1990-12-12

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, our system holds that justice delayed is justice denied.
Justice is being denied to native Canadians who have filed some 580 specific claims with the federal government. In Ontario alone, there are currently 94 outstanding specific land claims. Since 1985, only four Ontario claims have been fully processed.
The Six Nations of the Grand River Indians in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk currently have 17 specific claims in the system. They are experiencing in excess of a seven-year waiting period in having each claim addressed.
This government's native claims policy is a failure. It operates contrary to the needs of all parties involved. The people of the Six Nations have waited long enough. Some of their claims are well over 100 years old.
I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make a serious attempt to settle these land claims, and I call upon this government to summon the political will necessary to address these land claims with justice and with efficiency.


VIETNAM
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of informing the House that for the
first time in 45 years, a senior member of the Communist Vietnamese government has called for a new, democratically elected National Assembly and a government of national reconstruction, headed by people who are capable, people of integrity. The Vietnamese government in exile is represented here today by Hoang Viet Cuong, president of the coalition of democratic Vietnamese political parties for the liberation of their country. Canada should be proud it is able to participate in the emancipation of a country that, like countries in eastern Europe, will at last be able to look forward to democratic renewal and the liberation of its people from oppression.
Speaking on behalf of all Canadians, we hope that our friends will succeed in their mission and that, with their members and the other political parties in Vietnam, we shall see this democratic election materialize.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on my own behalf, I wish Hoang Viet Cuong the very best and I hope a democratic election will be called as soon as possible for a free and independent Vietnam, so that all Vietnamese refugees throughout the world will finally be able to go back to a free country. We, in Canada, will be proud to have been able to contribute to the emancipation of a people.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, members of this House know that medicare is under attack.
In this latest report issued yesterday, the National Council on Welfare asks-it almost begs-that the federal government strengthen the presence and financial support for medicare. Instead, the federal contribution is now below 40 per cent, and will continue to drop further as the Wilson budgets take hold.

December 12, 1990
How have we reached this medicare crisis? Through the Liberal bloc funding arrangements of 1977, through the Liberal's six and five program of 1982 and through the continued cuts of the present Minister of Finance.
Now, Conservative and Liberal provincial governments, led by the Liberal government of Quebec, want to destroy medicare through the introduction of user fees and extra billing. The federal NDP has rejected the dismantling of medicare. So has the Ontario NDP government, and so have the four western NDP leaders which issued a statement yesterday in Saskatoon. Only the New Democrats will protect medicare for all Canadians.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Once again Atlantic Canada has borne the brunt of another one of this government's disastrous, ill-conceived private sector mania policies. Just a week ago over 140 Air Canada employees in the Atlantic region found that their jobs were disappearing as the Atlantic reservations office was being relocated to central Canada.
With no consultation, these jobs and over $5 million were sucked out of the Atlantic economy. Remember, Air Canada used to be Canada's national airline with a mandate to serve every region in this country, a mandate that was destroyed when this Tory government insisted on delivering it into the hands of private enterprise. At that time it was the Liberals who predicted that this very thing would happen and it is now the Liberals who will fight with the Atlantic employees of Air Canada against this ill-conceived centralization of this once great airline.
We serve notice to Air Canada head office that we will fight these cuts with all means at our disposal. We remind them that they are not the only player in the field, that Atlantic travellers do have an option. If Air Canada refuses to alter this decision, members of the Liberal caucus will urge our travelling public to exercise that option.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, when Simon Fraser and his voyageurs first navigated the Fraser River almost 200 years ago, they could dip a wooden ladle into the river whenever they felt thirsty. Along many stretches of that same river today one would be loath to put their hand in the water, much less drink it.
The government's commitment to clean up the Fraser River as part of the green plan is a welcome announcement to the citizens of British Columbia. The Fraser River Basin Action Plan combined with new regulations to restrict pulp and paper mill effluent and initiatives to double the fish population in the river will help to reverse the damage that has been done over the years.
It will be a long time before we can take a drink directly from the Fraser and it will take a lot of hard work, but I am confident that by working together the federal and provincial governments, communities, industry, and individuals can clean up our past mistakes to restore the mighty Fraser.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, for many Canadians this will be yet another Christmas without their spouses and families.


Ms. Copps:: Shame.


Alfonso Gagliano: I would like to read a letter to this House which is addressed to the minister of immigration:
I am writing this application in absolute desperation and frustration over the way the department has been handling my wife's visa application. I got married to my wife-on January 29, 1989. On my return to Canada I asked for an appointment to file an application. Application was filed on April 24, 1989.
Since then another 20 months have passed and she is still awaiting for a visa. You may kindly note that she didn't get any appointment yet for an interview or a medical. Repeated inquiry bore no results. At a pace this case is being handled it looks like this visa is going to take another few years before I can be united with my wife. Long separation is already taking its toll and only I know, before I have a total nervous breakdown. Since no one seems to care in your esteemed organization I am writing for your help to obtain a visa for my wife to be with me doesn't matter what type -


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


SEXIST PUBLICITY
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, on December 6, Hallmark announced it was withdrawing one of its greeting cards whose message ended with: If you see her, shoot to kill. Two years after the card was released, Hallmark realized that although the card was meant to be humourous, it was in fact a pretty sad commentary.
Mr. Speaker, Hallmark's decision to withdraw this card from the market shows that attitudes are starting to change and that there is no more room for products that denigrate women. Although I want to congratulate Hallmark on this decision, one wonders why the company overlooked this text during all that time.


FUTURE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 10, I had the privilege of receiving more than 400 guests at my fundraising supper in Longueuil. It was the most important political event since my election in 1984. People from all parts of the community-business, professionals, the arts-came to support my work and my efforts to promote Quebec's political autonomy and prosperity. I want to take this opportunity to thank them publicly here in the House for demonstrating their confidence in me and in Quebec's future.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the global situation as a result of the events in the Persian Gulf is a boon for some and a disaster for many others. On a $359 plane ticket, a $112 fuel surcharge is added to the price. Today, I wish to express my disapproval of the fuel surcharges imposed by large carriers like Nationair, Canadian International and Intair, who have just filed a third application with the National Transportation Agency for permission to charge travellers an additional $30 to $50. The National Transportation Agency, which is
now screening the carriers' third surcharge application, should simply say no.
Mr. Speaker, these are the same companies who in 1986, when we had a price drop of 11 cents per litre, remained suspiciously silent. I condemn their behaviour and I repeat: You are a bunch of profiteers with no respect for your travelling customers.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, few in this country have a stronger sense of their Canadian identity than those of us who live in Windsor.
For us, it is a constant struggle to preserve our identity in the face of the omnipresent and powerful American influence. Thus, we cling fiercely to the symbols, institutions and values that make us uniquely Canadian because we know that to lose them would be to lose the Canada we love.
But we are losing them, all because of a government which believes the American way is better than the Canadian way. Now it is the CBC, the medium of our community and our connection to the rest of the country, which has been taken from us. It is another nail in the coffin of Canada. We are doomed to become a mere suburb of Detroit and no one seems to care. But we care.
On Sunday, at 4.30 p.m., we, the Canadians of Windsor, will demonstrate how much we do care. We ask the Prime Minister to join us and tell us why the Canada that we love is not his Canada. We will ask him to restore the vision of Canada that most Canadians share, or resign, so that we can have our country back.


MEMBERS' STAFF
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to stress the dedication of those men and women without whom my work as a member and that of all my colleagues in this House could not be accomplished. I am, of course, referring to my assistants on the Hill and in my riding and to the political staff of all members of this House. Mr. Speaker, their support and hard work, whether they are managing files or

December 12, 1990
Oral Questions
dealing with special problems and God knows there are plenty have made me proud to represent my riding, and I am sure this applies to all of us.
Our assistants work long hours and are a credit to us, both in our ridings and in Ottawa. I know my fellow members will agree they earn every penny of their modest salary, considering their responsibilities and dedication.
Today, I would like to express my gratitude and say that I am proud to be able to count on their competence and dedication. On behalf of all my colleagues, I wish them the very best during the holiday season.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


NORTHERN BENEFITS
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Abitibi indicated to this House that he was going back to his riding with good news on the new tax benefit plan for northern and isolated areas.
I am unable to say the same thing. Thirty-six communities in my riding of Cochrane-Superior will lose the northern tax allowance in 1995 as a result of the decision of the Minister of Finance, who is also prolonging the injustice that he created in 1988.
The towns of Longlac and Geraldton are side by side. Longlac receives the benefit but Geraldton does not, yet Geraldton is as isolated as Longlac. The same situation occurs with Marathon and White River, Kapuskasing and Valrita, Hearst and Mattice.
These towns share the same lack of services, the same high transportation and fuel costs, the same inclement weather. I would have preferred, by far, seeing all of northern Ontario qualify for the tax benefit. This would have been fair for everyone.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: A little over two years ago, Mr. Speaker, our government introduced legislation on drug patents, Bill C-22. It was stalled in the Senate for several months on the pretense that the drug manufacturing industry would not feel compelled to increase its research and development budget, and that drugs prices would quadruple.
Mr. Speaker, research and development expenditures in that sector have almost doubled since 1986 and, at worst, drug prices have only kept pace with the rate of increase in the cost of living. We knew we were on the right track with Bill C-22, just as we know we are on the right track with the GST. The senators must end their charades and unwarranted efforts and pass the GST legislation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Just about every environmentalist has attacked the government's green plan as being nothing more than empty rhetoric. Even its so-called action plans and targets are in most cases nothing more than vague generalities.
For example, if we look at goal 1, clean air, water and land, it speaks when it comes to a target of protection and enhancement of the quality of our water resources. Not one word about specific dates for action, not one word about specific legislation, not one word about specific funding.
Isn't it a fact that the minister's green plan is looking to most Canadians more and more like nothing else but a green scam, and that is all?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all it appears that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has recycled his question from yesterday. I commend him on that, because they were not very good yesterday.
December 12, 1990

Oral Questions
I would like to quote a few environmentalists on the green plan. I would like to start with Mrs. Janine Ferretti, Executive Director of Pollution Probe in Toronto, who says: "The green plan is a worth-while effort moving Canadian society in a more environmentally responsible direction. All in all, we are further ahead today than yesterday."


