Community Futures will be boosted by an additional $50 million. Both programs help towns and workers who once depended on fishing for a living.
The government is sensitive to the historical and economic importance of the fishery in Atlantic Canada. We want to help workers in communities affected by those changes. The support we are offering goes beyond helping people buy groceries and pay their rent. In the long run, our programs assist people in communities to build a stronger and stable economic foundation for themselves.
The fishery, under proper management, will survive and will provide good jobs for Atlantic Canadians. We recognize its indispensable economic value and the important contribution that it pays to our economy and our way of life, but we know it will not be worth anything if we keep combing the depleted Atlantic waters. Our programs meet the needs of fishing communities undergoing change. While workers are learning skills and new businesses are established, workers, communities and

December 18, 1989
provinces will be creating with this government's help a viable fishery for the future.
We face realities in the fishery. Decisions must be taken that none of us like. These decisions, with the innovation and the determination of the people in Atlantic Canada, with the support of this government, members on this side from Atlantic Canada and hopefully members on that side from Atlantic Canada, will see a viable, professional fishery that can be depended upon in good times and bad and that can support our communities well in the future because have strong fisheries management and we have a government that responds when the need dictates it.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-IIes-de-la-Made-leine):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start my comments this evening by saying that to us in the Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands, in Eastern Quebec, the fishery is vital. And in addition to everything that has been said this evening in the House, I would like to say that technological change has necessarily had an impact on the catches of groundfish in the Gulf. The quantities of fish that are available are caught far more quickly and as a result, the fishing season gets shorter and shorter and plants are swamped at certain times of the year.

In taking into account this statement that has been made, I must say that as a member of Parliament involved in a constituency with a very large fishing industry we should look also at what the government has done. However, I think that we should go beyond the politics.
I would hope-and I speak on behalf of small fishermen and big fisherman and fish plants in my riding-that we would leave politics aside. We know there is a crisis in the east coast fishery and that we can work together.
I state, for the record, a couple of statements that had been made after the federal minister met with provincial ministers. I quote Walter Carter, Newfoundland's fisheries minister: "We welcome these changes to the Fisheries Act".
The second quote is from Donald McGuinnis, Nova Scotia's fisheries minister: "Fishermen are ready for new measures".
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture echoed Mr. Siddon's remarks and added: "These issues are important to all Atlantic provinces and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the decisions that affect all of us".

Madam Speaker, this was also said, in French, by the New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The pressing need to change this legislation was also stressed by Mr. Denis Losier, the New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who said these changes should have been made a long time ago.
Finally, Madam Speaker, Mr. Michel Page, Quebec's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, sent a message to Mr. Siddon in which he said: "I wish to join my provincial colleagues in co-operating with the federal government, in order to obtain the necessary assistance for fishermen in the Gulf and the Atlantic and for their communities".

We listened to those remarks that were made by people across provincial governments and across different party lines. We must realize when we talk about a crisis in our fisheries that we have one. We have created that.
What we have become in terms of our fisheries is hunters. We are not farmers. With the equipment that we have, with our boats, with our sonar, with our radar, with everything we have, we have become hunters. We have an overcapacity of fish plants, an overcapacity of boats. The big get a little bigger and the little get hurt a lot more.
What we have to do is come from all sides of this House when we talk in an emergency debate. We must say to our inshore fishermen as well as to our offshore fishermen that we are not Liberals, we are not NDP. We do not come from Newfoundland. We do not come from the Gaspe. We want to work together. We have to work
December 18, 1989

5.0.	52
together, because we must have a sustainable resource. If we do not have a sustainable resource, then we are going to be in trouble.
We listened to the people heckling across the House this evening. They are not serious, because they are playing petty politics. I do not play petty politics with my fishermen. I say to my people who are listening this evening, my fishermen and my fish plants, the women and the men who work in the fish plants and the small fishermen, that when they have their quotas, we must stabilize our fishing industry, whether it be in the Gaspe or whether it be in the Magdalen Islands, whether it be in groundfish or whether it be in lobster. Whatever we do, we must work together on this and we must put aside our petty politics.
I would put three recommendations to the House this evening. First, with a reduction in jobs for the surveillance of our fish stocks, priority must be given especially to the inshore fishermen that they will work on the surveillance. I would impress upon the minister of fisheries that he take that into consideration.
Second, for new species that are non utilized presently, we ought to look into the harvesting of these stocks and going into secondary and tertiary transformation of those.
Third, which is a very touchy subject that no one has dared to mention this evening is that of seals on the east coast. People on the other side are talking because they might find me a little boring. We have the question of the Malouf commission, the question of the seal harvesting, the breakage in fishermen's nets, the consumption of fish by seals on our eastern coast stocks and then there is the cod worm. What we should do is look at the three recommendations that I have proposed this evening very seriously and what we do as an outcome of our debate tonight-

Madam Speaker, at the end of our debate this evening, I hope the opposition will be able to say: We are going to work together to help our fishermen. These fishermen are not interested in political factions, Madam Speaker, they are interested in their work, and they want the fish to be there. That is what we want, Madam Speaker.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I sometimes wonder why the party across the hall fought the last election. The Tories fought to win the government. They are the government, they have got the government, that is where the responsibility lies.
I heard the hon. member talking about non-partisanship and this is everybody's responsibility. The buck stops with the government and they can talk all they like about what affects the stocks. I will tell you one thing that affects the stocks. Sure, there is some Canadian overfishing, but there is a lot of foreign overfishing too. This government has failed to stand up to the foreign interests that are raping and pillaging our stocks, particularly off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
If the stocks are in crisis, it is because of overfishing, yes, by some Canadian fishermen but also by foreign countries too. Clearly, the responsibility for that lies with the Government of Canada.
The Europeans are thumbing their noses at the Government of Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for International Trade travel around Europe offering some comforting words but no action is taken. When foreign vessels invade our waters, Canadian ships are sent out and, again, no action is taken and those ships are not brought to port and no fines are levied.
Off my own coast, 27,000 tonnes is what the European community has set for its own quota this year. NAFO, the toothless tiger of which the Government of Canada is a part, said: "You can catch no fish at all off the Labrador coast this year". The EEC says: "We're going to catch 27,000 tonnes whether you like it or not. It may be affecting your fishermen."
Do you know how many jobs a tonne of fish will create? Roughly 30 jobs, so you can imagine how many jobs are being lost potentially by the action of the European community off the coast of Labrador. The Government of Canada allows that to go on. It takes no sanctions whatsoever. It does not stand up to the foreign fleets and the hon. member has the audacity to say that this is a non-partisan problem and there is nothing the government can do about it.
The government can do something about it. The Tories can stand up to the Europeans. They can say this is our fish and it is affecting our employment and we are going to do something about it.

At the same time as those stocks are being depleted, what does the Government of Canada do? The Government of Canada chooses that particular moment to cut back on the surveillance of our fishing zone. We fought for a 200-mile limit. We got a 200-mile limit. We do the economic analysis in it and we protect those stocks.
What does the Government of Canada do as those stocks are in jeopardy? It cuts back on the surveillance. It is known that no plane, the Aurora included, can do the kind of low-level surveillance that the Tracker aircraft out of Summerside, P.E.I., can do. The people in the Armed Forces will tell you that. The fishermen will tell you that. Everybody in the industry will tell you that. Yet, the government has chosen this time to say, "We are closing down Summerside and we are moving those Tracker aircraft out of there."
The Tracker aircraft has another 10 years of life at a minimum investment, relatively speaking. Yet this is the time that the government chooses to cut back on the best means of support we have.
Apart from that, the whole co-ordination of surveillance off the east coast needs drastic revision. There is a hodge-podge of government agencies and vessels and equipment and personnel trying to do a job. It needs much better co-ordination.
The stocks off our coast are being fished by the Europeans and they are being fished by some large Canadian companies too. Who does not have access to those stocks? Many of the smaller fishermen on the Atlantic coast have been denied access to those stocks.
I am glad the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is listening because he will know that both co-ops on the Labrador coast have applied for a supply of offshore fish and have been denied. The Europeans, the French, have been given 8,000 tonnes off the coast of Labrador this year as an enticement to get them out of the Gulf.
The large companies from Canada and other countries are fishing off the Labrador coast, but the two fishermen's co-ops on the Labrador coast wanted to deep-sea fish and applied to the government and were turned down.
If you want to see the difference between Liberal policy and Conservative policy, here is where you have to
look. Let me take the example of shrimp. In the late 1970s, we discovered a shrimp stock off the coast of Labrador and the northeast coast of Newfoundland. The government of the day and the minister of the day took the decision that those people who were closest to the resource got a priority. It was not all theirs. It was to be shared, but the priority was given to those people who lived closest to the resource and depended on it. That is the way the shrimp stocks were divided up and that is the way the licences were allocated.
But in cod, with this government, it is a different thing altogether. The priority is given to the foreign countries. The priority is given to the large companies and the small inshore fishermen, whether they are individual fishermen or whether they band together in co-ops, come last. That has got to be changed.
At the same time as the stocks are in jeopardy and as the surveillance is being cut back, this is the time the government chooses to gut the only support system that we have which is the unemployment insurance system. Let us look at special response first of all.
The member for St. John's East mentioned that program a moment ago. He knows and I know that that money is not going to support those who need it most. I will tell you what the figures are for the Labrador coast. We have 129 people who qualify, we have 128 people who do not qualify. Those fishermen and plant workers in my area, 50 per cent of them who qualify and have a long-term attachment to the fishery, are getting no help whatsoever. They are being forced to fall back on welfare. Well, you cannot fall back on welfare because you cannot qualify for welfare if your are able-bodied.
So what will people do this year? I will tell you what they will do. On the Labrador coast this year, there will be people bartering, there will be people trading goods and materials and food as they have done in the past. That will be happening in Canada in 1989. So much for the special response feature.
At the same time as that is happening, action is being taken now to completely gut the unemployment insurance system and the government is withdrawing completely from that system and turning it over to the private sector instead of making the kind of changes that would make sense.
December 18, 1989

On the coast of Labrador, for example, the cut-off date for unemployment insurance is May 15. Yet the ice is there in the bays until the end of June. That is the kind of sensible change that should have been made and that could have been made now while that act is opened up, to give some fairness and some justice to the people who live on that coast.
The government saw fit to ignore changes like that, sensible changes that would have given some income support to those who need it. Instead the government is withdrawing completely from that system and, indeed, putting hurdles in the way of people who want to depend on that for a support system.
What about channelling the money into training? What do you train a 40-year old fisherman for? The answer is that this government has instituted what amounts to a resettlement program. The Minister for International Trade, when he was speaking about the response of the government, did not say that the largest amount of money of all in the government's response program is $5,000 for moving to other places. That is what will happen. We have seen it. We have seen them moving from the northern peninsula. We have seen them moving from small communities all over the province to places in central Canada, to places in western Canada.
That, unfortunately, is going to happen because of the lack of imagination and the lack of charity and the lack of concern of this government. Now is the time.
What could they have done? Now is the time to start building infrastructure. Now is the time to start building wharves. We have communities where there are no water and sewer systems. We need road connections. There are all sorts of things that could be done now, action that could be taken by this government to build the infrastructure so that when the fish stocks revive, and they will, then we will be in a position to do the harvesting, to have the onshore facilities that will help us to build in the future. But that kind of imagination was not used. Those dollars were not put into those programs, because this is not a government that wants to invest. This is a government that wants to cut the Atlantic provinces adrift. If you cannot survive in the private sector, well, that is too bad. There is no recourse as far as this government is concerned.
Our people do not want to move away. Their families have lived there for 400 years. Fishing is what they do best. These communities have survived on fishing. These communities are made up of very strong families who want to live there and they can live there. This is the richest resource anywhere in Canada and the richest marine resource possibly in the world. The irony is that with that kind of resource off our shores we, because of the carelessness and the lack of imagination of this government, have no alternative but to move away. But the people will remember, and they will survive. They will outlive this government. Long after this government is gone, these communities are going to be there.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to speak following the member for Labrador because the member for Labrador has demonstrated, in the years he has been in this House, a particular passion, a great ability to articulate the views of the people of not only Labrador but all of Newfoundland.
I want to contribute to this debate by referring to a letter I received in the mail today from my riding. I just want to quote a couple of lines. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Tobin:
It seems it's getting a bit tougher all the time as you know. This has been a very bad year for fishermen-I know for a fact it's going to be a very tough winter-
My Dear God, is there some way to knock some sense in the heads of that crowd we call a government? My God, we will have no one left in Newfoundland; they will have to leave Newfoundland or starve.
It's ridiculous, the Minister of Fisheries is saying there are too many fishermen. Utter nonsense. Oh, yes, drive them out of their fishing boats and let the bloody French have the fish-
I am a senior citizen with nobody but myself and I find it tough. My heart goes out to those who have only one income in the house, and that one very small. I just don't know what is going to happen. I'm very, very concerned -
That free trade deal with the U.S. What a nice thing that is. Crosbie said we could get out of it in six months. It's about time this government started to get us out. Everything is turned bottom up. Food prices have never been higher, and things we sell have never been lower. May God help us.
Trusting you can knock some sense into McDougall and the others who have anything to do with these programs.
Yours truly,
Eli Payne,
Cox's Cove.

Now, that is a letter from just one gentleman, a senior citizen. But it could have been a letter from John Hedderson from Straitsview. It could have been from Cook's Harbour or Boat Harbour or Green Island Brook or Port au Choix or Castors River, Nipper's Harbour, or it could have been from the sea.
What Canadians have to understand and what this government has chosen to ignore, other than dealing with statistics, other than dealing with numbers, other than dealing with limp-wristed explanations for the failure of this government to manage the fishery properly, what this government has to look at is not its own face in the morning when it wakes up. This government has to leave this gilded chamber with these fine wrought-iron chandeliers and these great stained-glass windows and the ministerial cars waiting for cabinet ministers warm outside this Chamber, where the temperature is minus 20.
This government and the ministers have to go down to Atlantic Canada, out of the hotels and the ministerial suites, and into the communities and onto the streets. They have to look the Eli Paynes in the face. What they will see when they look into the faces of the fishermen and the plant workers of Atlantic Canada, contrary to what they are hearing here tonight, is not anger because we are angry, is not great emotion because we are emotional and is not a sense of outrage because we are outraged. What they are going to see when they look into the faces of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada is a profound sense of betrayal, of abandonment on the faces of a people who understand what they are undergoing and are victims of a cultural genocide. It is cultural genocide of a way of life, a rural, labour-intensive way of life that is being brutally destroyed by a government that has been indifferent, not to the statistics because we can quote statistics, but indifferent to the human beings who live in those communities and the sense of community and shared values that they have created over 500 years. That is what is happening in Canada today.
I find it incredible that members opposite say: "Let's be non-partisan. Let's all be together. Let's find the solution". It is just like Clifford Olson saying, when he stands condemned before the dock, that it is all a
mistake, that he misunderstood the values of this society, let us just forget it and from now on he will be good.
This government has managed the fisheries over the last five years and it has taken a deliberate decision that nobody on the other side has talked about, because while the total allowable catch is being reduced from 290,000 tonnes in 1988 to 190,000 tonnes this year-a 100,000 tonne reduction-within our 200-mile zone this year, France took 15,600 tonnes of fish, a quota the French set for themselves. Next year they are going to take 15,100, a quota they set for themselves. The year after they are going to take 14,600, a quota they set for themselves within Canada's 200-mile management zone.
In my riding, an area called the Great Northern Peninsula, an area of a splendid national park, great peaks and the most beautiful scenery on the planet, an area that people are proud to be in and make a living from, this government is ripping the "Great" out of the Great Northern Peninsula because this year the fishery was an utter failure. Those inshore fishermen are being told that next year, they will have no fish. But you know what, somebody is going to have fish there next year.
In the Strait of Belle Isle, there are nine miles of water between Quebec and Newfoundland. Do you know who is going to be sailing through those nine miles next year when the fishermen in my communities are told to stay home? French factory freezer trawlers are going to take
4,000	metric tonnes of cod with the permission of the Government of Canada in the middle of a crisis.