Mr. Fontana:: How much?


Robert René de Cotret: Quite a bit.
My hon. colleagues opposite should read the green plan and acquaint themselves with the 120 specific recommendations that we made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, last night on national television, the minister said that he was going to sign a Great Lakes program with the United States before Christmas but gave no further information.
Will this plan include funding from the federal government for cities along the Great Lakes, like Windsor, Ontario, to upgrade their sewage and water facilities? Doesn't the minister realize that if this program does not include such funding, the program will be nothing more than an empty shell, no better than his already discredited green plan, or should I say again green scam?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I did say that we were getting very close to an agreement with the U.S. on cleaning up the Great Lakes. It is a very important project.
One has to understand that when we talk about the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and the tributaries to both, we are talking about a whole ecosystem. We want to clean that up. We have been negotiating with the U.S. At our insistence, as was the case following our Prime Minister's insistence on an acid rain agreement, we are very close to reaching it. I firmly believe that agreement can be signed before Christmas.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister very carefully avoided answering my direct question as to whether that plan will contain funding to help cities along the Great Lakes to upgrade their sewage and water facilities. I think people will note the specific absence of a direct answer.
Again I have a question for the minister concerning his green plan. Experts have been saying that the minister's green plan should be referred to as the "vague plan" or the "empty plan". In his green plan, why is there no specific date as to when these new goals will be implemented? Why no specific information?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about a green plan involving an injection of $3 billion in new federal funds, when we are talking about a green plan whose eight chapters contain 120 new recommendations designed to come to grips with our environmental problems-remember that for years on end the previous government contributed to the problem rather than to the solution- I would suggest that such a plan would indeed rally the enthusiastic support of all Canadians. That is the plan which Canadians have asked for when we consulted them. The plan meets our environmental requirements for the next five years, it will still be in force long after that, and it provides us with the assurance that a clean and safe environment will be our legacy to our children and grandchildren.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in a meeting with the major environment groups that came here to fade some of the green off this plan. These people were very specific, as my notes indicate: no implementation program, no precise timetable, no funds committed. It is already being described as a public relations document. The minister will disagree, of course, but the proof rests with him.
We are two weeks away from the beginning of 1991. If the minister is ready to make his move, would he tell us just what he has in mind for next year? And my question is this, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister now in a position to table a definite and specific plan of action for 1991 to prove that he is serious, to show us that he knows what he wants to do?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I did have the impression that my colleague had read the document I tabled yesterday. There is no need for me to table another one today. The detailed timetable for 1991 is in the document. The timetable for 1992 is in the document. The timetable for 1993-and

December 12, 1990
Oral Questions
1994 and 1995-is in the document. And the funds authorized by this government, by the Cabinet of this government, are also shown in the green plan. I strongly urge my colleague to read it because I think that would enable him to learn quite a few things.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I read it. So did every leading environmentalist. If the minister thinks that 1991 is in here, then he has not read it himself. The only part of this document which is fully funded is the public relations part. Nothing else.
If the government wanted to know what a decent green plan might have looked like, then it could take a look at what they did in the Netherlands. It could take a look at Canadian green print. It could take a look at the Water Quality Act. There is a great deal in there.
I am asking the minister a simple question. Will he stand here today and give us the precise plan, the funding and the schedule for 1991? If he cannot do that, then why should anybody believe that he knows what he is going to do over the next five years?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, after decades of neglect of the environment by the former government, we have come in with a total comprehensive plan that is time targeted, a plan that is costed, a plan that is funded, a plan that will move us over the next five years toward a healthier, cleaner and safer environment. That is what the green plan is all about.
The green plan proposes some very specific measures, very specific money. The green plan, with the help of all Canadians, will be the road map to get ourselves out of the kind of environmental difficulties that the former government never cared to bother about.


HEALTH CARE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This government is taking this country apart piece by piece: first, VIA Rail, the CBC, rural post offices, and now Canada's medicare system is in danger of crumbling and falling apart. These are the institutions that are at the heart of Canada. They are the institutions that represent Canadians' commitment to one another.
In the interests of the nation, will the Prime Minister state today that universal medicare is part of Canada, that it is a right of all Canadians, no matter where they live, no matter how much their income is?
Will the Prime Minister commit today that national universal medicare will not be frittered away by this government as has eveiy other program of trust? We are losing trust in this government. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have missed it, but this question was asked several times over the course of the past seven days. In eveiy single instance what the government did was to indicate its full commitment to medicare. We will this year be transferring to the provinces some $14 billion. That is evidence of good faith in terms of maintenance of the national health care system.
Our determination is to ensure that the principles that underscore Canada's medicare system are maintained and that our system remains one of the best in the world.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker.
What has this government done to show Canadians any trust in its programs? First of all, the minister knows that this federal government has reduced funding to health care in Canada. In the last 13 years, by Liberal governments and by Tory governments, funding has been reduced from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. This minister knows that in 1997 Ontario and Quebec will not receive any federal funding.
Will the minister show real commitment today and state that he will reinstate the 50/50 funding with the provinces? Will he state that today to show that this government has some real faith in the future of national medicare?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member indicates is simply that she does not understand the way in which the system is working. The hon. member should be aware of the fact, first of all, that it was not this government which brought in EPF. It was the Liberal government back in 1977 that moved away from 50/50 cost sharing to

block transfers to respect the role of the provinces in terms of the delivery of health care services in Canada.
Additionally, it is simply false to suggest that federal contributions to medicare will end. This year alone the federal contribution to medicare both through tax points and through cash transfers amounts to some $14 billion. Mr. Speaker, $14 billion to a socialist does not represent much money, but to the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada and the users of Canada's health care system, $14 billion is a very substantial amount of money.
Third, the hon. member says that we are reducing money going to the provinces. That again is false. The amount of money transferred to the provinces this year increased over last year. What we have done is to put a freeze on per capita contributions, but in each province the total contributions continue to increase. Nationally, the federal contribution to health care in Canada continues to increase year after year.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister knows and the Prime Minister knows that there are provincial ministers who are now saying that they would like to get rid of the Canada Health Act. I have seen nothing that this government has done to counter those statements, to say that it is going to stand up for national medicare.

Mr. Speaker, this government like the Liberals before them is not lifting a finger to stop the erosion of a sacred institution in Canada: our Medicare Program. Will the minister finally do what he ought to do and write to the health ministers of each province and territory today to tell them that a universal medical insurance program is a right for every Canadian, no matter what their income is?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the right to a universal health care system is something that needs to be conveyed privately by me to somebody. It is something which has been stated here on the floor of House of Commons of Canada publicly. The commitment that this government has made repeatedly on medicare speaks for itself.
Oral Questions
Now what we hear from the hon. member is that some provincial ministers from some provincial governments would like to collapse Canada's medicare system. The response of the federal government has been clear and unequivocal. The answer is no.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The National Council of Welfare informs us that, in Canada, the poor die younger than the rich and have eleven years less of good health than higher income earners. The government recognized that such a difference existed between rich and poor. That was three years ago. Will the minister tell us now why the Council says this government did nothing to improve the health of our poor?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is quite wrong to say that this government has done nothing to improve the health of all Canadians. What we have seen in indices, in terms of the health and longevity of Canadians, is that Canadians are living longer and are healthier than ever before in the history of this country.
We continue to be concerned about the discrepancy between those people who are poor and those Canadians who are wealthier. We continue, through a range of programs, to try to address the problems of those Canadians who are poor and we will continue to do so. One of the things that the report of the National Council on Welfare highlights is that there is a whole range of factors including the health care system, and a range of social and other factors as well, that have an impact upon the health of Canadians. We are determined to do everything that we can, in conjunction with our partners, the provinces, and with those in the private sector as well, to improve the health of all Canadians.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, true to form, the minister must think he is running the department of corporate health. The same report, I might add, written by the government's own council, declares that babies bom to poor Canadians are twice as