Some Hon. Members:: Resign!


Brian Vincent Tobin: This minister of fisheries, if he had any sense of being the voice of fishermen around the cabinet table, rather than cabinet's apologist to fishermen in the fishing communities, if he had any backbone, if he believed that there was a role for him to play around that table for people who do not have the privilege to speak for themselves around that table, if he had any pride in his responsibilities and the traditions of those who have gone before him, he would resign today in protest at the cruelty inflicted upon the people of Atlantic Canada.
Let me say, and if it be partisan to say it then so be it, I am partisan, that I have never before in this House been ashamed of a colleague of mine from Newfoundland. I have been partisan, I have been angry, I have disagreed, I have had battles, but I have never been fundamentally ashamed of a colleague from Newfoundland, but the
December 18, 1989

spectacle of the member for St. John's West, Newfoundland's member in the cabinet, tonight in this House was pathetic. It reminded me of the words of Marie Antoinette who said of the peasants in France: "Let them eat cake". Well, in Newfoundland they are not going to eat cake and there is going to be a revolution because we are not going to take this kind of treatment by our national government.
I hope Canadians realize that we are here tonight, and the fact that we are here is an extraordinary event. As you know, Madam Speaker, there are countless petitions for emergency debates, and 99.9 per cent of the time they are turned down. But the Speaker of the House of Commons said in response to the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso that indeed in the Speaker's judgment, and he is not partisan, he is not playing a game, he is presiding over this Parliament and we call upon his judgment from time to time, there is a crisis of national importance in Canada today.
What we ask of this government is a substantial response to the human plight and misery that exists in Atlantic Canada and what we ask of our fellow Canadians, what we Liberals are sure of, is that our fellow Canadians will give us their support because we know that while this government believes it can turn its back on Atlantic Canada, we know that Canadians from coast to coast shall rally to the cause of those who are in greatest need among us.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House tonight speaking on this most important concern to Atlantic Canadians. It is a debate, as many have mentioned this evening, that I guess many of us would be happy not to have to take part in because it clearly indicates there is a crisis in Atlantic Canada, one that we would much rather not have.
Thinking that this is December 18, we are only one week away from Christmas, many individuals are going to have a very difficult Christmas in Atlantic Canada. Many of them, of course, are fishermen who have worked their entire lives on the water and have made their living from the water. This year of all years, they have found it most difficult, very, very distressing and are having a most trying time doing the things they have traditionally done.
I believe that the Government of Canada does understand the problem. We are trying to do something about it and obviously that has to happen in this House. I do agree that the problem has to go beyond partisanship, that we can blame one another, we can blame successive governments, we can blame provincial governments, we can blame the federal government, but I think that if we are going to approach this problem, we have to approach it in a very positive sense. That is what I propose to do.
If I could, I would like to go through some steps that I think we should take as Canadians. Perhaps I could refer to something I would call the fishermen's bill of rights.
Whereas the primary goal of fisheries policy is to maintain successful and sustainable fisheries an whereas the fishermen of Canada are the people most affected by and most knowledgeable about successful and sustainable fisheries, therefore Canadian fisheries policy shall be founded upon and guided by the following principles: (1), that fishermen, as the people with the most immediate knowledge and interest in the fishery stocks of a region, shall be consulted to the maximum extent possible whenever stock assessment procedures, conservation measures or quotas are in issue; (2), that no action detrimental to the interests of the fishermen of any region be implemented until all available appeal mechanisms have been fully exhausted; (3), that in all instances government or departmental decisions relating to stocks, licensing, assessment or quotas be made known to the fishermen of the region affected at least one year before they take effect; (4), that licensing policies be consistent, practical, equitable and predictable, that no such policies be given retroactive effect; (5) that regulatory changes be unambiguous and understandable and be available in both languages at least six months before they are implemented; (6) that public hearings with sufficient notice be part of this stock assessment and quota setting process; (7) that in the development or enforcement of any policies relating to the fisheries the health and safety of fishermen be a paramount consideration; (8) that fish allocations be made with particular regard to communi-caties dependent on the fisheries to maintain a traditional way of life; (9) that fishermen be entitled to compensation for the unfair taking of any licensing or quota privileges and that any changes or reductions not complying with this preamble be deemed an unfair taking.

December 18, 1989
I think we have to be constructive in this House and that is what I am attempting to do. I do not think it does anyone any favour to simply point fingers, holler, shout and wave arms. It is pretty good theatrics but it does not put bread on the table, and I think that is what we are speaking of.
In my riding of Carleton-Charlotte we have gone through some difficulties as well. In the early 1980s we had some difficulties in the herring fishery. I am proud to say that we have the largest herring fishery in Canada. In fact, we have what used to be the largest herring processing in the world and I think is still close to being the largest in the world in Black's Harbour. When that fishery got in trouble a number of years ago, we pulled together as a community and a province and explored other ways to do things and other areas of the fishery that we could make a living in.
What does he do? He is in an area in which options are not readily available to him as they are in other parts of the country. Those are the people whom governments have to help and governments should help. Those are the people who get caught up in this nightmare of fishing in Atlantic Canada in that ground fishery. Those are the people whom I believe this government wants to help.
The Prime Minister has committed resources of this government to help those very people who have been caught in that unfortunate situation. We have been promised the same kind of help that was given to western Canadians, in particular the wheat farmers after the severe droughts and devastation that they have experienced in the last number of years. We owe this to the fishermen as we do to all Canadians. I believe that all Canadians have to enjoy the standard of living that we have all come to expect in this country. When difficult times arrive, we all have to pitch together as we have never done before to help these people over the hurdle.
One of the things we did as a province, with help from the federal government, was look into the aquaculture industry. The aquaculture industry, and the raising of salmon in particular, is one of the largest single industries in my constituency, second to none in Canada or in the world. It is producing a fine product and that came about simply because the people cared and they decided they were going to do something themselves and the government was there to help them out.
It was positive thinking that accomplished this. I refer back to my opening comments about it being one week before Christmas and I think that is the frame of mind that we have to put ourselves in. We look for the good that can come from adversity. That rings true with some of these difficulties and the determination of some people you meet when travelling through a riding like mine. I was speaking to a ground fisherman in my riding who, for some unknown reason, was not able to go out and do the thing that he is good at doing, and that is fish.
I said that this was for some unknown reason but I guess if you dig deep enough, or perhaps not so deep, you will find the reason. Somehow some of these people have been caught up in the system. This gentleman whom I mentioned has a small boat and was taking part in a quota system that was gobbled up by some of the bigger boats. What does he do? He says, "What can I do? I am 60 years old. I cannot go out and look for another job. I have payments to make on my boat. I have payments to make on repairs that I put in."
I would like to conclude by saying that we have a caring government, a government that wants to do something, a government that will do something. I am proud to be part of this government that is not afraid to recognize that there are problems in the industry. This government is prepared to assess these problems honestly and in a comprehensive manner. This government understands that these problems are best addressed by building on the sound practices that we have adopted for the management of this very vital resource.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: This evening, Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. LeBlanc), I intend to direct most of my remarks to the conservation angle. In the next few minutes I will attempt to argue in favour of taking measures aimed at promoting the conservation of fish species landed by Canada's east cost fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, there is one basic principle which cannot be ignored in fishing for and harvesting marine species, to wit: Mankind must not take more of a given fish species than the species is able to reproduce itself. To put it another way, we cannot guarantee the survival of fish species caught along and off the shores of our coasts unless we prevent people from taking more than specific species are able to replenish their own stocks through reproduction.



My immediate concern, Mr. Speaker, is that too many years have gone by without our realizing that fishing and harvesting activities along our coasts ignore that fundamental precept.
There have been major changes in the fishing industry over the past 25 years. During that time fishing boats have been equipped with sophisticated facilities, the fishing and harvesting techniques of fishermen looking for ever more numerous species have improved extremely rapidly, and the year and equipment used by fisherman have been highly refined.
These changes in the three fields I have mentioned have made it possible for fishermen to draw maximum resources from known fishing grounds. They also paved the way to new fishing sites and, finally, they enabled man to reach remode areas which until then had remained untapped.
As conditions evolved, new operators appeared in the commercial fishing industry, not to mention the fact that existing plants were modernized and fitted with the latest and ever more sophisticated processing facilities. Technology revolutionized processing methods and plants became much more efficient. At the same time, new larger and better equipped plants were built in all the eastern Canada provinces.
In only a few years eastern Canada's commercial fishing industiy made the transition from the rudimentary conditions it had been in for three centuries to a modem and effective undertaking.
These radical changes in the fishing and processing industry put added pressure on traditionally harvested species and led to the discovery of new untapped resources in areas which until then had been beyond the reach of fishermen.
As fishing methods improved at an accelerated rate and processing plants became more efficient, the then government under the Liberal Party forgot something which was to have a catastrophic impact on the future of fisheries and the processing industry. Madam Speaker, they failed to evaluate the fish stocks that were being used and neglected to conduct scientific research on stocks of fish species that were not being used.
The government at the time lacked the vision to consider the medium and long-term consequences of additional pressures on fish stocks and increased fishing of new species. It saw the profound changes that were shaking up the fisheries and processing industries, but remained unconcerned about the condition of existing stocks and the negative impact that increased fishing would have on those stocks.
The government at the time should have had the foresight to increase its efforts in pure research on fish stocks and research directly related to the fishery.
Research on fish stocks would, at the time, have made it possible to establish the state of those stocks and determine allowable catch levels. The scientific data would have made it possible to guarantee the continued existence of the species being used and that of new species that were starting to be used by the fishery.
This oversight and lack of vision of the party in power during those years produced the situation that now prevails in the Atlantic fisheiy. This evening, the opposition is trying to make the present government take the blame for the situation. I may remind the Official Opposition that the government of the time must take the blame for the present situation and that the government of the time was formed by the Liberal Party.
I would like to quote the example of our Atlantic salmon. The main parties concerned about the fate of the Atlantic salmon have known for some like that this species cannot tolerate years and years of overfishing. However, it was not until the Atlantic salmon was nearing extinction that radical action was taken to ensure its survival.
People at all levels, the federal government, the provincial governments, sports fishermen, commercial fishermen, native peoples, owners of river property, fishing associations and outfitters realized that to ensure the continued existence if the Atlantic salmon, they had to establish a minimum number of spawners in a given river and let the fish come back to their river of birth to spawn and reproduce. This basic datum has to be known

December 18, 1989
before harvesting levels can be set, and only then can they be allotted among users on the basis of seasonal quotas. This sound management principle has stood the test of time, for the Atlantic salmon stock depletion seems to have stopped. We can therefore hope for a return to safer conditions for Atlantic salmon stocks. People have gone back to orderly and prudent harvesting of or stocks.
Eastern Canada producers and commercial fishermen must now acknowledge and accept this basic truth. I would suggest it is the only way to ensure the health of Atlantic fish species and the survival of the fishing and processing industries on the east coast of Canada.
Our government has already taken bold steps in that direction. Our guarantee of success now depends on supportive action on the part of the provincial governments of the fishermen and processors. Five years of good management by this government cannot undo all the harm done by the overfishing and incompetence which prevailed under the previous administration. We on this side of the House are quite prepared to continue to set up the research mechanisms which will enable us to widen our knowledge of Atlantic fish stocks and species. We need the co-operation of fishermen and producers, we need to combine the resources of the federal government with the ingeniosity and skills of fishermen and producers.
Such concerted efforts will make it easier to achieve a double objective: ensure the survival of fish stocks harvested along the eastern seashores of the country, and ensure the economic survival of communities and families whose bread and butter comes from the fishing industry. Let us look confidently to the future and make a joint effort, for I am convinced we will be able to reach these objectives.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House this evening to participate in this very serious debate about the state of Canada's Atlantic fishery.
We are faced with an emergency in Atlantic Canada. We in Parliament tonight have to turn more of our attention to this very serious issue of the future of this resource in Atlantic Canada, for Atlantic Canada and for the future of all of Canada. We have to turn our attention to the prolonged mismanagement of Canada's
natural resources and our fish stocks, to the failed regional economic development policies and to the elimination of viable small communities and rural life in this country. These are the results of decades of Liberal mismanagement and now five years of Tory incompetence and neglect.
In 1982, the Kirby report to the Liberal government of the day warned and I quote: "A reliance on growth cannot be sustained indefinitely and in many stocks the biological limits of prudent harvesting have been reached". In 1987 and 1988 these warnings were again issued.
The previous Liberal government did not pay any attention to this and other warnings about the fate of the Atlantic fishery. The present Conservative government did not pay any attention either until, in 1989, they began to close down the fisheries and the communities in the Atlantic.
Even a few days ago, in the wake of massive lay-offs in the fishing industry, the Prime Minister's response was to blame everything on the previous administration, despite the fact that the studies were there for the government to see. This government has been in power for about half a decade now and it is time to start accepting a little responsibility. In fact, as I have said, this government has been repeatedly warned about the growing dangers to the Atlantic fisheries.
I said that in 1988 the government had been warned. In fact, the background paper for the Canada-Newfound-land Inshore Fisheries Agreement contained the following warning: "With few exceptions the fisheries resources of the Atlantic have reached their maximum utilization and in some cases there is an indication that over-exploitation is occurring."
Where was the planning when that information came? Where was the planning for more rural development and development in those communities? Why has the government waited until 1989 and caused this devastation in Atlantic Canada?
Let me briefly review, as people have been doing tonight, the emergency that is now gripping the Atlantic fishery. Last Monday, National Sea Products, one of the two largest fishing corporations in Canada, announced its series of plant closures and lay-offs. The St. John's facility will be closed with a loss of 492 direct jobs. The Canso, Nova Scotia, processing plant will close with a
December 18, 1989

cost of 742 direct jobs. In North Sydney 280 jobs will be lost due to plant changes.
These are statistics, but these are people. These are families. These are families who are going into 1990 without knowing what their future is going to be, without knowing whether there is even going to be a future in their community and in their region of the country.
According to the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union, 1,300 more jobs may be lost in the coming weeks if Fishery Products International announces plans to close other operations in Newfoundland. The situation is that in the coming year Newfoundland could lose up to
6,000	fisheries-related jobs. A comparable figure in central Canada would be 115,000 jobs.
This is why we are pleased that this House has seen fit to debate this as an emergency. It is a serious emergency for our country and for that region because these job losses come on top of what is already happening to Atlantic Canada. Cutbacks on VIA Rail have taken jobs away from Atlantic Canada and have reduced options for the people who live there.
In the fisheries industry there are clearly too few fish and not enough jobs for people who fish and for workers in related industries. Today we learned about the number of small plants and small businesses in Nova Scotia which build boats and provide additional services to those in the fishing industry that are closing.
Successive governments have failed to manage the resource. The government must take responsibility for that failure, both in terms of the inability of the government departments to adequately assess the quantities through their own scientific research and in terms of dealing with the impending doom that has been clearly outlined for a number of years.
Past and present governments have set catch quotas, granted foreign fishing rights and allowed the introduction of new technologies without fully comprehending the sustainability of the fishery.
One issue in particular, the foreign overfishing of the Grand Banks, has been a longstanding problem. It is not something new, it is not something that just happened in
December of 1989, two weeks before Christmas, but has been a longstanding problem.
The European community recently announced plans to take more than 50,000 tonnes of fish from the Grand Banks, more than three times the quota suggested by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization. This announcement comes in the face of the Canadian government's promised commitment in the speech from the throne last April to work toward ending foreign overfishing on the Atlantic coast.
Yet between 1986 and 1989 the nations of the European Community overfished the Grand Banks by 600 per cent; not 2 per cent or 10 per cent or 100 per cent, but 600 per cent. The evidence could not be clearer. Surely it is time for the government to admit the mistakes that have been made and to help these people in the Atlantic to deal with these issues and to keep this industry alive.
Meanwhile, there has been inadequate Canadian funding and resources for the kind of research that might have added to the sustainability of this industry, as well as for planning and coastal patrol. Atlantic Canadians, of course, like everyone in Canada, face the other cuts; the VIA Rail cuts, the unemployment insurance cutbacks, and the possibility of being hit with this goods and services tax which is going to burden even more people already in a very difficult situation. On top of that there is the Conservative erosion of social programs as a consequence of the trade deal. There is no question that there is a serious crisis in Atlantic Canada in the fishery.
Tonight in this House and in the coming days and weeks we have to face the facts and seek real solutions to these problems. Newfoundland New Democrat leader Cle Newhook said today that Atlantic Canadians want to know if this government has the guts to avert the economic and social disaster that is going to take place in his province and in the maritimes. I and my party want to know that too.
We have some suggestions about the kinds of actions that this government should take and take now. Jobs must be saved and jobs must be created. People in the Atlantic do not want a welfare cheque, they want a pay cheque. We have to save the communities of the Atlantic. We in this party do not accept the age-old practice of monopoly corporations and companies that close down plants and whole towns on the basis of short-term

December 18, 1989
profitability. We believe in long-term commitment in Canadians and Canadian resources.
We do not believe in the short term of shutting down, whether it is a Schefferville, an Ocean Falls, a Canso, a Lockeport or the Grand Banks. Canadians, wherever they live, in large communities or small ones, on family farms or in fishing villages, deserve the security of knowing that their communities will survive, prosper and nurture and that their children will have a future. Canadians have a right to expect that our rural communities and our resource based economies can develop and can be protected by a government that does not plan just for the short term but plans for the future of our children. That right and those values must come before plant profits and the quick movement of capital.
We are suggesting that some companies should be encouraged to keep processing plants operating, at least seasonally, in order to continue to provide work in a community economic base. Surely people who are working for at least part of the year are in a better position to keep their communities going than if they have no means of employment.
The federal government should facilitate, help and, if necessary, underwrite the continued operation of presently threatened processing plants to be owned and managed by workers and producers through co-ops if the companies themselves refuse to continue to operate.
The government must undertake a full environment and fisheries resources study on the Atlantic coast to determine the fish stocks and the preservation of spawning grounds and to review how fish quotas and allocations are set.
As we in this party pointed out in our review of Canada's security policy in April of 1988, Canada must improve its own offshore surveillance and coastal patrol capacity, both in the air and on the sea. Canada has to get tough with our European neighbours. For most of this centuiy Canadians have taken up responsibilities for European security and peace. We have every right to demand European recognition of our national resource, our environment and our economic interests in the Atlantic.
The government is obliged to make this clear and definite and to press an immediate European recognition of NAFO quotas for the Grand Banks. Canada, in the end, must make it clear that we are willing to unilaterally extend our economic jurisdiction to all of the Grand Banks if the Europeans fail to co-operate.
The government must take some necessary action at home. It must end its plans to gut the unemployment insurance system, because under these plans 45,000 Atlantic Canadians will lose their qualification to unemployment insurance. The government can help the desperate Atlantic economy and Atlantic fishery by ensuring that there is bread and butter on the tables of the thousands of families already wholly or partially reliant on some unemployment insurance benefits.
Finally, the Atlantic fishery situation is yet another reminder of the total failure of the trade deal. Thousands of jobs continue to be lost across Canada from coast to coast, whether it is in agriculture, in the industrial sector or in the fisheries on the west and the east coasts. Consumers, as we read again today, have gained nothing from the trade deal. So what have we gained from this? As I said the other day, what we gained is that many Canadians are getting the pink slip and it is time that this government gave the pink slip to the United States on this trade deal.
There is a new term, it is "economic restructuring". That is very nice if you do not happen to be one of those people who is affected or one of those communities that is affected by this term. We said a year ago that Canada's social programs are under attack by the government itself in response to demands from the American economy. The trade deal must go. The sooner this government wakes up to that fact the better for all Canadians and for the chances of survival in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada and in all of Canada.
I returned from the Yukon and British Columbia for this debate this evening because it is an important debate about the future of our country and the survival of the Atlantic. It is also a reminder that much of Canada is under a threat at .the moment and, indeed, much of our way of life. Northerners face new environmental and economic threats. West coast fisheries face resource problems, foreign catch and territorial disputes, and serious threats from pollution. As leader of my party I
December 18, 1989

am committed to the survival of rural Canada and of our smaller communities and way of life.
In the north, in the east, and in the west we need policies and new commitments to build a country that is fair and prosperous for all Canadians no matter where they live or how they choose to work. I pledge my efforts and the energies of my colleagues to building that kind of Canada. I urge this government to take action now to save the fisheries in Atlantic Canada so that in the 1990s we can show that we are once again a strong nation that protects and invests in our resources and in Canadians in all parts of this country.


Mr.   J.W. Bud@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I also travelled tonight to get here from my riding, not as far as the hon. member for Yukon but certainly deliberately to participate in this debate. While my riding is not directly involved in the fishery, this is an issue with which I can and do identify, an issue with which I am deeply concerned and share the legitimate sense of crisis and perhaps even tragedy at this particular time of year for those families, those people and those communities who are suffering as a result of the closures which we are witnessing at this time.
It is always tempting to engage in political rhetoric, to pontificate and to cast blame at a time like this, but I think that the fisheries situation in Atlantic Canada is really much too serious for that. That is especially so when we contemplate that National Sea has closed or is about to close 1,200 jobs in Canso, close to 500 in St. John's and 300 in North Sydney. When we read today in the newspaper about receivership of a fisheries business in Prince Edward Island; when we read about more than 100 boatbuilders who are in difficulty throughout Nova Scotia, the impact of the Atlantic fisheries and the serious nature of this crisis hits us very strongly and very deeply.
I was disappointed to hear some of my hon. colleagues from the Official Opposition tonight, particularly the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys when he read selectively half of an article that was in The Globe and Mail today about National Sea. He attempted to blame this government for all of the difficulties that are upon the fishery. He was even blaming us for the international diversification of that company.
He left out the first part of that article which pointed out that the Liberal government of his day invested $70 million in the pay-down of a loan, $10 million in preferred shares-$80 million in that company to end up with 20 per cent of the shares, which those who now own 80 per cent of the shares got for $20 million. It was a terrible piece of business. Of course, it has proven to be a terrible example of resource management and fisheries management.
As I have said, I really feel it is not the time for rhetoric. It is really a time for care and compassion, for response, for planning and long-term action. I would like to quote an article of last week from the Fredericton Daily Gleaner, our home-town paper, in which it quoted as a prelude to the editorial a statement by John F. Kennedy when he said-and I believe it pertains to this House tonight-"Our task now is not to fix the blame for the past but to fix the course for the future".
What we have on our hands in the Atlantic fishery is a serious case of unsustainable development, of fishing and processing capabilities and capacities which are now dearly beyond the tolerable yield of the ocean's fish resources. The causes are many. We have heard of scientific forecasting which has been in error and inadequate. We have seen excessive investments in boats, in plants and equipment. We see evidence of overfishing of quotas both domestically and by foreigners. There are no shortage of causes, but there are not many solutions, certainly no easy ones.
I think the first thing we must commit to do is to fix the resource itself. Our fish stocks are declining and must be rebuilt urgently. They must be built to sustainable levels so that we will not have them only for one time in a sustainable fashion, but we will have them for future generations in a sustainable fashion as well. This means that there will be dramatic cuts in quotas and there will be new disciplines in catches. It will mean fewer boats and fewer plants and fewer jobs. We may not be able to gain the levels of the past.
As I listen to my hon. colleagues from the fishing constituencies of Atlantic Canada, particularly those on the other side, criticizing the government and talking about how sinful it is to talk about training people for new kinds of work, to talk even about the horrible word of "relocation" to areas where jobs are plentiful, I cannot help but wonder if there is not just a political blind spot. They just refuse to accept the realities of the facts of the fishing industry, the fact that it is not sustainable, the fact that to make these communities and

December 18, 1989
these people slaves to an industry that is unsustainable is a crime in itself. I think that in these fishing communities the people equally with the resource are the compelling priority.
To his credit, when the hon. Elmer MacKay first addressed this crisis on behalf of the government last week his first words were clear and unequivocal. He said that the Government of Canada is fully committed to assisting individuals, families and the communities affected by the downturn in the fishery.
How is this commitment of support to be delivered? In many ways; through the industrial adjustment service for one, which I believe is a service that is going to have to be expanded and made more comprehensive in this day and age in Canada, not just with respect to the fishery. For example, it was designed, my understanding is, to support the free trade agreement in recognition that there would be dislocations, structural emergencies as a result of the transition to free trade.
We have the Summerside situation which I believe is the most compelling single area for care and compassion by this government, one that we must address through the industrial adjustment service and otherwise. I believe that we must address the fishery throughout Atlantic Canada in a very strong and profound way with this service.
As well of course we have the broad range of programs and services through the unemployment insurance administration, the Canadian Jobs Strategy, income support emergency response, job training, relocation assistance, community initiatives and special aid for older workers.
A special response for the longer term is also essential. I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Yukon tonight. This is a long-term problem we are addressing in part, and we must have long-term answers. We must, as I said earlier, face the facts of the fisheries, that there are limits to the potential of the fisheries. We must accept those limits not just for the sustainable harvest in our time, as I have said earlier, but also to serve future generations.
What does this mean? It means establishing new ways of life for many people in many communities. It means finding new economic activities, new industries and new jobs.
I believe that the greatest single challenge facing Canada today is to confront the realities of unsustainable development, to take the action that is necessary, to be sure, but even more critically to address the need for viable alternatives and to create those alternatives, to replace jobs which have become unsustainable.
This challenge is probably greater in Atlantic Canada than in any other part of the country. We do not have to apologize for that either. We are founding shareholders in the Canadian confederation. The truth is abundantly clear. There is economic disparity in the Atlantic region which must be balanced with the more economically favoured parts of our country.
Regional development action is essential to provide long-term growth in Atlantic Canada that would otherwise not occur. That special kind of assistance must be more than just a sharing with the boom areas of Canada. It must provide an advantage to Atlantic Canada that will help rationalize our disadvantages of distance, of size of our markets and of scale. It must be a unique extra that will attract new industry to our region, that will spur development by our entrepreneurs and that will relieve our overdependence on sensitive natural resources such as the fishery.
For example, while interest rates are justifiably high defending against inflation right across Canada and an adjustable or variable interest rate policy is not possible, there is a special need for regional measures to ameliorate those rates in Atlantic Canada where, frankly, the economy cannot stand the impact of those rates to the extent that it can in the overheated areas of southern Ontario.
What can be done to address the crisis in the Atlantic fisheries and what can be done for Atlantic Canada?
I mentioned special measures to ameliorate things such as interest rate policies. There are other things that can be done, that are being done, that will be done.
December 18, 1989

In terms of regional development I have said several times in this House that regional development spending in Atlantic Canada will touch $.5 billion in 1989-by far the largest in the history of the Atlantic region. It will average $425 million for the balance of the five-year fiscal plan. Perhaps, in view of the fisheries crisis, that is not enough.
The ACOA fund of $1 billion has been a major and significant initiative for Atlantic Canada. In the context of the fishery, in the context of Summerside, in the context of the structural dislocations we face in Atlantic Canada, perhaps it is time to consider increasing the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Fund for the future.
The unemployment insurance fund has a wide array of assistance both for immediate response and for longterm alternatives. The Liberal-dominated Senate of this country must pass Bill C-21 or it will penalize these very fishermen commencing January 1 of whom we speak tonight.
With respect to the free trade agreement, I would hope that the wishes of the hon. member for Yukon would never be realized. I believe that all Atlantic Canadians would hope that because one of the really bright spots in the future of Atlantic Canada is the 50 million person market that exists less than 24 hours trucking distance from our major centres. That market represents the greatest single potential for the future of the Atlantic region of any other economic factor.
We will process in the Atlantic, and the free trade agreement permits us to process it in the Atlantic region. That will help us to realize the potential of that megalopolis of the northeastern United States. I trust that the hon. member for Yukon will change her tune and come to realize that if she ever hopes to get a seat in Atlantic Canada, which I would seriously doubt, it will not be by turning off the few bright potential spots that we have.
Going beyond that, I have mentioned the industrial adjustment services. My colleagues have mentioned the community future services. There are initiatives that are required. There are major undertakings for communities such as Canso and Summerside.
In closing, I would like to remind you that in the throne speech earlier this year the government did announce a strategy for Canada. It contained several pivotal factors. One was financial stability. We are moving in those directions.
Another was economic growth. We are moving in those directions.
Another was sustainable development. We are grappling now with sustainable development in the fishery. For the first time we are confronting, as the Minister from St. John's West said tonight, the reality of people enslaved to a fishery that is inadequate to be sustainable for them.
The last thing that the throne speech stated was that we are committed to a compassionate and caring society. I call on all members of this House tonight to address the Atlantic fishery and other problems in the Atlantic region with this sense of care and compassion, with this sense of constructive, co-operative debate that will lead to solutions and not merely rhetorical problems such as we hear so often in this House.
I would like to assure Atlantic Canadians that this government is a caring and compassionate government. I would like to assure them that the Atlantic fishery has my support. Coming as I do from an area that is not directly affected, I would want them to know that I and my colleagues support the concerns and the problems. They can count on us to see that they are resolved in the future.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, it has been a long evening and an interesting one. I have sat and listened to most of it. I have learned something, but not from all of the speakers. I can recall the Minister for International Trade speaking for example. I could not help but think of the description of a previous speech a couple of hundred years ago, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing". Add his reassurances to the people of Newfoundland that he was going to look after them to the reassurances of the previous Minister for International Trade, Pat Carney, and to those of the present Minister of Fisheries who promised also to protect the traditional jobs in the fish-processing industry in B.C.-and we know what happened there. If you put all those reassurances together in one handful it would still take 80 cents to get a cup of coffee in the government cafeteria.
The Leader of the Opposition accused the government of mismanagement. Government members have accused the Liberals of mismanagement. Madam Speaker, they are both right. But none of those accusations, right or wrong, is going to add one pound to the biomass of cod out there waiting to spawn. There is no point now in saying who did something wrong or who did not do something right. That is not the argument. The question