Oral Questions
likely to die before their first birthday than those bom into more privileged homes.
As the minister knows, one of the cures for child poverty recommended by the council, the government's own council, is a national child care program. Quite simply, why does the minister continue to deprive working parents and why is he postponing action on child poverty until the next election?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a practice of asking questions which are virtually impenetrable or of making comments which are hard for any reasonable person to follow. What suggestion she proposes to make about corporate Canada and what relevance that has to the issue she raises remains to be seen.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member about child care. Since we came to office, this government has substantially increased the amount of money spent on child care in Canada, well above the level that was provided by the Liberals. Indeed, contributions under CAP have been increasing at the rate of about 20 per cent per annum. At the present time, we are spending about $1 billion on child care.
When members of the opposition, particularly the Liberal Party, talk about the need for child care, let them never forget that it was the Liberal senators who prevented Canada from having a child care program today.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, every summer, when the atmospheric temperature reaches 26 degrees centigrade and higher, the children of my riding of Parkdale-High Park flock to the Sunny-side beaches on Lake Ontario to swim, only to find that the waters are polluted with sewage and other pollutants.
Can the minister guarantee the children of Parkdale- High Park and all the children living along the beaches of Lake Ontario that the green plan will make the beaches of Lake Ontario swimmable this summer? Because if he
cannot, how can the government call this report, Canada's Green Plan for a Healthy Environment?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is quite clear in the green plan that one of our goals is to make sure that our water, as well as our air and our land, is clear and healthy for Canadians. I mentioned in answer to a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago that I was very much hoping that we would be in a position to sign an accord with the U.S. to move forward on the de-pollution of the Great Lakes system and essentially, at that point, be able to have an approach for the whole ecosystem of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
Yes, we are moving ahead; yes, we are committed; yes, the money is there and yes, the agreement is forthcoming.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. Destruction of rain forests, ocean pollution, emissions of CO2 and CFCs contribute to global environmental destruction. The green plan does not set specific objectives to address global environmental issues.
Why does this so-called comprehensive green plan not demand that our publicly funded Export Development Corporation produce environmental assessments before dispersing or leveraging project funds which may have other environmental consequences?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer my hon. colleague opposite to pages 97 to 128 of the green plan where we do, in fact, address the questions of global warming and emissions of greenhouse gases.
Yes, this government has made commitments internationally on CFCs, and we have made commitments internationally on CO2. Those are very clear.
We are going to phase out CFCs totally by the year 1997, well ahead of most industrialized countries. We are going to stabilize CO2 emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 levels. We are committed to further steps. We are committed to helping the LDCs in terms of research so that they can be at the table and this agreement can be a meaningful international agreement.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment.
The green plan establishes as Conservative federal policy the right of corporations to pollute Canada's fresh and salt water and rejects the right of Canadian citizens to have unpolluted fish to eat, to have unpolluted water to drink and to have unpolluted beaches for swimming.
Would the minister explain to this House why he chose to agree in cabinet with the minister responsible for privatization and tore up the chapter on water rights when the green plan was before cabinet?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline for my hon. colleague that there was no chapter tom up in any way, shape or form.
We are dedicated to moving towards a healthy environment. I would like to say that there are some rather potent tools to do that if we do not get the co-operation that I believe we will. I would like to remind my colleague that under some legislation I believe he supported, that should we not, there are fines of $1 million a day for somebody who goes against the environmental regulations that we have in place.
There are potential penalties in terms of jail sentences of five years per infraction. That will ensure, if everything else fails, that we will go ahead and ensure a healthy environment for all Canadians.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
I am sure he is aware that he is required, by law, to report annually on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. He is in violation of the law right now while he sits here in this Chamber. He has not got a job.
However, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister who solemnly signed a treaty with the United States with his friend, President Reagan, three years ago regarding Great Lakes water quality which called for and required zero discharge of toxics into the Great Lakes.
The quality of the Great Lakes has continued to decline from the discharge of toxics from both sides. Will the Prime Minister tell this House and Canadians when the principle of zero discharge will be extended to all Canadian waters, and when will it be enforced even in the Great Lakes?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of the Environment has already responded very fully to that and other questions raised by my hon. friend. He has provided very detailed answers.
With the exception of some people who are really captives of interest groups in this country, most Canadians recognize the tremendous job that the Minister of the Environment has done.
Inasmuch as my socialist friend made reference in a comment on an involvement with President Reagan on the environment, perhaps I could refer him to another comment made by the socialist Prime Minister of Norway and chair of the Brundtland commission.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: You're not a captive?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mrs. Brundtland is recognized as one of the leading environmentalists in the world. The NDP does not want to hear it, but Mrs.-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: How about answering the question.


Mr. Langdon:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues on the other side, are somewhat astonished, but having made such a big deal of the environment today, and having raised President Reagan, my hon. friends do not want to hear one of the world's leading environmentalists, Mrs. Brundtland, who was speaking to the issue that is before the House.
Here is what Mrs. Brundtland said. The socialists should listen to a fellow socialist.
There is the leadership role that Canada plays in international affairs and in particular in the ongoing work of sustainable development.
There is Mr. Mulroney's personal commitment to the issues and the unique way he has mobilized industry, science and private organizations in his own country to work together, creating a strong cross-sectoral movement in Canada.
I always believed there were some socialists who knew what they were talking about.

December 12, 1990
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the minister said that his green plan represents fresh new money. Yet this government has cut funding to alternative energy by approximately 90 per cent since 1984.
How can the minister stand there and say that this is new money? How much money will be spent on alternative energy under the green plan? More specifically, how much will be spent in my province of Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Andre:: I'll spend the old money.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague the $3 billion that was announced yesterday within the framework of the green plan is all new money. It is money that was committed by cabinet. It is money that is there for the environment over the next five years and it is money that is designated to fulfil 120 recommendations that are put forth in the green plan.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the green plan. As the minister knows, one of the environmental time bombs waiting to go off is the sunken oil barge, Irving Whale.
In 1970, the Irving Whale with its cargo of 4,200 tonnes of bunker-C oil sank off the northwest coast of Prince Edward Island and has been slowly leaking ever since.
Recently, oil similar to that of the Irving Whale washed up on the north shore of P.E.I. I and the fishermen of my riding want to know when the federal government will remove the Irving Whale or its contents, and why isn't there money in the green plan to diffuse environmental time bombs like the Irving Whale?


An hon. member:: They had a long time to do it.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I am concerned about all these issues as much as my hon. colleague is.
I cannot give him a precise answer to the questions that he has just raised. I would like to take it under advisement for a day or so in order to get the exact information.
We have a section of the green plan which deals exactly with emergency preparedness. I must say that is an area that was neglected over the last decade.
The government is now taking action to make sure that we have the emergency measures in place to respond to issues like the one my hon. colleague has just raised.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The four western provinces stand to lose the RCMP through the government's insistence on transferring more policing costs to the provinces and the municipalities.
The RCMP is one of the strong symbols of Canada and it is truly a force for national unity. Yet the four western provinces may be forced to establish their own police forces if the federal government does not back off. We have already lost too many of our national institutions and this haemorrhaging must stop.
Will the Solicitor General reconsider the federal government's proposal to ensure that the Mounties are kept in the west?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everybody here knows that the exercise we are going through right now is to make sure that the RCMP does remain in the west. We are discussing the cost-sharing that was established 10 years ago. Obviously, I will continue to discuss those issues with the representatives of the provinces and the territories.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. I do not think I have to tell this minister that the RCMP is one of the best police forces inOz the world. Surely the minister must know that if the western provinces lose the Mount-
December 12, 1990

ies any replacement force would be very hard pressed to match the RCMP. The west would be the loser. It would smack of discrimination and add further to western alienation.
We in the west cannot afford to lose the RCMP. Will the Solicitor General put a fair offer on the table, a fair offer that is acceptable to the west, and save the RCMP?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was doing very well in his question at the beginning of it. Obviously the RCMP is one of the best police forces-if not the best-in the world. I am looking forward to agreeing with the provinces that it is and that they will keep it.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. The government has put a lot of its credibility on the line with privatization.
On Fifth Estate last night we saw the reality of that philosophy. At Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson Airport, the Canadian people get $5 for every passenger who goes through a turnstile. At Terminal 3, handed over to the government's corporate friends, another one of those special interest groups, the taxpayers get only 20 cents for every passenger. Worse yet, the government wants to do to Terminal 1 and 2 what it has done to Terminal 3-turn it over to the private sector.
Since the government claims to be so concerned about the deficit, why is it giving up so much valuable revenue to its corporate friends, instead of using it to improve the aviation system?


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TYansport)):: Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. friend opposite, it is simply ridiculous and almost crazy to think that Pearson International Airport will be less profitable because the construction will be handled by the private sector. The Pearson Terminal will be operated according to the terms of a lease. That lease provides that the owner of the terminal must make regular payments to the Government of Canada. Now, that will indeed prevent the deficit from increasing, since
Oral Questions
the $500 millions required to build the terminal are to be paid by the contractor and not by the taxpayers. I think the government made a very wise decision.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the answer may be far simpler than the minister suggests. Last year Huang and Danczkay upped their donations to the Tories from $3,000 to $30,000.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Iain Francis Angus: In light of the decrease in revenue, in light of the fact that many smaller airports in Canada rely on Pearson to generate the funds to keep our system running, and in light of the cuts to flight service stations, air traffic control, and aviation weather reporting across the country, is it too much to ask that the government provide services to people instead of their corporate friends? Will the minister abandon the government's plans to turn Terminals 1 and 2 over to the private sector?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think that for the sake of all Canadians, it was fortunate the Conservative government was elected for two terms since 1984, because first of all, this got rid of a Liberal government that put the country in debt to the extent of mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren. Fortunately, Canadians were well inspired not to elect a socialist government, because the socialist mathematics don't pass the test: They say the government is losing money because the Pearson Terminal was built for $500 million, without a cent of taxpayers money. If the same terminal had been built with taxpayers' money, it would have cost at least $10 per passenger to pay off the debt alone on that amount.
So I think this is one more example of the excellent decisions made by this government to restore confidence in the economy.


AIR-INDIA FLIGHT 182
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.

December 12, 1990
Oral Questions
For over five years, the RCMP has been investigating the 1985 Air-India jumbo jet crash which caused what everyone could well be knowledgeable of as one of the worst single mass murders in Canadian history. Of the 329 passengers who had their lives snuffed out, 295 of them were Canadians including 82 children and six infants.
Because of the long delay in this behind-closed-doors investigation, would the Solicitor General now call a public inquiry, or better still, would he allow for a parliamentary inquiry? At the minimum, would he place a time limit on the RCMP to report back to the government?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, although I cannot agree with the entire terminology used by my hon. friend, I want to reassure my hon. friend and all members in the House that the crash of Air-India flight 182 is still under investigation by the RCMP, and that the RCMP is planning another mission to the North Sea this summer in order to try to get further evidence from the wreckage.
In addition, there is a civil suit that is ongoing. Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate right now to agree with the suggestion made by my hon. friend, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am kept informed with respect to this ongoing investigation and hopefully it will be terminated as soon as the RCMP can get the additional evidence it is seeking.


IMMIGRATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Today, Canadians had to come to Parliament to protest against the Minister of Employment and Immigration for the delay of the reunification of their spouses. Five years ago it used to take nine months. Now, it takes two and one-half years to be reunited with loved ones.
In the spirit of Christmas, will the minister intervene and have hundreds of Canadians spend Christmas with their loved ones in Canada?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, one of the things that we have tried to do in our new immigration plan is to move forward the processing of spouses.
I would point out to him that we are very much in favour of having families reunited as quickly as we can and, indeed, we know that larger numbers of family members will be coming in the future under our new plan.
The difficulty, of course, is that the demand is so extraordinarily high. We try to keep up with it as best we can. We have put in improvements for processing. We have given it a higher priority, and I would hope that in the future we could do better. It is important to us and we know that people want to be reunited with their families.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister sounds like a broken record.
Would the minister grant a visitor's visa to a newlywed spouse so that the couple can be together while waiting for the documents to be processed in Canada? Would that not be an easy way?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I understand the dilemma that the hon. member is describing. It is difficult to say whether a newly-wed is in a more difficult and lonely situation than someone who has been married a long time.
Let me say that we are looking at ways to ease the situation for spouses and that I will be reporting back to the House when we have new regulations and our new processing in place. I think the hon. member will be pleased.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


HEALTH CARE
Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Quebec has established one of the best health care systems in the world. A number of American experts, including Senator Ted Kennedy and experts from other countries have recognized this fact. At the present time, the Government of Quebec is making

major reforms in its health care system. Its aim is to improve access and quality of care for all Quebecers. Does the minister intend to let the Government of Quebec run its health care system as it sees fit?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act gives Canadian provinces all the powers they need to revamp their health care systems. Canadians expect the federal government to continue to play an active role in the area of health care and ensure that national standards are met throughout Canada. The basic concept is simple: universal access for everyone across Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is a concept that is important to all Canadians and it is supported across Canada.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, respect for rights and freedoms is part of a long democratic tradition of which we are proud. We have reason to believe that the Canadian government has been guilty of violating those rights. Quebec is perfectly well able to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, including those they have in the health care area. Quebec Minister Remillard is asking you to withdraw completely from health care in Quebec, which in fact falls under provincial jurisdiction. What are you going to do?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the fact that within the confines of the Canada Health Act the basic principles of universal access and equity of treatment in Canada are set out. The provinces have full discretion in terms of the organization of their health care systems.
My colleague in Quebec has indicated that he believes that his reforms can be done within the context of the Canada Health Act. I have had my officials write to his, seeking more information with regard to proposals made by the Government of Quebec. If it can be done within the law, he has the right to do that.
The principle of universality and the principles of universal access and of equity of treatment that are contained in the Canada Health Act are principles that
Oral Questions
are supported by all Canadians and are to the benefit of all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, my question is directed to the parliamentary secretary.
Gerard Veilleux said yesterday at the Communications and Culture Standing Committee meeting: "There was so little political will on the part of the government to support the CBC that I-" that is, Mr. Veilleux, the president "-was never able to get through the Minister of Communications' door to ask for help." He was told the minister was too busy.
Why was the minister too busy to deal with this question that strikes at the very roots and the very heart and soul of national unity, one that has negative impacts on the economic, social, cultural and linguistic fibre of every community affected by this decision?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Communications indicated to the House on Monday, there have been constant discussions with the CBC since the budget of April, 1989.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has refused to meet Mr. Veilleux, will he meet representatives from Sydney, Rimouski, Windsor, Sudbury, Winnipeg, St. Boniface, Calgary, Saskatoon, Vancouver and other cities affected by the 1,100 job cuts, and let these representatives tell him about the negative impact on regional English and French programming? Will he take the time to meet employees who were laid off, which was a nasty Christmas present?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister is always available to consult with Canadians.

December 12, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Point of Order
I should also point out to the hon. member that there are many other appropriate avenues for the affected people to pursue. For example, it is already set in train that the Canadian Radio and Television Telecommunications Commission will be involved in this issue.

Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
It involves the awarding of an $85 million loan guarantee and a $9 million gift to Westray Mining in the riding of Central Nova, a project which was opposed by federal bureaucrats.
We know that the Prime Minister was lobbied personally regarding this project by the Conservative MLA for the area on behalf of the three companies involved, which just happened to have contributed $33,000 to the PCs in 1988, the year in question.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he ignored the advice of his bureaucrats and became involved in the making of this gift to supporters of his own party?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, every member of this House knows that the government contracts for products and provides assistance to all kinds of industrial producers from one side of the country to the other.
As far as Westray is concerned, our department, Industry, Science, Technology Canada offered assistance to the project, otherwise it would not have gone ahead to open an underground coal mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia.
We have that arrangement. The Nova Scotia Power Corporation will use the coal from that underground mine. I do not know what the NDP have against sound regional economic development.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek some assurance from the Chair with regard to a matter of great importance to members of Parliament, and also to their staffs and to the individuals who work on Parliament Hill.
For quite some time the issue of asbestos has been given great media attention. There are legitimate concerns being expressed by employees, by members of Parliament and their respective staff persons.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you, in your capacity as the presiding officer of this Chamber, have information that perhaps if shared with this House and with the employees and the members of Parliament would shed some light as to what is taking place. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would give careful consideration to full disclosure of any and all information which comes into your purview in terms of any tests which have been done on any of the premises here in the House of Commons.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the concerns raised by my hon. friend, who is aware that earlier today a press statement by Greenpeace on behalf of the environmental working committee of all those employed on Parliament Hill indicated a concern about alleged concentrations of asbestos and the use of asbestos on Parliament Hill.
I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, as the presiding officer of this House and as the presiding officer of the Board of Internal Economy would make a statement in terms of the release of all pertinent information at some appropriate moment.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say to the House that there may be members of Parliament wishing to rise on this issue under questions of privilege.
Strictly speaking, questions of privilege should be heard at the first opportunity. It may be that if there are members wishing to rise on this matter, they would agree to me referring their application until I have had a
.