December 18, 1989
is, what are we going to do from here on? What is the government doing right now?
I would say if either party is more to blame than the other, it would be the Conservatives because they have been in office for over five years and they have done nothing to improve the situation in those five years. In fact, it is getting worse. There is no question about that.
In 1988, the total allowable catch of northern cod was set at 266,000 tonnes. In 1989, the federal scientists urged that the total allowable catch be reduced to
125.000	tonnes, and the Minister for International Trade proudly boasted that he would not accept that figure from the scientists. He insisted that the total allowable catch would be 235,000 tonnes. He did that to protect the jobs of the fishermen and the people in the fish-processing industry in Newfoundland-short-term gain for long-term pain.
Harvesting more than twice as much as the best scientific evidence told us should be harvested was nothing short of a disaster for the industry. For the minister to say that he is a responsible minister in this government, it would be better to say that he is an irresponsible minister when he is treating the codfish stock in that manner.
The Harris report for northern cod, released in May of 1989, talked about the codfish stocks. Bearing in mind that in 1977 the best advice available was that there should be 1.4 million tonnes in the cod biomass for spawning, the Harris report said in 1989 that the figures at that time were 725,000 to 500,000 tonnes, an average less than half of what there should be to maintain the proper spawning population. If the figure is actually
725,000,	the upper limit of what Harris said, we could rebuild the cod stocks gradually if we harvested 200,000 tonnes a year, if he was right with the 725,000 figure. If he was right at the 500,000 figure, harvesting 200,000 tonnes a year for five years would reduce the stock to the point where there would be no hope of it ever coming back. It is just that close. We have to be below the
200.000	to be able to achieve anything, to be able to guarantee the protection of that resource. Yet the Minister for International Trade proudly boasts that he insisted on it being 235,000-much higher than it should have been for any safety.
We like to blame the Europeans, and several have. Certainly, I was part of that group that went overseas. We listened and we talked. We blamed the Spanish and the Portuguese for overfishing of the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. It was great fun. I think there is no doubt but that they are overfishing in those areas.
There is also some question as to what the Canadians are doing, and the Europeans kept throwing this at us. What about our own fishing? I talked already about us harvesting 235,000 when the scientists say it should be
125,000.	Do you think they do not know that? Do you think they do not know that we are harvesting twice as many as we should be? Of course they know it. We are pointing a finger at them and they are pointing it right back at us.
Then they say: "What other scientific evidence is there to back up your claim that it is our overfishing in the nose and the tail that are being destructive and somebody else's overfishing is not?" What about other factors? What other factors are there?
For example, what about predators? The question was raised when I think one of the government members talked about the seals and what they are doing. As far as I know, the only reports I have heard is that they have not actually found cod in the seals that have been killed. If not, perhaps the seals are eating the food of the cod. Certainly, they must be having some effect when they are increasing in the numbers that they are. Should something be done about that? I do not know. It is one of the things that has to be considered. Certainly cutting back on the harvest is also something that has to be considered pretty seriously.
What about mismanagement? Yes. What about mismanagement by both parties? Yes. Let us forget about that and let us do something about the future. That is what we have to agree to do.
Being pushed around by the Americans has been mentioned. I think again it was the Leader of the Opposition who mentioned that. Of course that is true, no question about it. Look what happened on the west coast. I spoke earlier about the promises from government members to protect jobs in the processing industry and protect the fishermen. We know that has not been done. We can blame it on GATT, but there was a solution to that which we ignored. We can blame it on the free trade panel. What is happening there? The Canadian

government said: "Yes, we accept 20 per cent." The Americans said: "No way." They are not willing to accept that, and I have not heard what has happened since. This was supposed to be decided quite some time ago.
We gave up control of our resources when we became part of this free trade deal, not just of fish I am afraid, but other resources as well. We certainly said to the Americans: "You can have our fish." That is the way they are interpreting the agreement. They are threatening that if we do not interpret it the same way that they are going to take retaliatory action that will make us play ball the way they want us to play ball.
On the east coast there are similar problems. The same Minister for International Trade is quoted as saying as much as much as 80 million pounds of unprocessed fish could have left Nova Scotia in 1988. How many jobs is that? Those fish could have been processed in Canada, on the east coast where all these plants are shutting down. We could have kept some of those plants open had we insisted on processing all our fish in our processing plants with our workers. The Conservative member of Parliament for South Shore, Nova Scotia, said: "Nova Scotia alone is exporting 1,000 jobs a year." That would have kept some of the smaller plants open.
There has been some talk of the alternatives to cod fishing. The Minister of Fisheries, I believe, talked about some 350,000 tonnes of other species that are available for harvest. I do not think he really assigned blame, although I had the feeling when he was saying this that it was because the fishermen were not catching them, were not harvesting them. I see him shaking his head. I am glad to see that. It is not the fishermen. They would be delighted to harvest all these 350,000 tonnes of any species if there was a market for them, but we need the market. That is where the government has to come in.
I attended a meeting in Lockeport when that plant had been closed, a meeting that I think was originally organized by the United Auto Workers Union which brought together people from the community, from the council and from various organizations. They all agreed on a plan for something that might be done with Lockeport. The essence of it was: "Let's use Lockeport
as a sort of research place to find some way of using these species that are not currently being used."
I have one small example in my constituency of Nanaimo where a small processor of fish tried for years to do something with dogfish. The problem was the ammonia. What do you do with the ammonia? How do you get rid of the ammonia? He eventually produced a very tasty product, smoked, canned dogfish. The ammonia was out of it. I asked him how he did it but of course he wasn't going to tell me that. As far as I know that product is still being produced.
Through research that one person on his own was able to do something with the dogfish that was and is such a nuisance on the west coast. What about these species on the Atlantic? It would seem to me that the proposal to use the Lockeport plant or any other place as a research facility to find some way of utilizing what the minister called the under-utilized species that are there in such large quantities is a good proposal. It cannot be the fishermen who do it. Industry will not do it. Industry will go out and buy more boats. I think NatSea spent some $16 million just buying another freezer-trawler after it closed several plants in the Atlantic provinces. It has money to buy these big trawlers that put fishermen out of work, but it does not have any money for research to find what should be done with these under-utilized species.
Apart from management that has to be cleaned up, apart from using the under-utilized species to provide more economic opportunities, we also have to sustain the workforce that is being cut back now because of the closures. We hope that with proper management there will be an increase in fish stocks and we would hope to be using others. The workers are there now. It is not their fault. As I say, government members have accused the Liberals. The Liberals have accused the government members. Nobody has accused the people working in the fishing industry, whether the fishermen or the workers, of having done anything wrong. It is not their fault that the resource was mismanaged. They are there ready, willing and able to work. Hopefully, there will be job opportunities for them. In the meantime they have to be sustained.

December 18, 1989
Unemployment insurance is being cut back seriously. The government has to have the responsibility of making sure that those people, even if they are not able to work, have a decent income to keep them going until these plants reopen. If they are not going to reopen, then there has to be a period when the government will help them and help them get re-established, but not in retraining them to take jobs on VIA Rail that is going out of business or to take jobs in the tourist industry at minimum wage. They need decent jobs that will enable them to contribute to the economy in their communities.
We have to manage the stock properly. Yes, Spain and Portugal are overfishing. But one of the messages I heard in Europe time after time was that if we clean up our act in Canada and do a better job of managing the resource here, then we will be in a much better position to recommend to them that they clean up their act and we might be listened to more carefully. Let us put our own house in order. They said it is not enough just to juggle the catch. We need to have scientific analysis to find out exactly what is going wrong. Why are we so short of fish? Maybe it is the catch. They want more work done on it than to simply count the number of fish that somebody is catching.
The minister in the press release he put out talked about penalties, enforcement powers, changing the system of quotas, better systems for 1990. That is all very well, but the immediate step has to be taken to cut back on the total allowable catch. These other things make a pretty small contribution toward building up the population. It is the catch that is doing it.
The predators I have mentioned. The Minister for International Trade blamed the scientists for having gone wrong. They gave wrong information. Well, even scientists can do that. Usually the latest information is the best information. Let us go for the best we can get.
Another thing that is in some of the material I have here is that if you cannot get the truth from scientists, go to the fishermen. It was in 1988 that the fishermen said the total allowable catch of 266,000 tonnes was too much for the fish. They could not stand it. They were right. I am missing a comment from across the way. The minister said, I think, that that was why he reduced it. Remember, the scientists said reduce it to 125,000 tonnes, and I do not hear the minister saying he is going that far. It takes
drastic action. There is going to be unemployment in the meantime that the government has to look after. If we are going to build that up, we have to deal with it as a serious problem that requires drastic action. It is up to the government to accept its responsibility to save that stock.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to participate in this emergency debate because it has profound effects on the economy of Atlantic Canada and in particular it has profound negative economic effects on communities such as Canso, North Sydney and parts of Newfoundland.
Fortunately, in my constituency we were spared a closure of a National Sea Products facility. However, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you and members of this House that residents of my constituency take no great pleasure in the anguish, the uncertainty that the people in Canso, North Sydney and parts of Newfoundland are confronted with at the present time.
Some weeks ago I participated in a major rally in Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. At that time, before 700 individuals, I made a number of observations with regard to the Atlantic fisheries, particularly with respect to the solutions which were necessary to be put in place in order to resolve a very serious situation.
While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in the House, I would like to share with him for a moment or two the unanimous consent of those who attended that particular meeting on this cold wintry night and of individuals in communities who did not have a National Sea Products fishing plant. Nevertheless they were involved in the fisheries, whether it be the inshore or the offshore, whether it be plant workers in other plants. It was unanimous by each and every one that the first thing the Government of Canada must do and should do very quickly was ask the minister of fisheries to resign.
This minister has lost the confidence of those individuals who participate in the Atlantic fisheries. When you lose the confidence of those individuals you are supposed to represent at the cabinet table, I think it only appropriate and responsible for that individual who holds such high office as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to exercise those responsibilities and resign forthwith as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
December 18, 1989

That will not be the cure-all, but it will provide some segment of confidence in an industry and a region which have been bastardized by the present administration in Ottawa.
There are other solutions that could be made to address this very serious situation. The second thing that the government ought to do is to allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the direction of a new minister to exercise paramount control when it comes to fisheries management of our stocks. No longer can the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the senior bureaucrats in the Prime Minister's office be giving directions to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries and Oceans must be paramount with regard to External Affairs when it comes to fisheries related matters. No longer can we accept a secondary status.
That leads to an issue which I believe is fundamental. Even the parliamentary secretary has spoken eloquently tonight but was substantively wrong. He ought to know, not as a newcomer to the House of Commons but as an individual who has played around in the halls of power in Ottawa, that the foreign overfishing taking place on the offshore is crucial and devastating to our Canadian fishermen.
When are we as a nation going to exercise our own control? When are we as a nation going to say no to the foreign fleets whether they be Portuguese, Spanish or French, whether they be ships from the United States of America? Is it not high time that the Government of Canada stop kowtowing to foreign interests and stand up for Canadian interests first?
Recently we have seen the President of the United States confirm a law which was passed through the Congress of the United States that negatively affects lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada. In the province of Nova Scotia it will mean a lessening of $30 million into our economy. What it means is that jobs will be lost and the domestic price for lobster will be substantially reduced not only for this fiscal year but for fiscal years in the future. What did we have? We had the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister for International Trade and yes, the almighty one, the Prime Minister, sending notes to the President of the United States pleading with him not to pass this particular legislation.
Somehow those of us in Atlantic Canada are to be secure in the knowledge and in the fact that this matter now must go before a free trade panel. No one knows the sanction that it will impose. We know a bit about the time frame, but we do not know the sanction that will be imposed. Even if we knew the sanction there is no guarantee that the Americans will accept it.
I say to the parliamentary secretary who is the only one in the Government of Canada listening to the debate at this late hour that they should spend $30 million now readily available on those fishermen who are going to lose as a result of this regressive measure in the United States. If that were done, it would show a measure of good faith by the Government of Canada.
In the remaining time I want to say a few words to those people in Canso, Nova Scotia and in North Sydney in my province. I am embarrassed to stand here tonight with no federal representative from the Conservative Party of Canada in cabinet saying one word, not one sentence for those fishermen in Nova Scotia. I am sure there will be good reason for this lack of attendance tonight, but no one from cabinet has spoken out for the economic interest of Nova Scotians. We talk tonight not of statistics contained in the briefing book of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We are talking about people, ordinary Canadians, who have mortgages, who have children, who have bills to pay and dreams yet unachieved.
Yet this government has said to those Canadians in Canso, Nova Scotia and in North Sydney: "We don't care. That is not our problem. That is National Sea's problem. Because it is their problem, we are not going to come to your assistance. We are not going to provide the kind of aid which is needed. We will dance with you for a little while, but when the song is over your future will not be in those communities; it will be elsewhere in this great country".
The situation is of a crisis nature. It requires leadership. It requires financial aid. It requires co-operation. It also requires political will by a government that has yet to show any interest or any substantive concern for those men and women in Atlantic Canada who depend so heavily on the fisheries.
I would hope that we would support both in substance and in spirit the emergency motion put forward by my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, stated by my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys and by other members from eastern Nova Scotia. We will try to resolve this particular problem, but it requires political