chance to respond to the suggestions of the hon. member for Kamloops and Cape Breton-East Richmond.
If I have agreement with that, I would proceed with advising the House of what I think I can advise it of at the moment. If hon. members wish to pursue, of course, I shall hear it.
There is another question of privilege which I have received notice of arising out of a question of privilege that has already been argued. I will, of course, hear that in a few minutes. It does not take quite the same priority precedent as the other.
Further to the interventions of our colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. member for Kamloops, I wish to inform members of the House of recent action taken by the Board of Internal Economy in response to ongoing concerns regarding the presence of asbestos in the workplace, and the potential harm to employees on the Hill.
I think I should point out that the board reviewed the matter at a meeting on May 3, 1989, and approved the following steps to deal with the situation. I am reading here from the board minutes and I will table these:
1.	That the situation report and plan of action regarding the asbestos abatement program on Parliament Hill which was requested of Public Works Canada by the administrative committee on March 17, 1989 be presented to the board as soon as possible.
2.	Where work is required to be performed by House employees in areas where asbestos is known to be present and suitable protective equipment or procedures are not available to such staff, the work be contracted out by the House to a qualified contractor who can safely perform the work within the standards prescribed by Labour Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and Public Works Canada.
3.	Where services are required to be performed by Public Works Canada staff or its contractors, or other contractors engaged by the House, in areas known to have asbestos, the work be done by qualified staff who will be required to follow regulations, policies and procedures set out for such work by Labour Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and Public Works Canada.
4.	That House staff and outside contractors be informed prior to commencement of any work on Parliament Hill of the locations of any known asbestos in the area where work is about to be performed.
5.	That an official of the parliamentary accommodation unit of the Sergeant-at-Arms sector establish appropriate monitoring procedures to ensure that all work referred to in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 be carried out in a manner consistent with regulations, policies and
Point of Order
procedures determined by Labour Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and Public Works Canada.
6.	That the House officials continue their practice of calling upon Labour Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and Public Works Canada officials to assist in monitoring the safety of the work environment.
7.	That the Speaker write the Minister of Public Works Canada to communicate the board's decisions and request his department's continued assistance in this regard.
That is the minutes of the meeting of May 3, 1989. Of course, certain matters have flowed from those minutes.
In addition, I would like to advise members that the Board of Internal Economy met last week, on December 5, 1990, with officials from the Departments of Health and Welfare and Public Works to discuss the situation further.
I would like to read for the benefit of the members an extract from the minutes of that board meeting. This is a meeting only one week ago:
The board received a briefing from officials of Public Works Canada and Health and Welfare Canada concerning the presence of asbestos in the Parliament Buildings.
Members of the Board were assured by officials that no asbestos fibres had been found in any offices tested. It was agreed, however,-
I should say to members that this was a very lengthy meeting, and after much discussion and many questions:
-that the board would seek further assurance by contracting the services of an outside expert to advise on the situation. It was also suggested that a communication plan should be developed in order to reassure employees working in the parliamentary buildings.
Those are the minutes of a meeting held last Wednesday night. I can assure members that we will be selecting a consultant within the next few days who will be requested to make a preliminary report to the board by January 14, 1991, the contents of which will be made available to all members of the House as soon as possible thereafter. All additional reports will also be presented to the members of the House.
I am tabling for the information of the House extracts from the minutes of the Board of Internal Economy meeting of May 3, 1989, to which I have just referred, and from the meeting of last week, December 5, 1990. Just so that members and the public understand, the

Point of Order
government department which is charged with the actual work with respect to asbestos is, of course, the Department of Public Works, with the help and assistance of the Department of Health.
There was a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy today at noon, and I think that I have the support of all members to say to the House and the public that the board, as the employer of all the employees on the Hill, considers that it must take with very grave concern suggestions that there may in fact be difficulties, and the board is proceeding to do so.
I will, of course, make arrangements as soon as our first report comes in from our consultant to make that information available to hon. members and to make available from then on subsequent information which is important and which goes to convey to all hon. members and to our employees what is being done, first of all if there is a danger, second, what that danger may be or the extent of it and, third, what is being done about it and what can be done about it.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Just a moment, perhaps before the hon. member proceeds, I could deliver to the Table the documents of which I just spoke.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and then I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your statement and your assurance that you will provide additional information come mid-January with regard to this important issue.
The hon. Minister of Public Works is in the House at the present time, I know it is unusual to make this request since Question Period has expired, but I wonder if the minister would undertake to provide to the House and to members copies of all of the various tests with which his department is now seized to in regard to the issue of asbestos within the Parliament Buildings so that we can have full disclosure and a full examination of all of the facts. Thereafter, of course, these would be given to the independent individual who will be retained by the Board of Internal Economic in order to make a final and complete assessment and to give assurances, not only to members of Parliament and their employees but, indeed, all people who work on Parliament Hill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put a question to the minister who has, of course, been listening carefully to the statement by the Chair. Strictly speaking, unless the House agrees, I would have to say that I am in the hands of the minister. The minister may want to respond.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gravity of the situation and the desire of all colleagues to be fully apprised of the situation. I will take the request very seriously. I do not know if there are procedural reasons or any other reasons why I could not comply with this, but I will undertake to report back.
I might say that precautions have been taken. Members might like to know, for example, that one sensitive area, the attic of the West Block, has been sealed off. Security officers have been instructed to make sure that access to the attic, which has steel beams covered with asbestos, is not readily available. I am advised that the security service of the House has agreed to keep the door of this area locked in view of any possible risks, and that the access door was completely weatherstripped to make sure that the asbestos is totally contained within the attic space. The House also knows that where renovations are undertaken to the parliamentary precincts, such as in the Wellington Building, asbestos is removed at that time with appropriate precautions.
I also understand, although I am no expert on the matter obviously, that in an inert form, that is to say, not in viable form, asbestos is not generally regarded as particularly hazardous. However, if it is disturbed around service areas, this is not the case.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you also mentioned that when the issue was raised by a colleague in the House last month, on November 19, I believe, several tests were undertaken with the co-operation of my colleague, the minister of health and welfare, as to air quality, and there was no evidence at that time that there was any hazard. But our department is anxious to carry on with this inspection. Of course we will act as the servants of the line departments and the House and carry out whatever instructions you see fit to give us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, you indicated that you would be acting expeditiously in terms of identifying an independent firm to evaluate quickly the situation. I would simply like to add that perhaps in your deliberations at the appropriate time, and as soon as possible with the firm in question, that you would encourage the firm to be
December 12, 1990

in contact with the environmental working group of employees who are working on Parliament Hill so that they are fully apprised of the progress as well.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on this same point of personal privilege. I was dismayed when I heard your report, Mr. Speaker, that the board of internal economy, if I heard you correctly, discussed the matter of asbestos in the West Block in the spring of 1989. I am dismayed because as an occupant of West Block certainly I was not informed, nor was my staff, that there might have been potential problems concerning asbestos in the West Block. I would have appreciated had I known that.
This morning we received a copy of a report that was made and submitted to the government in December 1988.1 quote: "In the presence of strong lights necessary for the videotaping it was possible to see large particles of asbestos fireproofing adrift in the air stream. These particles were moving toward mechanical room No. 6 at the same rate as the smoke particles."
Another part of the report states: "There exists a strong possibility that airborne asbestos migrates from the attic to occupied areas of the building via the air handling system".
If this was the same report that the Board of Internal Economy was looking at in March 1989,1 am wondering what has happened in the meantime.


Mr. Speaker:: I have probably bent the rules a little to allow this matter to be dealt with now because frankly I think it is an important matter. So does the board and so do hon. members. But we are not here to debate what particular piece of paper the board was looking at at that time.
I am sure the hon. member realizes that the board is retaining independent outside advice to advise us. Beyond that and beyond bringing to the attention of the hon. members the fact that the matter was discussed with great seriousness a week ago, action is taking place, but I do not know that I can transgress the rules by turning the afternoon into a debate on asbestos. I think that is going too far.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in line with your earlier remarks I do not intend to pursue it at any length. However, in the light of exposure of this two-year old report today, a three-volume report prepared by independent consultants and released presumably through the Department of Public Works in December 1988,1 do believe that at least the members of Parliament and their staff who work in the conditions outlined in that report in the conduct of their duties as members of Parliament and their staff have a right to know what the Department of Public Works knew two years ago about the deterioration of asbestos. On a six-hour videotape which accompanied that report it is shown flowing through the air ducts and throughout the system into the control rooms and throughout that building.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you are taking strong and early action now, but the fact remains that there was an independent consultant hired who reported two years ago to the Department of Public Works. This report laid out, in broad terms, a plan of action that sounds remarkably similar to the plan of action that you are now requesting another independent consultant to draft a report on and to make recommendations.
I believe it is a matter of privilege in that no members of Parliament and their staff with offices in the West Block-and there are many of them, particularly on the fourth floor-are in fact prevented from carrying out their duties as MPs and staff of MPs without placing their health at what appears to be serious risk. The tone that is placed in that three-volume report is of a nature that any school building in the province of Ontario would have been closed down months ago if they had known that their buildings were in the same apparent state as the West Block.
The least these members of Parliament and their staff require now is the release of that report and the accompanying six-hour videotape so they can form a conclusion for themselves in light of whatever experts they may choose to hire to determine whether or not

Privilege
that building has to be evacuated or whether they in fact should continue to work in it in order to carry out their duties.
Perhaps the only alternative is to shut the building down and either have MPs find alternative accommodation and submit the bills to the House of Commons, or the House should consider immediately whether or not we can find them alternative accommodation.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member. I also appreciate the fact that I had notice of his question of privilege. The matter has been brought back to the House. I think it is now appropriate for the Board of Internal Economy to proceed as we are.
I will take into account the particular matters raised by the hon. member.


ACCESS TO RESEARCH FACILITIES
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today on a question of privilege concerning a serious and important matter that should be worthy of your attention and give you cause to reflect.
Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, I raised a question of privilege about access to research facilities. Mr. Speaker, there have been new developments since then, and I think it falls very much within the purview of this institution to be aware of certain events outside the House that have a considerable impact on the privileges of all members. I am referring to the fact that the services of research staff on the House of Commons payroll have now been made available to individuals in the private sector.
Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. I was astonished to read in the Montreal Gazette on Wednesday, November 28, that two members of this House, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and the hon. member for Out-remont, had decided to make available free of charge the research facilities of their parties, and probably their personal staff, to people in the private sector. I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from the article signed by Philippe Authier, which reads as follows:

They have agreed to share researchers and newspaper clipping services.

There is more, Mr. Speaker. This group of members of the business community includes Marcel Beaudry, an eminent Hull lawyer, Sheryl Campbell-Steer, vice-president of the Montreal Board of Trade, Charles-Albert Poissant, president of Donahue, and Sebastian Allard, of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec.

Each has been assigned an aide to sort through briefs and prepare questions. The help comes courtesy of Ouellet and Hogue.