will by the Government of Canada which is not any being exhibited now nor has it been in the immediate past.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the motion of my hon. colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, specifically that the Liberal party condemns the government's mismanagement of the Atlantic fishery.
This motion is allowing members on this side of the House to explain the real situation in Atlantic Canada, not the situation as seen from the government's point of view or expressed by Conservative members opposite.
The Government's agenda has been questioned by all Atlantic Canadians at this point in time. In fact we have been questioning it for a long time. "What does the federal government have in store for Atlantic Canada", we ask? Not much.
It has closed Canadian forces bases. It has cut back Via Rail. It has proposed major changes to the unemployment insurance system and has mismanaged the Atlantic fishery to such an extent that it is rapidly declining, causing the closure of plants throughout the maritimes and in some cases shutting down small communities. The fishery is a vital resource to all Atlantic Canadians and its preservation is integral to the survival of the Atlantic region.
It is ironic it was the Canadian government that did so much to contribute to the management of the Canadian fishery by introducing fishing quotas, fishing seasons, and minimum size for fish. Now we are seeing the government destroy the fishery by closing down fish plants in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, allowing overfishing by foreign fleets and, moreover, in the wake of the agreement signed last week, virtual inaction from either the minister of fisheries or the Prime Minister. The plant that will close in Canso causing the loss of 742 jobs, the reduction in operations at the National Sea plant in North Sydney causing the loss of 280 jobs, and the closure of the National Sea plant in St. John's, Newfoundland will add to the deplorable state of the Atlantic economy.
The Canso plant which employs over 60 per cent of the community's population of 1,200 will be closed in April 1990. This is the only industry in this small community. The government has promised to provide funding for the introduction of new industries to the area, but what good will that do for a town that knows nothing but fish? The fishery was the backbone of Canso and now it is the cause of the destruction of Canso.
Nothing has been done by this government to remedy this terrible situation. It fails to understand just how vital the fishing industry is to Atlantic Canada. It is the economic backbone for thousands of Atlantic Canadians. Prince Edward Islanders are used to hearing the horror stories attributed to the shutdown of industries and businesses. We have only to look at CFB Summerside to understand how the people of Canso are feeling right now. Prince Edward Island is reeling from a multitude of economic disasters initiated by the federal government. As well, it is reeling from the recent decision made by the United States that our own government seems powerless to fight.
I need point no further than to the signature of the President of the United States on a bill limiting the sale of Canadian lobsters. This will have serious implications for the already downtrodden economy of Prince Edward Island.
The fishery is one of the three major industries on the island, along with agriculture and tourism. The fishing industry is responsible for 30 per cent of the island's exports and contributes approximately 13 per cent to the Gross Provincial Product. The lobster fishery accounts for 70 per cent of the total value of the island fishery, a value that has been declining given the low prices during the past season resulting from a high concentration of lobster on the international market.
The major market for island lobster is the United States. Some 70 per cent of the lobsters are exported to the U.S. With the passage of the aforementioned U.S. legislation, where will the island fishermen sell their lobster? Let us think of the damage this will do to our provincial economy, an economy already suffering from massive fiscal restraint programs brought on by the federal government.
December 18, 1989

I believe that the free trade agreement is the main problem here. The import limitations brought forward by the U.S. legislation last Tuesday are a direct result of the free trade deal. Senator George Mitchell, the man behind last Tuesday's bill, attempted to have these provisions included in the FTA and now he has what he wanted all along. What has the Prime Minister done in the wake of such punitive actions? Nothing. He seems to be more concerned with building a reputation as an international statesman. Obviously he hesitates to oppose his friend, the President of the United States.
The implications for the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada are frightening. The Prime Minister has been citing statistics for years now. Just last week he boasted about lower unemployment rates in Atlantic Canada. I would like to inform the Prime Minister that the unemployment rate in my province of Prince Edward Island has not fallen. I am also telling him that the numbers will rise drastically when the full impact of this government's assault on Atlantic Canada is realized.
With respect to fish plants, Prince Edward Island has had its share of closures. The crab plants in Tignish and Murray Harbour have shut down. These closures put 200 people out of work. That has quite an impact on P.E.I., not only on the individual workers but also on their families and the communities that depend on the spending power of these families. Another example is the Summerside Sea Products that closed its doors earlier this year with a loss of some 120 jobs.
The future of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is bleak, as is the future of the Atlantic economy in general. Economists are predicting that Canada is on the verge of major recession due in great part to the government's policy on high interest rates. I say that Atlantic Canada is in one now and that it will only get worse if the government does not show a firm commitment to Atlantic Canadians.
There is a growing feeling back home that this government cares very little about the four provinces on the east coast because it has done nothing to prove otherwise. In Atlantic Canada alone there are more than
100,000	fishermen and fish processors. Historically they have depended on a stable Atlantic fishery for their livelihoods. These men and women are now looking at a
bleak future square in the face. They are facing plant closures and lower imposed quotas as well as increases in quotas by the European community. EC nations continue to overfish the transboundary stocks. The European community refuses to respect and support quotas established by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
Atlantic Canadians working in the fishing industry want to work, need to work, and expect nothing more or less than that, but that is not the reality they face. The reality is that more than 1,000 people lost their jobs in the crab and lobster industries in New Brunswick. The job loss in my province was 465. In Newfoundland more than 10,000 plant workers and fishermen have been affected, and in Nova Scotia at least 3,000 workers have been affected. These are ugly statistics, and the future looks even worse.
What we in Atlantic Canada face today is nothing less than a crisis, a crisis that this government could have prevented. The Prime Minister suggested today in the House that unemployment insurance was an answer to this crisis. He stated that if the UI bill were approved by the other place, it would assist fishermen who are victims of this crisis.
This is not much of a solution for fishermen facing long-term chronic unemployment. Atlantic Canadians need long-term solutions, not political rhetoric. I call on this government to put in place immediately an emergency program to financially assist these Canadians. The fishermen and plant workers of Atlantic Canada deserve nothing less.
To conclude, I support the motion put forward by my colleague and I urge this government to act immediately.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise at 10 minutes to 1 in the morning in Ottawa, a bit later in my riding, with no one on the other side of the House to hear what is going on. However, a few of my colleagues are here, those who are interested, and there is a lot of back-up support in the lobby.
This is a difficult subject to speak on in some ways, and in other ways I welcome the opportunity to get up and try to show some indication of the pain people are experiencing in my riding. I have heard a lot of statistics here tonight. I have heard a lot of excuses. I have heard a lot

December 18, 1989
of non-partisanship and a lot of partisanship, but I have not seen much concern or compassion or imagination.
I would like to start with a definition of "crisis". I thought I had better look it up before I came here tonight. It is in the Oxford Concise Dictionary, page 225, Edition 1988. It states that a crisis is a turning point derived from the Greek work "krisis". It means turning point. In order to have a turning point somebody has to decide to do something.
I have not heard much from over there tonight to tell me what that something is going to be or what is going to be done. All I have heard are excuses. "It is not our fault". I do not see how somebody can tell me that they have been running the system for five years and that it is not their fault that we are in a crisis situation.
It happens to be a crisis situation in the offshore fishery that has been brought to the attention of everybody here and has us here at one o'clock in the morning, Ottawa time. There has been a crisis in the inshore fishery for the last five to six years. It is only now that this whole thing is coming to the forefront.
There are so many issues to attack and there are so many suggestions to offer up that it is hard to know where to start. Let us not talk about the scientific gross underestimation of the stocks. I am not blaming them. I am not pointing the finger. I do find it strange that it came shortly after an election, and I do find the range strange. When one estimates something at 50 per cent or overestimates it by 100 per cent, how scientific that is is beyond me. I wonder what they knew when the election was going on, but I am not going to suggest that there are things beyond our control that we can point the finger at.
The fishermen have been telling the scientists, the politicians, and anybody who would listen that there was a problem with the estimate of the 260,000 tonnes, and they would not listen. The fishermen are saying: "If you had listened to us you would not be in this condition today".
Let us lay that aside for the time being and let us look at overfishing. They do not seem to recognize on the other side of the House that overfishing is a pretty major
part of this problem. If there had not been overfishing we may not be in this crisis.
In 1986 that crowd over there was managing this economy. It was managing the fisheries. What happened? Spain and Portugal joined the economic communities. That year 23,200 tonnes was allocated by NAFO. They took 140,000 tonnes. The next year they took
170,000	tonnes. Spain and Portugal were the ones that were really responsible.
This year the Secretary of State for External Affairs says: "It is going to be better. We are going to allocate them 13,000 tonnes, and they are only going to take 50,000". That is great. In 2J3KL, the area that we are concerned about in Newfoundland, NAFO is recommending zero and they are only going to take 27,000. That crowd over there thinks this is wonderful. I do not think that is wonderful. I think that is terrible, and my colleagues would say that that is terrible.
What are we going to do about that? We trade with Portugal and Spain. With Portugal we had around a $48 million deficit, so let us set them aside. With Spain we did almost $1 billion in trade last year, $945 million, and there was a favour to them for almost $500 million.
We are playing hard ball. Let us look at trade sanctions to Spain and Portugal. If the Europeans are to come over here and tell us when we can catch our seals, then at least we should be able to go and tell them when they cannot catch our fish.
What do we do about surveillance? We should know who is in our waters. Last year we had 165 trawlers-I am quoting the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls-in our area and we had two patrol boats in the area. We had Tracker surveillance. The Tracker surveillance gives 50 per cent of the valuable, medium range time as quoted by the hon. member for Labrador this evening. What have we done with that? We have closed down Summerside and we have taken away the Trackers.
I have evidence that DFO claimed at a committee meeting last week that they were not consulted, and my ex-military colleagues say that they were not consulted. It was a decision that was made. Summerside was closed down. It was an ill-advised decision at a time when we need increased surveillance. The surveillance capability that we had was taken away.

Last year, in our economic zone we went to bat for in 1977, we had 200,000 tonnes taken inside our area by foreign ships. One thousand tonnes equals around 30 jobs a year. It does not take a Ph.D. in mathematics to work out that is around 6,000 jobs by giving away 200,000 tonnes. In the last four years the overfishing to which I referred a few moments ago was 400,000 tonnes. We are literally giving away the shop. We are giving it away. Don't worry about the scientific advice. Don't give away the stocks.
My hon. friend from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte talked about 4,000 tonnes of fish being given to the French off his coast where the people are looking out and they cannot catch anything because of the allocation. What a way to run a country. What a way to run an economy. What a way to run a fishery.
I was surprised but it made sense when I thought about it. The first speaker up tonight was the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The next minister to speak was the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is pretty obvious who is telling whom to do what. Domestic policy does not matter a darn here. We are more interested 'in kowtowing to the Europeans and making our mark in the international arena than we are concerned about protecting our fishermen at home in Newfoundland.
How interested are we in enforcing our laws? We send out a ship to patrol an American dragger that is transgressing against our laws. What do we do? We allow HMCS Saguenay to be rammed. I do not know what else happened. The dragger went off into American waters where the fine can be $10,000. In Canada, the same fine is around $750,000.
The Minister of National Defence asks: "What do you want us to do? Go and shoot them?" Our concern is for our people. You do not have to shoot them. There are all kinds of things you can do. I would remind the House that with a different minister of fisheries in 1985 HMCS Athabascan went out, followed, stopped, boarded, arrested Spanish vessels and brought them back to St. John's, Newfoundland where they were tried for overfishing, found guilty, and fined a lot of money. It would be interesting to watch the incidence of decreased Spanish fishing at that particular point in time.
I am going to make some recommendations the other side of the House might find interesting. We should
rescind the Tracker decision. We need to be more aggressive and imaginative in the enforcement of our laws. We need to consider trade sanctions. Although I did not speak of it in the body of my presentation, we have seriously to consider looking at extending our jurisdiction over the nose and the tail of the bank. I think it is about time that we started to do that seriously.
Along the backdrop of Bill C-21, 26,000 people in Newfoundland are going to have their UI reduced by $2,500 and 9,000 will be cut off. We have this thrown at us, and we have GST staring us in the face. There is an awful lot of people out there tonight who are saying: "We don't mind politicians talking about this because it is going to be a rough Christmas for us".
To think that there is not a crisis, you would have to be figuratively deaf, metaphorically dumb and literally blind. We are here tonight to say that something can be done, something should be done and, by God, as long as there is an opposition on this side of the House something will be done.


M. Douglas Young: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in this emergency debate with one major concern. I have a great deal of sympathy for my friends in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but I do want to point out the tremendous crisis we have been going through for months now in New Brunswick in the fishery, particularly in the Acadian peninsula.
Before I get into those details, I want to say that I do not often take pleasure in pointing out individuals who have suffered some misfortune. However, I can't help but say that it must be some solace to the people of Canso and Newfoundland who are anticipating further reductions in the workforce in fish plants to see that Gordon Cummings is looking for work as well.
If anybody deserved to be turfed out and to know what it is like to be looking for a job, it is the former president of National Sea, who ran a company with public funds right into the sea, if I can put it that way. I make no apologies to the House for taking some pleasure in recognizing that a person who was significant in the fight for free trade, who took the money made available to him by the Government of Canada and spent it in the United States, made a mockery of the restructuring of the fisheries, that at least that individual now shares the

December 18, 1989
fate of many of his compatriots in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland.
I listened to my friends on both sides of the House talking about the Spanish, Portuguese and the French, when they talked of overfishing. There has even been an admission in part to the effect that some Canadians overfish. One significant omission has been made, I think, and I have tried to listen to most of what has been said here tonight. That is the question of American overfishing.
I do not think we need to be delicate when we see the problems that are occurring in Atlantic Canada as a result of mismanagement, but also as a result of our not defending our sovereignty. The American overfishing is a serious problem, not just because of the incident that my colleague referred to just moments ago, with HMCS Saguenay. The people who know the fishery off the Atlantic coast recognize just how serious American overfishing is and that it must be addressed.
I think the Europeans need to be told that we are not a bunch of wimps who will sit around and scatter when someone talks about seals. I have had some experience in the fisheries as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for New Brunswick. One of the greatest threats to a new and burgeoning fishery in Atlantic Canada in my province of New Brunswick is seals. We have to defend our aquaculture industry and our salmon in cages from the attack of voracious seals. They attack the cages in the Bay of Fundy. They attack our fishery all over eastern Canada in the North Atlantic.
We worry about people who have their own problems, and this is not an opportune time to debate, but it is time we stood up and told people around the world what our fishery is about and what our communities are about.

Madam Speaker, this emergency debate on the fisheries crisis in the Atlantic provinces is an extremely important one, and I simply want to point out certain elements that are creating an enormous amount of disquiet in my province, New Brunswick, and especially in the Acadian peninsula.
Just now people are focusing their discussion mainly on the situation in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. But I want to remind the House that what is happening in Shippigan, Caraquet, Le Goulet, Tracadie and Lameque
is also very serious. Plants have been closing there for the past few months. Madam Speaker, suppose I told you that in the past two years more than 5,000 jobs in Acadia have disappeared with the collapse of the crab-fishing industry. If we put that figure in the context of central Canada, either Quebec or Ontario, it would proportionate to the larger populations there, represent the loss of
100,000	jobs. Already this fall, 1,000 other jobs disappeared when three plants in the Acadian peninsula closed-Connors and L. Gauthier in Shippigan and Baie-Chaleurs Packers in Caraquet.
Other closures are anticipated. This truly is a crisis. With respect to the value of the Canadian dollar, Madam Speaker, people don't seem to understand how disastrous the 86-cent dollar is for exports. Obviously it hurts sales, but it also hurts all the traditional arrangements between processing plants and fishermen-the pressure on prices, the uncertainty in the industry because people know the dollar isn't about to fall.
Madam Speaker, as if it weren't enough that the resource is disappearing in certain cases, the recent decision by the President of the United States, Mr. Bush, to ban part of our lobster exports is going to cost us, in the Atlantic provinces, upwards of $30 million. In my province of New Brunswick the loss will be more than seven million dollars. The government of New Brunswick has estimated that the province stands to lose up to $130 million this year because of shrinking crab stocks and the low prices offered for lobster and herring roe.
Madam Speaker, I have listened very attentively to speeches giving the impression that no one has any alternatives to offer in this debate tonight. Well, Madam Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity to suggest that the federal government must give the same priority to the New Brunswick fishing industry as it seems prepared to give to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, because as I have pointed out, the closures of the plants in Shippigan and Caraquet have the same impact as the closures in Canso and St. John's.
We must subsidize local fishermen who want to go after under-utilized species. We must provide financial and technical help to plants that want to diversify their production by processing under-utilized species. Madam Speaker, we must work with the industry to establish five-year development plans for each species of fish, and also to create, because this is very important, a seafood
December 18, 1989

marketing agency for each of the under-utilized species, such as mackerel and herring. As we know, the fishing industry did for a time profit chiefly from the price offered when crab was abundant, but we are going to have to encourage our plants to process value-added products, which they haven't traditionally done.
And because of the unpredictable character of seasonal industries like fishing, Mr. Speaker, the government must find a more flexible formula for access to unemployment insurance benefits, especially in light of the crisis that is currently shaking the fishing industry in all the Atlantic provinces.

I listened with interest to my friend, the member from Fredericton, who talked about some of the things that we need to do. He mentioned ACOA. Certainly if ACOA has done some work that has had significant positive results in Atlantic Canada, surely now the government has to look at enriching this program because when that program was put forward with its funding, no one could foresee the kind of difficulty that we would be faced within Atlantic Canada as a result of this crisis.
There are many things that must be done, but surely in these few remaining days before Christmas we do not want to hear too much more talk about relocation. Surely there is a capacity in this country to recognize that we do not want to go through "The Grapes of Wrath" in Canada. We did not do that in western Canada when we went through the drought and experienced the crisis in the agricultural community. We do not want to talk about moving people out of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or off Prince Edward Island because we have lacked the will to find ways to diversify our economic base.
It is not a question of being confrontational with the Spaniards or the Portuguese, or the French or the Americans. It is a question of putting forth our views and having people recognize our sovereignty and our commitment to our own people. It is a question of recognizing that this country cannot survive if everybody has to move to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
If we are going to go back to a system as we had several hundred years ago when people came from Europe and
fished the banks of Atlantic Canada and returned to Europe, or what if people come down from central Canada to make sure there is enough fish caught to take care of the Canadian market, we would then be dealing with a situation that no one could ever have envisioned. Surely that is not the kind of scenario that we want to paint for the people of Atlantic Canada.
I ask the government to look at some of the suggestions we have made. There has to be a way to deal with this crisis in a meaningful way to reassure people now that something will be done in the short term, not just by throwing money at the problem in the short term, but through a medium and long term plan recognizing the reduction in the resources. But what does the government have as a plan, other than simply to react and try to play it by ear, so to speak?
I hope that all members of this House will recognize that the crisis in Atlantic Canada in the fisheries is equal if not superior to anything that has happened anywhere else in this country. We talk about the Scheffervilles, we talk about the western farmers, and we talk about the closing of mines in one-industry towns in the north. We cannot allow this to happen in Atlantic Canada.
I would suggest that all members of this House will finally come to realize that it is going to take a concerted effort. I am sure that Canadians from coast to coast in this country are prepared to share with one another and to ensure that Atlantic Canadians can feel that not only are they a part of Canada, but that people want them to survive and to have some opportunity to thrive as well.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the travesty, the tragedy that is occurring in the Atlantic provinces today. This tragedy is not merely frightening, it is eerie. This government is acting as if it were on a lifeboat, choosing who may remain and who must go. In this case, the government is telling Atlantic Canadian fishermen to jump off the boat into the cruel sea so that Americans, Spaniards and Portuguese can stay on.
Something is fundamentally warped with a government that so blatantly turns its back on the people it is

December 18, 1989
supposed to represent. Then again representation is not one of this government's strong suits. Were we in a court of law and the government an independent player, charges could be levied for the premeditated, vicious butchering of the Atlantic fishery.
The devastation of the Atlantic fishery has not been the effect of nature, it has been the effect of government. For five years, mismanagement. For five years, ignoring what was going on. The fish did not decide one day to swim away. The government has simply done everything in its power to keep Canadian fishermen, to keep Canadian fishing boats, away from the fish. Keep up away, and let others have them. This is just another example of how the government will do virtually anything to get a smile and a pat on the back from the White House. Sellout after sellout, that is what this government has been doing to the Atlantic provinces.
In the last few weeks, the Prime Minister has been responding to questions, virtually every question in this area, with predictable nonsense about how terrible things were before he came into office. He has been five years in office. Five years of mismanagement of the fishery.
No matter how bad things were, previous governments never obliterated industries. Previous governments never penalized regions and previous governments never callously undermined jobs, livelihoods and incomes. Towns like Canso and Lockeport did not look forward to becoming ghost towns under previous governments.
Well, this government can now do what it does best. It can swill its own self-adulation-another community destroyed, another Canadian industry crushed and another prize for Uncle Sam.
The sellout started with the European fisheries, the Portuguese, the Spanish and the French, all permitted to make quotas which could not be met. They could not be met because they were too high. Then came the sellout to the Prime Minister's best friend, the icon of his existence, the United States.
First, the government sold out to the Americans on the fish-processing rules for salmon and herring, then on an export tax for fish, and now, with barely less than a whimper, which is so befitting, it is making a token gesture of opposition to American legislation banning Canadian lobster imports.
What happened to the promises of free trade? The Prime Minister and every single one of the Conservatives elected to office told Canadians from coast to coast that Canada would have unrestricted access to American markets. Free trade did not open up the American market, it shut it down. We have no access and that will translate into a loss of millions for Nova Scotia and for the Atlantic provinces. It will translate into the devastation and the end, again, of towns like Canso and Lockeport, one-industry towns where the fishery has been the mainstay of existence for over 100 years and more. But, nobody cares. Nobody cares on that side of the House.
Why has this government opted to pursue a policy which devastates the Atlantic fishery? Even without the American legislation, look at the record.
Look at the record of five years. Over the past five years this government has eliminated our fish processing rules and eliminated export tax on fish. It has issued licences to foreign countries and agreed with foreign allocations to catch squid and capelin, the food stock of codfish in the Atlantic. What has been the result? Plant closures. Where? Bas Caraquet, Tignish, Canso, North Sydney, Lockeport, Woods Harbour, Port Medway and Port Mouton. There are plants in receivership in Shippi-gan and Murray Harbour. How can these events help Canada? Plant closures, plants in receivership, the slaughtering of a national industry and the devastation of communities. They certainly will not help reduce the deficit.
Perhaps, tragically, this is the new economic plan of this government. Unemployment equals debt reduction. That is how ludicrous this government's actions are. It seems to equate decimation with good government and prosperity.
When will this insanity end? Right now there are thousands of Atlantic fishermen preparing to spend the bleakest Christmas that they can remember. There are fish plant workers in exactly the same situation. Men and women. Whole communities have no idea what awaits them or their children. It is the end of a way of life in small communities all over the four Atlantic provinces. It is the end of a particular lifestyle, a particular culture and one that is endemic and dear to the Canadian fabric.
December 18, 1989

While all this is happening, while the Prime Minister plans on having a Christmas dinner of lobster and salmon from where only George Bush can tell.
But it is not too late to correct this mistake. It is not too late to stop this heinous behaviour. The government is making a mistake but it could see the light. It could, but will it? The government must reserve fish for Canso so that the plant can stay open. The government must say no to the Europeans wishing to impose a quota three times as large as the quota suggested by NAFO. The government must implement programs to keep the plants open and help the communities that so desperately depend on the fishing industry while these programs are being established.
If there is to be any hope for the Atlantic fishing industry and the survival of these communities, the survival of a way of life, the government must impose restrictions on companies wishing to process fish elsewhere than the regions which most desperately need it. This is the knife of free trade to the heart of the Atlantic fishing industry.
In closing, I would like to say that all of us here feel we do have a special calling, that every one of us here in his or her heart knows and hopes that the work we do is in the best interests of the people we represent. Those of us who are so fortunate to be here have to take with our fortune a responsibility for those we represent and a responsibility to those Canadians nationwide, whether you are an Atlantic member, a western member, a northern member, an Ontario member. We have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate and those who are suffering because of the economic policies of this government. Prior to this government being elected to office, the Atlantic fishery was surviving. Today, we have to help it survive and go on into the future.
Intervention may be a dirty word for the government, but as much as it dislikes it the time has come to intervene. Stand up. Show some backbone and represent Canadians for a change. Say no to George Bush. Say no to the French. Say no to the Spaniards. Say no to the Portuguese. They even respect you more. It is a damn sight surer that you will begin to get the respect you don't have in Atlantic Canada if you take a stand and
stand up for the people in those small fishing communities in those four provinces clinging to the sea who have no where else but Ottawa to turn for help.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I sat here tonight before I stood in my place to enter into this debate. I think just about everything that should be said has been said. Unfortunately, it has to be said over and over and over again. I was going to give a speech tonight that dealt with the economy of Atlantic Canada. I was going to talk about the impact of the fisheries on places like Halifax and Dartmouth. Perhaps I will slip into that at some time through my 10-minute speech, but as the night went on and I spoke and listened to some of my colleagues, I became a bit overwhelmed with the crisis that is at hand. Yes, indeed, there are 100,000 people in Atlantic Canada who depend on the fisheries for a livelihood. That is
100,000	people out of some 2.5 million people in all of Atlantic Canada.
What we have witnessed in the last year is a mismanagement of the fisheries and my colleagues have said it more eloquently than perhaps I can at this late hour, but because of mismanagement, because of a government that does not understand eastern Canada, we have seen a collapse in the fishery.
The hon. member from Cape Breton-Highlands- Canso is a good friend of mine and he had a terrible task last week when he knew that his fish plant in Canso was going to close. Not only would it throw 600 or 700 people out of work, it was going to shut down 400 years of tradition in Nova Scotia. Canso will come to symbolize the death of the maritime culture. A fishing village of perhaps 1,000 or 1,200 souls does not seem like a lot. Four hundred years of tradition is a lot.
Canso is one of dozens or perhaps over 100 small communities through Atlantic Canada that rely on the fishery, that very basic natural resource. I will not give a history lesson because I think we know it, but when this great land of ours was populated from the east coast to the west, the gateway was the east and the road to that gate was fish.
The Norse came to Newfoundland because of the fish and they settled there. The first European settlement in

North America was in the great northern peninsula, at L'Anse aux Meadows, by the Norse. It was there because of the fish.
Those who are watching this debate may be wondering what all this talk is about the fish on the east coast, that it is just another industry. It is not just another industry, it is a way of life in Atlantic Canada. It is a special way of life in Atlantic Canada that is collapsing because of this government's negligence. It is collapsing because this government does not understand the special way of life of Atlantic Canadians.
I have had an opportunity over the last few years to travel in Atlantic Canada. This is a marvellous country that we live in. It is compassionate, it is diverse. But I guess my heart will always be in Atlantic Canada.
I grew up by the sea. I grew up in a small community called New Waterford on Cape Breton Island, a rugged community where people were drawn to its harbour because of the fish and settlers came because of the coal mines. They were tough men and women who settled there. In Louisbourg there are 300 or 400 years of history where people still fish today, even though with the mismanagement they do not know if they are going to be able to fish tomorrow. Go to New Brunswick, to Shediac, that very special community, or to St. Peter's, Prince Edward Island.
We are not just debating tonight some sterile debate about a few hundred or even a few thousand jobs. We are talking about the death of a culture.
I am sure some people said my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte was exaggerating when he called it cultural genocide. It is economically based cultural genocide in Atlantic Canada. I come from a riding where we do not have a lot of fishermen but that does not mean the people who live in the riding of Dartmouth or my colleague's riding of Halifax do not have that affinity for the sea, and do not understand why the people have stayed there and why those communities in Atlantic Canada are great.
What we are witnessing, Mr. Speaker, and for all those who are still listening, is a sad, unfortunate, tragic decline, not just in the resource based industry-


An Hon. Member:: Not by accident, by design.


Ronald MacDonald: My hon. friend says by design. What we are witnessing is the slow letting of the blood of people of Atlantic Canada by this government's callous approach to the problems in the Atlantic fishery.
I know that my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but what we are seeing here is a government policy of resettlement, of taking those people from Atlantic Canada, that special and unique place with those special and unique people, and driving them into central Ontario, and into Toronto. We have seen the government try this before and it has not worked, but this time it is hell bent to make sure that this resettlement policy will be the last resettlement policy for the fishing villages on the east coast of Canada.
I started off by saying I did not want to get into a lot of the debate that we have already heard, but I know that there are probably thousands of fishermen who are still watching their televisions tonight and they are looking toward me and they are looking toward every other member in this House to give them a ray of hope. They do not want to hear more sterile debate and more talk about how members opposite are going to increase welfare payments or talk about the UIC payments that they are going to get for those men and women and for those families. What they want is real hope. They want, from the members of this place, is an understanding of what it is they are trying to say.
Fishing is a hard life. Fishermen do not make great money, although the minister of fisheries was overheard saying, "Well, you know, some of these men make over $100,000". How callous and how uncaring and how stupid can you get? Anybody who travels to the east coast of Canada, who goes into these fishing villages like Cow Head in Newfoundland and sees the difficult life that these men and women endure, the danger that they endure, would know that those statements have no place in the debate on the future of the Atlantic fisheries.
I would hope that the efforts of my colleagues, that the efforts from the members from Atlantic Canada will have some effect on the government members who like to sit down on their hands. I do not know how some of those members can ever go back to Atlantic Canada. I have listened to some of the debate tonight and most of them I am sure got up and talked the best game they could knowing that their colleagues on their side of the House were not just doing away with an industry. They
December 18, 1989

were doing away with a very special part of our Canadian culture.
I urge every Canadian who is watching tonight or who reads these debates not to allow this to be seen as just another piece of economic gibberish that goes on in this House, but that they understand it for what it is. This is an emergency debate on the very survival of our maritime culture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate to happen.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here tonight and speak on this emergency motion put forward by my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. I want to say that I believe the crisis that we are hearing about tonight and experiencing with the fishery in Atlantic Canada is just the tip of the iceberg.
I happen to believe this economic crisis that is happening in Atlantic Canada is about to go coast to coast and, I think, those of us in central Canada who think that we are immune are fooling ourselves because we are dealing with a government that has really passed on its responsibility to hold on to the fiscal levers of this country.
As I listened to the various speakers tonight, I reflected back to what we were doing at this time last year. We were debating the free trade bill. I pulled some notes together from the speeches of members of the government side who were trying to tell us that this free trade bill was going to be something great for the economy of this country. I pulled together some words from the various speakers on the government side and I tried to relate them to the fishery debate.
The bottom line, after going through some of the speeches, is that this government has really lost any ability to have the trust of the people of Canada. Government members told us last December that we were going to have secure access to the U.S. market. Last week, we heard about the directive from the president on lobster.
Last year in December they talked about new opportunities for Canadian exporters. For the first time in 13 years, we have month to month trade deficits. Benefits to
Canadian consumers were mentioned. Right now every region in this country is feeling higher prices. This was the appropriate time for industry readjustment, they said. We are still waiting for the package for the fishery.
They said we would have effective adjustment policies to aid sectors needing assistance. Well, we know that did not happen. They said there was no threat to our relations with other trading partners. I have to believe that the reason we are allowing the Portuguese and the French to have unfettered access to this fish is because we are concerned about other penalties that we might receive from our trading partners.
They talked about prevention of the imposition of punitive U.S. trade laws. That is what the free trade was going to do for us. That has not happened.
There would be maintenance of the ability to establish public policy in the Canadian interest, one minister said. We have never acted so wimpish in years in our relationship with the United States as the way we are acting right now.
There would be protection of our social programs, they said, of our labour laws and our health and safety programs. The Minister of Employment and Immigration would shudder if she would go back and read Hansard from a year ago.
There would be the continuation of our political independence and policy freedom, another minister said, and the provision of stability and predictability in the investment climate environment. This economic environment we are in right now, symbolized by the suffering, symbolized by what is happening in the Atlantic fishery, is going to go coast to coast, because this government has given up its responsibility to take control.
They also said that there would be a high probability of net job creation. We know that is falling apart right before our very eyes. Yet it is an incredible thing that we were sitting here on the eve of Christmas. Last year, half the seats on the government side were full because they wanted to push their free trade bill through. Yet, here we are tonight while one of the regions of our nation is going through a rough time and there is one member of the government. I find it just incredible.