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished to see that public funds are now made available to individuals in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a serious matter when one sees a resident of Hull, Mr. Marcel Beaudry, given access to research services while the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, who was elected by the people of Hull- Aylmer, is denied access to the same public funds to do his research.
Mr. Speaker, I think you should take a long, hard look at this matter. For instance, tomorrow, the Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party might decide that they support the principles of the Conseil du patronat or the FTQ and decide to transfer their staff to these organizations. Mr. Speaker, I hardly think this is in accordance with the Standing Orders and practices of this House. All the more so since it amounts to discrimination with respect to our political convictions, realizing as we do that we have been denied these privileges, whereas citizens who have not been elected by anybody and who sit on the boards of major corporations are given access to research services paid for by the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to another article published in La Presse of that same day where it is alleged that the group pools their resources and their staff and that from here on in they will follow a specific strategy where somebody would suggest such or such question to the witnesses just to make sure that all bases are covered. And, according to Mr. Ouellet, there is nothing wrong with that kind of arrangement.

From my standpoint, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that all this should prompt us to raise basic questions as to whether the rules of justice and fairness are respected in this House. Should a few private sector individuals who happen to share the political convictions of certain traditional parties in this House be given ready access to research services, a privilege we have been denied because our views are different? I am not sure that the private sector should have access to the resources of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a fundamental question because today it has to do with constitutional matters, tomorrow it might be immigration, and the day after it might involve another issue where the resources of the House of Commons would be put at the disposal of one interest group or another.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for which everybody is grateful refers to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. I have every reason to believe that if we are denied access to some services, it is because of our political beliefs. But I will go even further, Mr. Speaker, for I have an even more serious case to report.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who sits in the House of Commons as an Independent is a member in good standing of the Belanger-Campeau Commission, just as are the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and the hon. member for Outremont. Both these members have access not only to the research services of the House of Commons, but also to a new staff of four people who claim they are there to collect objective data. Well, Mr. Speaker, these objective data are not made available to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, in spite of the fact that he has the same right as both our colleagues on the Belanger-Campeau Commission and should have access to the same services provided by government staff from the Privy Council. Some hon. members of this House are discriminated against because of their political beliefs.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the old parties behaving like great bedfellows, but when they get special treatment, they or their party should pay from their own pocket. In this case, public funds, which are provided by the Canadian people and Quebecers, whether they be in favour of the federalist or sovereignist option, are now used simply to promote one side of the issue. I suggest
Routine Proceedings
that, as members of the House, we should ask ourselves serious questions, namely: How come Marcel Beaudry can have access to the research services of the House of Commons while Gilles Rocheleau cannot? Why is it that Privy Council staff prepare briefings for all hon. members except the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean? That is my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with interest to the hon. member. Part of his complaint is the subject of a matter which the Chair is presently studying and with which the Chair must deal and respond to the House.
I will consider the other matters. I must say that I will have to look at it very carefully to see privilege. A breach of privilege is when the hon. member is unable to carry on his duties in the House. The hon. member is speaking of research work which is available to parties in this House, ultimately paid for by the Canadian public, but that research is the property of the members of that particular party. It certainly would not be the first time in the history of this Parliament that research work that has been prepared by research groups for any individual party, or for that matter, the Library of Parliament, has been released to all kinds of people across this country to assist them and their groups in various matters that they might wish to do.
I will look at the hon. member's intervention and I will try to take it into account before I bring down the ruling on the other matters that he raised. I thank the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to table in both official languages a government policy statement on the future of the federal Public Service.

Routine Proceedings PETITIONS


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

This report is entitled, "You Took My Talk: Aboriginal Literacy and Empowerment". Members of the committee have worked in the best traditions of committees of this House to achieve this unanimously endorsed set of recommendations. The report issues a challenge to the Government of Canada, ministers of education of each province and territory and to aboriginal leadership.
In the closing month of this year, the United Nations International Literacy Year of 1990, the committee challenges governments and aboriginal leadership to seize the momentum, focus on this issue and put in place the means to deal with the literacy challenge over the longer term.
As a closing comment I should note, that this is the first time a committee report has been presented to this House with the recommendations translated into three of Canada's aboriginal languages, namely Cree, Inuktitut and Ojibway. There are some 53 aboriginal languages in Canada. All have equal value, but for practical reasons only the three most commonly used inscripted languages could be included in this report. The inclusion of these languages is a symbolic recognition of the value of all aboriginal languages. It also recognizes the important relationship between the aboriginal language and literacy.
I also submit the full report in both official languages. [Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.


INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development in both official languages.
Canada must compete, and this is exactly to what the report refers. We have to compete to trade and we have to trade to exist. All of the witnesses who appeared before the committee made a clear statement that science and technology are the driving force to create jobs here in Canada, jobs to improve our productivity, to sell smarter and to maintain our standard of living.
In this report, we have made recommendations for improved education at all levels, better training, a sound, stable economic environment, clearer tax provisions and increased technology transfers. We also want to see strong alliances among governments, industry and educational institutions.
There were some important items such as literacy, sustainable development and labour adjustment areas which we did not study. We have not given a report on those areas, mainly due to the fact that we had time limitation and the membership of our committee was changing quite rapidly.
In conclusion, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.


BILL C-223 - LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-223, an act respecting a Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace.

There is one amendment, Madam Speaker.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition on behalf of 87 students and staff of St. James Collegiate located in my riding of Winnipeg St. James.
This petition relates to the environment and specifically the Rafferty-Alameda dams project in Saskatchewan. The petition reads as follows:
Whereas the courts have ruled that a full environmental review must be conducted on the Rafferty-Alameda dams project in Saskatchewan;
Whereas construction on the Rafferty-Alameda dams project should have stopped during this environmental review;
Whereas construction has now resumed upon this project without an environmental assessment having been completed; and
Whereas this project may have serious repercussions upon the environment, including fish, migratory birds and the lands of the province of Manitoba and the federal government;
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take every possible action to stop construction on the Rafferty-Alameda dams project and to ensure that a full environmental assessment is conducted.
I would like to congratulate the students and staff of St. James Collegiate on their initiative. I thank them for caring, and we are all very proud of them.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I have one other batch of petitions. This batch of petitions comes from the city of Edmonton. It is pretty straightforward. It says:
The Government of Canada has seen fit since Confederation and without hiatus to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers, and now proposes to include them in the goods and services tax.
The petitioners from the city of Edmonton humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
Routine Proceedings GASOLINE ADDITIVES


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to table nearly 1,000 names on these petitions gathered by CJBK radio station in London, Ontario.
These petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw MMT from the gasoline in Canada and replace it with ethanol, an environmentally friendly additive and octane enhancer.
These petitioners are aware that the use of ethanol would reduce carbon dioxide emissions rather than increase them. It would be a much more positive move than the proposals presented in the green plan yesterday.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is from many people, particularly in the Chinese Canadian community in British Columbia, who are concerned about the diminishing supply of live codfish, which is an essential food for their community.
They state that live codfish is a commodity of high cultural and economic value as a staple fresh food to Asian Canadians and for millions of tourists who visit Canada. It is always in demand by Canadian families, restaurants and stores. The petitioners further state that because of negligent management of the commercial fishery and the unfair allocation to the sport fishery sector, there is a trend of increasingly seasonal and area closures.
This is disrupting what was formally a year-round fishery. If this trend of federal government negligence towards the live cod fishery continues, these fish soon will not be available especially to some 200,000 Canadians of Chinese descent who live throughout B.C.
Therefore the petitioners demand that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recognize the special value of these fish to the Asian community and to visitors to Canada, and immediately initiate management action that will ensure that a year-round supply of live codfish is available. This must include adequate federal attention to the long-term sustainable management of these fish and their fair allocation.

December 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-AIberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in the communities of Victoria, Port Albemi, Nanaimo, and Qualicum Beach, British Columbia who express concern about the way the federal government conducted the negotiations with the people at Oka during the crisis this summer.
The petitioners stated that they expect the Government of Canada to immediately act upon its authority and responsibility and deal in a just manner with the struggle of all aboriginal peoples in Canada to have their land claims and rights properly addressed. Inaction on the part of the federal authorities will only continue to antagonize race relations in Canada, and provoke dangerous and ignorant acts of racism.
This petition is circulated by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Manitoba Coalition Organized Against Apartheid.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to again present petitions from two volunteer fire departments in Nova Scotia; one from Stellarton, Nova Scotia, and the other one from the Hantsport Fire Department in Hantsport, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners say that since fire departments provide a vital service in protecting lives and property of all citizens, and whereas the federal Department of Communications has imposed huge fee increases for radio telecommunications which include radio licence fees, and since these prohibitive costs could place a severe burden on these fire departments, and since these fire departments are operated by volunteers who give freely of their time to protect the community, they call upon the government to see the folly of its ways and to live up to a commitment made back in 1986 by the then Minister of Communications to exempt fire departments. They are asking that these fire department exemptions be reinstated as was promised by the former Minister of Communications.


Ronald MacDonald: I have another set of petitions. It is appropriate that these are being presented today. Again these are petitions from my riding of Dartmouth. Many people in the Dartmouth-
Halifax area are fundamentally, absolutely, 100 per cent irrevocably opposed to this government's crazy goods and services tax.
They are petitioning this government to come to its senses and scrap the tax and not do what it was going to do perhaps today or tomorrow, and that is to use the tyranny of the majority in the other place to push forward this unpopular tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, regarding the proposed goods and services tax.
The petitioners make two points, one that the government ought to reconsider proceeding with this unfair regressive tax and also to point out that the Liberals in the Senate had a number of occasions when they could have actually defeated the tax, but for some mysterious reason, chose not to do so. Presumably they wish to give the impression that they are opposing it. On five different occasions they could have defeated the tax, but they chose not to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 389 and 400.


Mr. Nunziata: Since February 23, 1990, has the Solicitor General taken any foreign trips and, if so (a) what was the itemized cost of each trip including (i) airfares (ii) accomodations (iii) car rentals, taxis/ limousines (iv) hospitality (b) was the Minister accompanied by (i) members of his staff (ii) officials from the Ministry of the Solicitor General (iii) family members (iv) others, and if so, who were they (c) what were the dates of departure/retum from/to Canada (d) what was the purpose of each trip (e) was a follow-up meeting held to discuss the results of the trip (f) was a written report produced on the results of the trip?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As of October 22, 1990, the Solicitor General represented Canada on two foreign trips since February 23, 1990.

1.	Organization of American States (OAS)-CICAD Meeting Ixtapa, Mexico.


[Stage Direction]
The acronym CICAD comes from the Spanish language title of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission. CICAD, an agency of the OAS, was established in 1986 to implement the Program of Rio (InterAmerican program of Action of Rio de Janeiro against the Illicit Use and Production of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Traffic/therein).
The ministerial meeting was proposed through a resolution of the OAS in October, 1989 for the purpose of re-evaluating the current status of the drug problem in the OAS region and the re-establish priorities for inter-American action in the context of the Program of Rio.
COST $2,614.25. The Solicitor General departed Canada on April 16, 1990 and returned on April 21, 1990.
He was accompanied by:
Commissioner Norman D. Inkster Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mr. D. Ian Glen, QC Assistant Deputy Solicitor General
Ms. Janis Gardiner
Special Assistant to the Solicitor General
Inspector Frangois Hummell Executive Assistant to RCMP Commissioner
Inspector V. Casey Royal Canadian Mounted Police
A follow-up meeting was held to discuss the results of the trip, and a written report was produced.
2.	TREVI Meeting in Dublin, Ireland, with related bilateral meetings in London, England.
[Stage Direction]
TREVI is a grouping of European Community ministers responsible for security issues and law enforcement. Concern over the threat of terrorism prompted a decision to form the Trevi Group in 1976. Canada, along with the United States and other nations, is an observer country. Canada, however, participates formally in a meeting with the "Troika", the three European Community ministers responsible for the TREVI meetings. Canada takes advantage of the occasion to dialogue on a
Routine Proceedings
bilateral basis with international counterparts on issues of mutual concern.
COST $8,528.48. The Solicitor General departed Canada on June 12, 1990 and returned on June 19, 1990.
He was accompanied by:
Mr. Jim Allan,
Senior Advisor to the Solicitor General Mr. Ross Christensen,
Director General, National Security Coordination Centre (NSCC)
Ms. Michele Veilleux,
Director, Police and Planning, NSCC
Mr. J.R. Morden,
Director CSIS
Mr. Paul Seguin,
Executive Assistant to CSIS Director
Commissioner Norman D. Inkster Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Inspector Frangois Hummell Executive Assistant to RCMP Commissioner
Mr. Cliff Garrard,
Director, Emergency Coordination Division, External Affairs
Mr. Kirk Bell,
Attache to Executive Director of Immigration, CEIC
A follow-up meeting was held to discuss the results of the trip, and a written report was produced.
McGuire: Since 1964, during Canadian military training and operations in North America, for the (a) CC130 Hercules aircraft (b) CC115 Buffalo aircraft, have there been any fatal crashes and if so (i) how many (ii) how many deaths were incurred?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: a) Yes.
i)	6
ii)	35 b) No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Government Orders


Mr, Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 388 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 388 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nunziata: Since June 7,1988, how many employees within the Correctional Services of Canada have been appointed or promoted without competition and in each case (a) what are the names of the employees (b) what was their old group and level (c) what group and level were they promoted to?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Paper, P-31, in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is acceptable to the government and the document is tabled immediately.


[Stage Direction]
That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House copies of records detailing the total cost of the deployment of Canadian Forces personnel to Oka, Quebec, at the request of the Attorney General of Quebec, pursuant to Section 277 of the National Defence Act.
Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will the other notices stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and discuss Bill C-74. It is an honour to speak to it because it not only affects many of the residents of my riding of Hillsborough, but it affects all residents of Prince Edward Island and indeed many Canadians who are involved in the fishing industry.
The fishery has undergone a tremendous amount of change in the past number of years and I am sure that in years to come change will become a very integral part of this industry. Much of it has been and will continue to be painful. This fact is confirmed by various reports and recommendations such as the Kirby report, the Harris report and the Hache report. Members of this House and of the other place have also studied the fishery and have attempted to make recommendations to this government.
The major feature of the bill we are debating today is a response to some of these recommendations. It would impose a substantial increase in penalties for violations of fisheries law, such as illegal dumping, discarding or misreporting of fish, fishing in enclosed areas, or damaging fish habitat.
A study conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the management of groundfish in the Scotia-Fundy region of the east coast, the Hache task force, revealed that the maximum fines provided for in the act
December 12, 1990

are regarded by many in the industry simply as a cost of doing business. Therefore, this bill will introduce substantially increased penalties for general fisheries offences.
The bill also attempts to establish proper means of collecting and verifying catches and data. The Hache task force observed that motivation to misreport the areas of species fish is high, and that industry participants had repeatedly claimed that such data was flawed. As a result, the accuracy of information received by the department is questionable due to large scale misreport-ing and enforcement problems.
In February of 1990, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans released the Harris report on the state of the northern cod stock. The report, written by Dr. Leslie Harris of Memorial University, concluded that a vital goal of management strategy must be the improvement of data used in assessment. It noted the misreporting of catches, disregard rates, and other significant inaccuracies in commercial catch data.
It is now obvious that the industry must be better managed by imposing stiffer penalties for violations and by more effective enforcement. If the government is indeed committed to such initiatives, then it must also ensure that representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are well trained and well-equipped to carry out their heightened duties. It is in all our interests to see the industry better policed, but mere words will not accomplish this. I hope the government will follow up with action.
It is also in all our interests to see the fishery better managed over all. I am afraid that we seriously doubt the government's commitment to doing so. We question the government's commitment to the fishery and to the people who depend upon it, directly or indirectly, to survive. We question the government's commitment to the people and to the economy of Atlantic Canada in general. The mismanagement of our primary resource, the fishery, provides a tragic metaphor for this lack of commitment.
Stiffer penalties and better enforcement, while admirable, are mere band-aid measures for an industry that is being neglected to death by the government. The government's only action, thus far, has been to cut quotas in the name of stock preservation and to attempt to silence the industry with its inadequate fishery aid package of last winter. I will not discuss in detail the many criticisms
Government Orders
of such actions, but I will say that the government's response must go beyond such band-aid measures and must use federal resources of funds, expertise, and information to bring about a fundamental restructuring of the economy, both regional and national. Economic development and diversification must be part of the response to the crisis in the fishery, to the crisis that is facing Atlantic Canada.
The east coast is extremely dependent on the fishery. In Prince Edward Island, the fishery is one of three major areas of the economy. Prince Edward Island has approximately 2,500 fishermen, 2,500 plant workers, and 1,400 ancillary workers. These people make up about 10 per cent of the provincial work force and the fishery makes up about 30 per cent of the province's total export market.
It is a sad fact of human nature that when times are good we tend to ignore such imbalances. We fail to acknowledge, or we do not let ourselves acknowledge, the potential for problems. Well, the good times are over. Why can the government not admit that some fundamental mistakes have been made, and why does it not have the guts to correct them?
As I said before, violations of fishery laws by Canadian fishermen and the lack of effective enforcement by DFO are only part of the problem. The plundering of Canadian fish stocks by foreign vessels has to stop if there is to be any hope of replenishing our fish stocks. Fish in Canadian waters must go to Canadian fishermen first. We must not delude ourselves that the Europeans, for example, care about the state of the northern cod stock or the crisis facing Atlantic Canada. When there are no more fish, either for the Spanish or Portuguese ships, they are not going to be too upset about Atlantic Canada. They will go back home, leaving chaos in their wake. Why will the Canadian government not stand up for its own resource and for its own people?
Every time we ask the government what has been done to convince the European community of the damage it is wreaking upon the east coast and of our sovereignty over our own resource, we hear that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for International Trade are talking. And, yes, I will agree that they do a lot of that, as does the government, but nothing happens. If the results of the agricultural talks at the recent GATT negotiations are any indication, the government can talk the ear off anybody. But, again, nothing happens. The Europeans, like any other nationalistic or economic bloc, are looking out for their own interests and they are