December 18, 1989
Another thing they said was that the free trade bill would give us a significant improvement in national income and standard of living. How could we sell that to the people of the Atlantic provinces?
I realize I have only a short time to speak tonight. Here we are one year later and all of those things that members on the opposite side said were going to happen because of this free trade deal have fallen apart.
This government cannot be trusted. I believe we are seeing further evidence of that right now, not just for the Atlantic but for every region of this country.
We have interest rates and a dollar that are so high right now that our economy is on the verge of a total flip. This crisis in the fishery is going to go coast to coast. Those of us from central Canada, or those of us who are from the west, had better wake up and think. We had better realize that we are not exempt, that we are going to go through the same suffering that is happening in Atlantic Canada. Unless we start rallying and getting behind the people of Atlantic Canada on this problem, it soon will be on our doorsteps. I believe it is time to press this government to come to its senses.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister must give a directive to the Governor of the Bank of Canada to give us a break on interest rates so we can get this economy moving again. Madam Speaker, I see no alternative.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I have sat here this evening and I have listened to some really interesting speeches. I have learned a great deal. I can hardly believe some of the speeches that I heard in this House from the other side. I could not believe the insensitivity and the lack of realization as to the intent and the import of the decision of this government in not recognizing a crisis, a crisis that has not just happened today or yesterday, but one which my colleagues have been talking about since 1985. How this government could have allowed the situation to reach this point is beyond my ken.
I would say of my colleagues on this side of the House that as they reviewed the situation, it reminded me of my having spoken to this issue in 1985-86, talking about fishermen and women, fisher people. Some of the people in central Canada and some of the journalists in my riding of Mount Royal wanted to know what I was doing talking about fisher people. What I was talking
about was not as significant a crisis as the one I am talking about tonight.
When we listen to the concerned members of the Liberal party on this side of the House give the history and background of dramatic changes that have taken place in one of the most important basic and fundamental industries of this country, we realize that it is not something that just touches Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Canadians, it touches every Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: It is government's role to manage. This government has been absent from the field of management. I heard my colleagues talking about different kinds of fish and I do not pretend to know the industry, but they certainly talked about a variety of species that have not been caught, that are no being marketed, that are saleable in other parts of this world. Therefore, if they are saleable and edible in other parts of this world, they certainly can be marketed and sold here in Canada. Many people who live in Canada do not even know that we have these wonderful fish.
It is up to the government to have found the means to have marketed and the means to have taught or retrained fishermen if it meant fishing deeper, or using different kinds of equipment. That is what this government's role was. It was to manage. It was not to have me sit here and listen to the Minister for International Trade and the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak long before the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans spoke. Who is in charge and who is responsible? Who speaks out at the government table? It is absolutely unconscionable. He is put in third place if he is put in any place.
It really is a heartbreaking situation and I think that is what got to me the most. It is about men, women and children. There will be no Christmas for them this year, but what have we got for next year, and what have we got for the future? Some of them might even put out a Hanukkah bush if things would be different. But they can plan nothing for the future because what this government has done is literally close down cities and towns and villages.
I heard cultural genocide mentioned. That is a very harsh term, and we have seen what has happened in eastern Europe with real cultural genocide. But this is a genocide of a type. It is economic genocide, and it is cultural genocide when you have had a government that
December 18, 1989

has been so insensitive that it has not found the mechanism to enable families to stay in family homes.
Just remember what happened when there was a disaster in Baie Comeau when Iron Ore closed down. The then minister, Flora MacDonald, had a whole program to look after one little town, the Prime Minister's badly managed ex-company. When the wheat problems occurred out west, we rushed to their aid because our Deputy Prime Minister and many of our senior ministers come from the west.
What happens with the numbers which have been alluded to, and I do not pretend to have the numbers in front of me, but I heard mentioned over 10,000 jobs, and you look at the numbers of people who live in Atlantic Canada and do a percentage calculation, taking into account the fall-out that comes with that, and you know you are dealing with a serious crisis and a government which has not given a d-a-m-n! It is a sheer disgrace.
I would say, having heard my colleagues, just how much backbone this government has, whether it is going to talk to the Americans, shoot over the bow of the boat, whether it is talking to the Portuguese, to the Spanish, to the French. There has to be a way in the international market-place as well as in internal waters to find answers that will allow for a decent livelihood.
We cut VIA Rail so there is no way they can get out; we cut unemployment insurance so they cannot count on a decent way of life there. You cut out the possibility for welfare because the base of those municipalities is the fishing industry. What do you expect these people to do? Do we want everybody to come live in Montreal and Toronto? This is ridiculous. I should add Halifax to that.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes.


Sheila Finestone: This is no way to consider a serious crisis, and I would sincerely hope that the ministers opposite, while they are so busy patting themselves on their backs would reread the debates of tonight. There were some marvellous suggestions made, concrete suggestions, good ideas that can answer some of the serious concerns and, hopefully, people in Atlantic Canada will be able to perhaps put their heads down and go to sleep and know that there are caring people here and even the hard-hearted, insensitive government people will give a commitment to read, to think, and more important, to act and act constructively now, so that next Christmas
will be a good Christmas and this Christmas they do not have to have a headache.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, it's true that it's late, it's true that just about everything there is to say on this subject has already been said in the course of the evening. I want to start by congratulating, with warm friendliness, our colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. LeBlanc) who put forward this matter for debate this evening.

When I came to this House 25 years ago or more, I came as a Canadian. I came as a Canadian with a notion that wherever you come from in this country, you care for those who come from another region. I come from Montreal, from the province of Quebec. But I believe that I have a sense of solidarity. We have to have a sense of solidarity with the people who, at the moment, suffer the most in one part of our country.
If we want to define what Canada is all about to the rest of the world, I think we could say it is a different kind of country, built by different kinds of people with different kinds of problems. One of our major responsibilities as Canadians is to immediately come to the rescue of some of our Canadian compatriots who are going through a very severe crisis.
I does not matter if you come from Montreal, it does not matter if you know nothing about fisheries, it does not matter if you know nothing about agriculture. You know that these two major industries must be viable. You know that these two major industries must continue to prosper, because if they do so, all of Canada will prosper. If they are in danger of disappearing, it is a great part of our country, it is a great part of our history, it is a great part of our past that may disappear.
This sense of solidarity we have to express from time to time. I have never seen a debate with so much passion, devotion as I have seen tonight. As Winston Churchill once said, when there is a real crisis, you feel it. You feel it in the nervousness and the sensitivity. I felt that tonight. That is why I did not mind waiting to say a few words even though it is very late. I wanted to show my solidarity and to tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it was very strange that a debate on fisheries

December 18, 1989
was addressed first by the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I immediately caught when I saw him that he was probably ill at ease speaking before the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That means he feels a sense of guilt for perhaps not having done more to help our compatriots in the Atlantic provinces.
It is not enough to say that I went to Europe and our trade is such that we must help them, we must not disturb our international trade, That is not the role of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He should go time after time to Europe to explain that in the long run, it is even in their own interests that the fishing industry is viable in Canada. If there is none for us today, then there will be none at all for them eventually.
In that sense you have to explain and negotiate very tightly, very intelligently with our allies and friends in Europe to convince them that it is their goddamn best interests. I do not know if that word is regular, but I get as upset as my colleagues because I feel what is going on is tremendously sad. Young families breaking-

-the discouragement, the despair, of people who are contributing to the development of this country, who are happy to belong to one of Canada's beautiful regions. I know the Maritimes. I've been there.
How can anyone remain indifferent in the face of a tragedy like this one? Do we want Canada to consist, as my colleagues often say, of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver? That's preposterous.
First of all we must show our solidarity with our colleagues from the Maritimes, with our fellow Canadians in the Atlantic provinces, because they are going through bitter days. It is the duty of everyone who is better off, of all luckier Canadians, to understand what is happening down there.
So, I have no hesitation in participating in the debate. I think the people from southern Ontario, when they lose their jobs, have multiple possibilities of finding other jobs immediately. This is not so with the people in the Atlantic provinces where whole families, villages and townships depend on this industry.
If it was an industry that should disappear, you would say, "Well, tough luck. Maybe it should disappear". But I do not believe it should disappear. I believe that if government takes its responsibility, if the government knows how to negotiate internationally first-that is the duty of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After all, he asked for trouble, he spoke first tonight. He is taking part of the blame immediately by having offered to speak first.
I was expecting to learn more from the minister of fisheries. He does not need to tell us that we have obligations to our trading partners. I repeat, and will repeat and repeat again, his duty is to convince them that it is in their long-term interest that this industry remain viable in the Atlantic provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: What happens in a village when the main industry disappears? These young people represent for me, and always have, Canada's living strength, because you know, if all Canadians were city-dwellers this country would not have the same vitality, the same strength, the same renewal you have when the regions are prosperous. And God knows these people are sacrificing themselves in the Atlantic. We can't understand what it means to go out into danger, day after day! We don't have that experience in Montreal, we don't have it in Toronto. In some cities people probably have no idea what it means to be a fishermen, what risks they have to run.
And here I want to express my sympathy. There was an outpouring of sympathy in Montreal when that appalling tragedy occurred at the Universite de Montreal, but I also want to sympathize, and I think it is right and proper that during this debate we should spare a thought, as a number of my colleagues have done, for the fishermen who have had difficulties, because that too is a sign of solidarity.
I could have attacked the government myself. I listened to all my colleagues. I support what they said. I say it is the duty of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to negotiate with real feeling, because it's not enough just to say it once. Often the Europeans like to tell us how to behave here at home, on the question of seals, for example. We might also go and tell them, make them understand, invite them to come and see this tragedy. Let them come! The Secretary of


State for External Affairs has every opportunity in the world to display some imagination. Is he really so lacking in it? I wonder.
And to conclude, because you're signalling at me and you're quite right, I would like to make a special appeal to the Prime Minister of Canada. He has said to us in this House that when the people in the west experience difficulties the government knows how to shoulder its responsibilities. I recognize the importance of agriculture too. You can't talk to a Quebecker, a French Canadian, without finding, if you scratch, that he's from a farm family less than a generation or two ago, like me. I have cousins who are still farming today on the family land.
So I understand the agricultural system and I recognize its importance. And in this difficult world, we mustn't allow our agriculture to disappear, because then we would be at the mercy of others. And in international trade, we would have to pay whatever price those others felt like charging us. That's why we have to have viable agriculture in Canada, and the people in the big cities who don't understand that must be made to understand it.
But the same system applies in the case of the fisheries! If that industry disappears, we'll have to go elsewhere, when we have the fish right here. So in this holiday season I appeal directly to the Right Honourable Prime Minister, to do everything he said he would do, and more, because we cannot permit these tragedies, this despair we heard described this evening, this discouragement that must be seizing all those families. It is our duty, in the name of Canadian solidarity, to stand up, to use your patience a little, and to say that the government must intervene, and at once, not waiting for a day that may or may not dawn, but at once, as fast as it can.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively tonight and I thank my last three colleagues who spoke who do not come from Atlantic Canada and who can understand probably better than the government what actually is the problem.
My colleagues and I, to anybody who is just tuning in from the west, have been talking tonight on an emergency debate on the crisis that exists in the Atlantic fishery. I am sure anyone listening would see that there is a range of issues that relates to every one of us, every Atlantic MP who is touched by some part of the fishery. I know that the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso was the one who was probably touched the hardest in the last week by the sudden announcement, and I will deal with that in a minute.
To the public, I will say that one has to remember that on the east coast, we have a divided fishery called the offshore and the inshore. Offshore is classified by vessels over 65 feet and inshore by vessels under 65 feet. It sounds oversimplistic to say, but this minister and the committee which are studying what to do with the problem were not even here tonight to hear the members from the Atlantic. I see the parliamentary secretary is restless over there, but there was no minister of employment. There was no Minister of Public Works.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I have sat here for six hours. I was the one who informed the House that we would go past 12 o'clock, and five times tonight I have sat here, in the interests of progress and in the interests of having this very important debate continued, without raising the point of order about who was not or who was in this House. I think at some point, a line has to be drawn. We are all tired, no more than me at two o'clock in the morning, but at some point, a line has to be drawn and that is my point of order.


Coline M. Campbell: On the same point of order, I, too, have sat here in the holy company of the member opposite. But I think I have a right to tell Canadians what ministers are in charge of a committee that is deciding the future of Atlantic Canadians without being lectured by the member opposite and without telling the people that I have done something wrong. I have not done anything wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is quite late or very early in the morning for all of us. I can understand the hon. member's reaction and I can also feel for the parliamentary secretary who has been here all evening. This has been a long night. I think it has

been a very productive night. Maybe we should continue in the same mood that we have been in all evening.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I would just like to refer to the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Maybe it is tough luck for him to be here alone for six hours. If he had some companionship from some minister, it would have been easier for him to listen to us all night because we have a hell of a lot more speakers. But that was not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It was not a
point of order.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, not only is there an offshore and an inshore problem, it is a problem for the many hundreds of communities across the Atlantic provinces and the people who have no work and no prospect of having work. It is a problem for the spinoffs in those communities; the boat builders, the other businesses, the grocery stores. All businesses in a given community are suffering the plight that the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has brought to the attention of this House tonight.
We have not had one new idea from the government. Three ministers spoke but I do not want to use my time discussing what they spoke about or, more important, what they did not speak about. They wanted to blame their officials. They do not say that they have been in power for five years and they are continuing in power but incorporate no new ideas in the fishery that should be growing instead of stagnant on the east coast.
We cannot even have any assistance for these plants because of the free trade agreement. The companies would say: "No assistance because our market in the U.S. would be threatened". This government has so tied the east coast into its free trade agreement on subsidies that our whole fishery will suffer over the long term in terms of money, jobs and the lack of confidence in the fishery on the east coast which the government continues to bring about with its policies.
Canso is one town, but Lockeport, Lunenburg and Louisbourg are three major centres of fishing in Nova Scotia. We are talking offshore. I will get to my own area where it is only fishing. Those were year round operations in 1977. What is this government going to do with
its policy? What is the province of Nova Scotia going to do about allowing these towns to be totally cut off?
I know what happened in Lockeport. I have heard from the mayor and the people. I have followed it from the time it was closed. I advocated at that time that there be a community based allocation of fish, that the fish that had normally been landed there be left there and the community be allowed to handle the onshore plant and provide the work. If you do not give them fish, those communities have to die.
What do they get? What can the people in Canso and other areas where people have been laid off expect? They can expect a 10 week severance package and then unemployment. No other benefits. They are given three month's notice. It is inhuman that this government and the provincial government will allow anybody who has had a full, year-round job in those communities to be given three months' notice.
At least they have been given the notice. This Minister of Fisheries does not give three month's notice to the inshore communities that are cut off. He just tells them: "I am sorry, this week you have got your $25,000, then for the next six months there is nothing more". That is what happened at the end of June. That is what happened in all those communities in the Scotia-Fundy area south of Halifax.
The member for South Shore likes to say there are only draggers under 65 feet in South West Nova. There are some on the New Brunswick side, there are some on the South Shore. There are longliners over 45 feet and none of them have been working. They all appeared together, united, before the Hache committee to try to find a solution for the inshore. This minister tries to divide, tries to say there are only rich fishermen. He does not talk about the plant workers. He does not talk about the many people in the communities that are suffering. He just divides.
I said that there are solutions. They are pretty hard solutions perhaps, but this government has a chance to prove it. I think it should look at its groundfish management plan. In terms of the offshore, those boats that are no longer going to be fishing out of Canso and will be put aside should be allowed or encouraged to go for underutilized species and have a by-catch. They should be given a community based enterprise allocation, as Na-
December 18, 1989

tional Sea has had for the last five years. They should be encouraged to go for the under-utilized.
It is ironic to be discussing it now, but in 1977 the Government of Canada offered a subsidy to boats to go for northern cod. Imagine, northern cod, and we are all in trouble today with northern cod. The government offered a subsidy. Why can we not do that with underutilized species? We heard the minister say that there are 355,000 tonnes of under-utilized species but there is no market. Why do we not offer that same type of incentive? Why do we not allow those offshore boats that are not going to be able to fish and those onshore communities that have no hope from this government to be given some hope.
Give them some fish. That is all they need. That is all the communities in southern Nova Scotia need. They need a groundfish management plan that this minister cannot seem to adapt to the needs of the east coast.
What have we seen this government allow? We have seen it allow National Sea to put up a company in New Hampshire, to put up a company in France and to bring into its fleet two freezer factory ships that could keep two plants like Lockeport and Canso going. But no, we have to tell those communities that have been year-round communities that they cannot fish. They cannot work because there are no fish.
I think there is a solution and I just gave you one, Madam Speaker. Split the fleet from the National Sea and the offshore companies. Let the National Sea and those companies go to an exchange and let the fish be auctioned off. Allow them the incentive to bring in the under-utilized species when there are no more quotas. Unless you do that you are going to find that the inshore communities throughout the Atlantic coast are going to be shut down because of lack of incentives by this government.
We cannot compete with the foreigners unless we get out there and fish for the same thing that foreigners are fishing within our 200-mile limit and outside our 200-mile limit.
I do not know any people who do not want to work. They do not want three months' notice. They do not want 10 weeks' severance pay. They do not want one week after another and then to be shut down for six months. These are people, these are Canadians. We have a resource that is the envy of the world.
I can only say to you, Madam Speaker, that I have never seen the devastation that I have seen this year in South West Nova. This year there are 50 per cent more people claiming unemployment insurance because the groundfish management plan has not been able to accommodate, because his biologists do not have, in my view and in the view of many fishermen, reliable statistics. There are 20 per cent less people buying in the local grocery stores. If the local grocery stores are suffering like that, you can imagine what the other businesses are doing.
Yet this Minister of Fisheries can stand in the House and say that there is no hardship. The crisis is here. It has been here for a year. There are people who are suffering. It is not a very nice Christmas time. I know, Madam Speaker, that you are indicating that my time is up but I was interrupted by the member and I should have about another minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have added that time on.


Coline M. Campbell: You have added the time. I will just close by saying it is a sad thing to leave here this week without knowing what the committee plans. We have not had the groundfish advisory committee before us. I think they will be here this week. January 1 comes and we do not know what the minister's plans are. He has not even told the House tonight what is plans are. As the member from the NDP said, if the minister shook his head harder we might hear it. This minister certainly has not had any consideration tonight for the hardships that are being caused.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for moving this motion. As the last speaker here in the House tonight, I also want to congratulate my colleagues, the members for Burin-St. George's, Bonavista-Trinity- Conception, Labrador and Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for the very fine presentations they have given tonight.
I knew that the member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte was about to get very flamboyant and angry when I saw him repeat what an inshore fisherman had told him. I knew then his thoughts were that there were going to be in 1990 foreign ships just off his coast while the fishermen on the inshore look out and see the boat, and the fish plant worker who has been put out of work looks out and sees that 400-foot boat, and the offshore trawlerman, put ashore, looks out and sees that

December 18, 1989
enormous factory freezer trawler from St. Malo, France, catching codfish along the shores of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the coast of Quebec in 1990. I knew, as every single fishermen knew who is watching the debate tonight, as every single fish plant worker knew who is watching the debate tonight, that they were very angry.
We have to draw a line here as to what fishing takes place. We were not even talking about foreign overfishing because in order to have overfishing you would have to be fishing over what you are licensed to fish. No, this member was talking tonight about ships that are licensed by the Government of Canada to fish within 12 miles of our coastline in Atlantic Canada.
You heard about the disaster of the longliner, 64 feet 11 inches I believe, from Shelburne County that tragically sank off the coast of Newfoundland just a couple of days ago. When you think about a boat that is 64 feet long coming from Shelburne, Nova Scotia, 100 miles, 200 miles, 300 miles, 500 miles, 600 miles to the coast of Newfoundland to fish, you realize that the fishermen in a 30-foot boat, the fishermen in a 50-foot boat, the fishermen in a 65-foot boat, and the fishermen in an 18-foot boat, all fish in the same zone 12 miles from our coast as does that factory freezer trawler from France that the hon. member was referring to.
It is not foreign overfishing, it is foreign fishing that we are talking about today, licensed by the Government of Canada. The minister said that these were under-utilized species. What are they? There is a quota of 16,000 tonnes of redfish. They might think that because it is called redfish it belongs to the Soviet Union. Well, it doesn't, it is what you would call ocean perch. We process it in our fish plants.
There are 27, 000 tonnes of Greenland halibut. Maybe the government believes that that belongs to Greenland. Well, it does not. It is what we call turbot.
There is American plaice. Now that is something. Maybe they think that belongs to the United States but then plaice really means a European flatfish, so are really confused about that one.
There are twenty-five thousand tonnes of cod. Just think about it. Just imagine if the fish plant workers in Canso, Nova Scotia, in St. John's, Newfoundland, if the inshore fishermen all along our coastline in eastern Canada who cannot get a codfish or a flatfish or a redfish because that is the fish we process. Any fish plant in eastern Canada, what do they process? They process 50 per cent cod, about 30 per cent flatfish and about 20 per cent of something else-redfish, pollock, whatever the case is. It is a mix. Add them up-16, 25 and 27. That is 68,000 tonnes. There is an average of 10,000 tonnes per fish plant average by National Sea per year. That is six fish plants. Six National Sea fish plants can be operated with just the quota given inside our 200-mile zone, licensed by the Government of Canada. That is why we are so angry.
We cannot seem to get it through their heads. They mention under-utilized species. The only under-utilized species there would perhaps be grenadier. That is a fish now that is about this long. It is a scrawny fish with a lot of needles on it. It has an enormous blown up head like some of those ministers over there.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It should be called the Mulroneyfish.


George Baker: they can take legally. They have a 3 per cent by-catch of haddock. That is 3,000 tonnes. They have a 2 per cent by-catch of pollock. That is 2,000 tones.
The Soviet Union in its quota for silver hake off Nova Scotia has enough by-catch to keep Canso operating for an entire year. That is what we are talking about.
There is one thing about those foreign licences that really irks us. It is this. At this time when it is so bad, when our fish plants are closing, there is the problem of the inshore fishermen to consider. You have seen on television what is happening to the inshore fishery. The fellow in the boat goes out day after day and he gets one fish in an entire cod trap. He goes out jigging the next day and he gets one more fish. The stories are told all along the coastline. There are two rules in Canada today-one for the foreigners and the other for Canadian fishermen. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Faro Islands, East Germany, Japan, Norway and Poland all get licences within our 200-mile zone this year for 1990. They can go out and have a by-catch of cod of 5,000 tonnes, and if they get 10,000 tonnes they can keep it. If they get 4,000 tonnes of pollock they can keep it.
When a Nova Scotian or a Newfoundlander catches one fish above his by-catch he is arrested and brought into court. In the foreigners' licence it says you can keep what you catch. The Government of Canada this year has embarked on a new program to allow our longliners, 65 feet long, to fish tuna. You can get $20,000 for an average bluefin tuna in the Japanese market. A fisherman can sometimes make $6,000 or $7,000 just selling a few bluefin tuna. It is a pretty valuable fish.
This year the Government of Canada told our fishermen that in the name of going into these areas that we are not into that it is going to give us a quota. It gave a quota to 12 boats for 175 tonnes of bluefin tuna, but it gave the Japanese fleet 180 tonnes by-catch of bluefin tuna in the same area. That is the Virgin Rocks. The Japanese get a higher quota than Canadians do on the bluefin tuna around the Virgin Rocks.
In 1990, this year, we are angry that the Government of Canada has agreed starting January 1 to increase the quotas to foreigners for what it calls the under-developed species of capelin and squid. If you were going to
go out in the ocean and catch a codfish as the Shelburne County longliners do, they go out with hook and line. What do they put on the hook? They put squid, capelin, a piece of mackerel or a piece of herring on the hook. Squid or mackerel is the main fish of the codfish. Here we are, and the Government of Canada is wondering why. It has a study on its desk that shows that the size of a codfish has gone down over 50 per cent in Nova Scotia. It has gone down 40 per cent in Newfoundland. Yet the government says that there is no proof that by giving to the foreigners 150,000 tonnes of feedstock that it is affecting us.
I will tell you how it is affecting our fishery. A man, a fisherman, whether a man or a woman today, cannot get a capelin licence unless they have a certain size of boat. They are not allowed by law past this year to move outside their own bay, while the foreigners get 38,000 tonnes in 1990. They can go wherever they want along the coastline of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec. How much do we get? We get 800 tonnes of that 38,000 tonnes quota for capelin off the east coast of Canada.
That is why we are so angry today. We are saying to the Government of Canada that when Canadians look at all those big trawlers they say: "How come National Sea ties up their trawlers in Canso? Why don't they go outside the 200-mile zone where the Europeans are and catch all the fish they want like the Europeans do?" That is a logical question, isn't it, Madam Speaker? What is the answer to that question? The answer is that Canada has agreed not to go outside the 200-mile zone. They cannot go out there and catch what they want. They have to abide by quotas. The United States can catch what it wants because it does not belong to NAFO. The Europeans can catch what they want because they do not agree with NAFO's quotas. We have to tie up our offshore fleet. We are boxed in and we cannot move.
The government wonders why people are so angry. We licence the Soviet Union. Why cannot the National Sea trawlers go off the Soviet Union and fish? They are not allowed. We licensed this year 15 factory-freezer trawlers for Japan. Why can't National Sea trawlers go off Japan? They are not allowed. They would be blown out of the water by that country.

December 18, 1989
We are the only country in the world today that restricts our own fishermen and allows every foreign nation that wants to come in here and get a piece of the action. In this year 1989 300,000 tonnes of fish were caught by foreign nations. Three years ago the United States threw out the Soviet Union and the Cubans from the Alaska coast. That ended it off the U.S. coast.
The EEC has a little exchange program. You will see countries going off each other's coast. Off the African coasts if you are willing to spend a lot of money in Africa in a certain country you can go there. If you want to build an institute you can go there and fish for a year.
Canada says we will give what the minister announced tonight as our underdeveloped or excess species to foreign countries. He says it is because we have to.
The writing is on the wall for this government. It must do the logical thing. First and foremost, when our inshore fishermen have no fish, when our fish plants cannot operate, the government of Canada must do one thing and one thing alone first. That is to stand up for Canadians and kick out the foreigners.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I know anything I say will be a letdown after the great speakers who have spoken all evening. I watched the debate from my office. I heard every speaker from all three parties. I want to congratulate all the speakers who took part in tonight's debate.
We are not looking at just an Atlantic region problem. We are looking at a national crisis. That is why I am pleased that the hon. member moved this motion to draw the matter not only to the country's attention but also to the world's attention because this crisis is caused by countries around the world.
I will not take very much time because I know the parliamentary secretary was complaining earlier that he wants to go home. It is sad that he is not supported by any minister on his side. It is sad that one member is supporting the whole government side. It is even sadder that there is no spokesman here, no observer from the NDP, the so-called party of the disadvantaged.
In my riding and near my riding I have plants such as Stelco, Molson's, a chocolate factory, Inglis and I used to have General Electric. What I want to highlight is even if all of these factories closed tomorrow and laid off all the workers, it would not create the same crisis as the crisis which exists in the Atlantic fisheries because the workers from my riding in Toronto could drive one hour to Oshawa and be working at General Motors. They could be driving one hour in the other direction to Ford and be working there. They could drive another hour north and be working for de Havilland. Even though I could have six plant closings in one day, it would not hurt as much as this crisis is hurting the fishermen.
The reason I came here tonight is to show that two million people in Toronto are hurting today along with the fishermen in Canso by these plant closures. On behalf of my 92,000 constituents of Parkdale-High Park, we throw our support behind the people who are affected. We are hurting along with these people.
To close, I want to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, for being so patient and hearing all the speakers. I wish to thank the staff. Most of all I want to thank the mover of the motion and members of all three parties who spoke.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I simply want to point out to the Chair that despite all the sincerely held strong views and legitimate concerns this side of the House appreciates that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made provision for all of us to speak who wanted to speak by staying here beyond twelve o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 52(12), I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.

The House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.32 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 19, 1989