Government Orders
making no bones about that. If only Canadians felt that their government was doing the same.
But they do not. How can they when every move the government makes seems calculated to do as much damage as possible at a time when further strain on the economy is disastrous? The Atlantic fishery, which is the corner-stone of our regional economy and the livelihood, directly and indirectly, of so many Atlantic Canadians, is under siege. What does the federal government do at this time of crisis? Does it come forth with long-term strategies, or does it come forth with even meaningful short-term measures? No, Madam Speaker, instead, it guts the unemployment insurance system, the one thing that could carry these people through the long, cold, mean, miserable, recessive year that is to come.
The people of Atlantic Canada do not look upon the UI system as a form of social welfare, as some members opposite are fond of claiming. The seasonal and the fragile nature of the regional economy, such as the fishery, as well as agriculture and tourism, have dictated that the UI system is a vital safety net for our people. Although positive reform is not a bad thing, the government's slash and burn approach to reform is thoughtless at best, cruel at worst, and regressive for certain.
The government claims that its withdrawal of funds from the UI system, its toughening of qualifications, and its shortening of benefits will, in fact, be of greater benefit to the unemployed worker than before. I have not time now to explore the government's amazing mental and economic gymnastics, fascinating as this would be. All I will say is that right now, having mismanaged the fishery almost to death, the government has pulled the rug out from under Atlantic Canadians. So, funds will be allocated to retraining programs. Members from throughout the Atlantic have been saying for months that retraining is not the only answer. The regional economy also needs a sustained, realistic commitment from the federal government.
The past Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said it himself. He admitted that it is tough in Atlantic Canada to talk about retraining or restructuring entire communities. The Atlantic economy, the fishery in particular, is not like a factory in Toronto. But I say, with some
commitment from the federal government, vitally needed restructuring need not be impossible for Atlantic Canada. The people of Atlantic Canada, the fishermen, and residents are waiting.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to debate Bill C-74. The fishing industry is a major concern in my riding of Surrey North. I would like to talk about some of the reasons why it is so important to my riding.
As most people will know, the Fraser River is one of the borders of my riding and, of course, the Fraser River is the home of the world's largest salmon run. It is vital to the riding. We have a major Fraser River salmon fishing fleet that is tied up within the Fraser and the New Westminster docks, and the importance of that resource to the riding in economic terms is well known within the community.
We also have within Surrey a large number of offshore or deep sea fishermen who fish for cod, halibut, herring, and shellfish. The offshore fishermen established themselves in Surrey as a good family-oriented community where they could raise their families and invest in the future of the community. They have played a major part in the economic and cultural well-being of the riding.
In addition, we have a large number of people who work in the fish processing industry, both in the landing and processing of fish. Some of them work within the municipality and others work in Vancouver, Richmond, and particularly at Steveston.
Fourth, we have a large retail industry that is dependent upon the fishing industry by supplying gear and clothing and in terms of boat building and boat repair. All up and down the Fraser River there are small marinas that work on boats, both on the Fraser River boats and boats that go out into the Pacific Ocean.
Fifth and sixth, the Fraser River and the fishing industry is very important in terms of food supply. Increasingly Canadians have been turning to fish for a source of dietary protein. The consumption of fish in nearly all communities has increased dramatically over the last several years and as my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned earlier, there are certain types of fish, particularly cod, that have a great deal of importance to

the Asian community, not only as a food source for themselves but to the restaurant industry.
The Asian restaurant industry is a vital part of our tourist trade in Vancouver and on the lower mainland, so the community of Surrey has a vital stake in the fishing industry. It is important that that industry survive, prosper and grow.
Surrey is a family community. It does not have a large industrial base. It relies on small industry, on fishing, and it is in may ways a bedroom community for metropolitan Vancouver. The families there need the stability in order to ensure that they are able to pay their own mortgages, to provide the necessary income for the municipality in the form of taxes to operate our schools, and recreation facilities. Anything that threatens the viability of the fishing industry threatens the viability of Surrey itself.
We have a number of issues that right now are critical to the viability of that industry. Some relate to things that are taking place directly in Surrey. I will give one example called the Surrey Bend. It is a fish habitat area on the Fraser River. It is the last freshwater marsh on the Fraser River estuary and covers several hundreds of acres. It is a habitat for young fish fry coming down the Fraser River before they go out to sea. It is a source of nutrients. It is teeming with other wildlife and it is being threatened by industrial development that simply wants to backfill it for cheap industrial land.
The fisheries department has started to look at it, but even at this late date has not ordered a full environmental impact study. The municipality is desperately trying to rezone the land as environmental and recreational to prevent it.
This type of fish habitat is what Bill C-74 must protect. There are some good parts of this bill because it does talk about increasing the fines and getting better information necessary to protect the fish habitat. We also have a major problem of pollution on the Fraser River as it relates to fishing.
The quality of the water in the Fraser River by the time it reaches Surrey is no longer suitable for agricultural purposes. It threatens, according to people within the fisheries department, the survival rate of young fish stock.
Government Orders
The quality of water is damaged by upstream sewage being dumped into it. Some of that sewage is raw. Some has at least been given primary treatment. It is being polluted by pulp mills upstream at Prince George and Kamloops. At places in the Fraser River 2 per cent of the water is pulp mill effluence.
It is being threatened by lumber practices on the Fraser River, including log haulage and the dumping of hog fuel near it or along its banks with the leakage going into the Fraser River.
We have other major environmental threats to the Fraser River, including the diversion that Alcan is now undertaking on the Nechako River. This government, combined with the provincial government, has given them permission to go ahead without an environmental impact study on a diversion that is going to drop the level of the Fraser River three feet at Hell's Gate.
The damage to the fishing industry is totally unknown. We are threatening the whole viability of the Fraser River fishing industry by allowing Alcan to divert without an environmental assessment. It is all very nice for Bill C-74 to talk about the fact that it is going to increase penalties and allow for the collection of better information.
What we have seen repeatedly is this government and the provincial Socred government in British Columbia- which in B.C., we have learned, is what you get when you amalgamate the Tories and the Liberals-not enforcing the existing legislation that they have.
Under the B.C. Water Act, fish and wildlife are not even recognized as users of water. We have the federal government simply not even enforcing the powers that it now has.
Clearly, we have had examples in B.C. of the existing legislation not being used. I would like to quote from my Department of Fisheries and Oceans memo of November 1988:
We-
This is DFO officials:
-have determined that DFO friendly corporations enjoy relative
immunity from the Fisheries Act.
The memo went on to state:
It must be appreciated that DFO habitat enforcement has reached
an all time inconsistency.

Government Orders
Finally, it could appear that Alcan, amongst others, are given
immunity from the law, and we are just going after the little guy.
Madam Speaker, they will go after somebody who has had a spill of minor proportions into the Fraser River and, at the same time, will allow Alcan without an environmental impact study to drop the level of the Fraser River three feet. You begin to realize why the people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans became frustrated.
The federal government brought forward its much awaited green plan. We have been told that one of the priorities that was going to be addressed in the green plan was the Fraser River.
The green plan came forward. It has three quarters of one page that talks about in general, vague terms, doing something about the Fraser River in 1992.
This is in contrast to the NDP caucus report on the Fraser River that we brought forward on November 30 under the chairmanship of the member for Okanagan- Shuswap, which contained 50 pages on what had to be done immediately, and how it could proceed in terms of the Fraser River.
One wonders: Where is the commitment of the government when on three quarters of a page it talks of generalities and platitudes like monitoring, compliance and increasing enforcement measures.
They do not even talk about when, how or where. It says that by 1992, mechanisms will be established for co-ordination.
In the NDP Fraser River task force recommendations were some details of how it could be done. We talked about an integrated management structure because that is one of the things that has to happen between provincial bodies, federal bodies and municipal bodies.


Mr. Reid:: How much is that going to cost?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I do not care what it is going to cost. It is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than losing that salmon industry.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That is one of the things you guys over there better understand. The cost is not just simply in maintaining-


An hon. member:: Tell the Tory to be quiet.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: So you spend a billion dollars to save an industry that is vital to this country.


An hon. member:: I don't mind. Do you?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: No. One of the other things that the report by the New Democratic Party talked about was the need for a regional water management authority. There are a number of basins along the Fraser River. You cannot just talk about the Fraser River as if it is the lower estuary. You have to talk about a number of the other sub-basins along that river. You have to get water management authorities in each of those basins that have some co-ordinated plan.


An hon. member:: How do you plan to do that?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Pollution abatement. This report goes into detail about how you have to get systematic pollution abatement going. It is simply not good enough to issue a three-quarter page statement that contains no content or clear picture of where they are going, and that certainly leaves people in British Columbia with a sense that there is no commitment from this government.
Another area that it talks about is industrial discharge. This is a serious problem. Yes, the cost is going to be high. There is no doubt of that, not only probably in direct money by the government, but to industries. Profitable industries are going to have to meet pollution standards. They are going to have to do it with enforcement.
The green plan presumes they are going to go along and everybody is going to co-operate. We have seen repeatedly in British Columbia where companies have simply looked at pollution fines as a licence to pollute. They are quite willing to pay the fines because they know that they are cheaper than putting in the pollution equipment.


An hon. member:: Business as usual.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Sewage treatment. This government has been requested repeatedly by the Union of Mayors and Municipalities to make money available for municipal infrastructures, including sewage treatment. Many of the municipalities simply do not have the financial resources to bring sewage treatment up to the level necessary to save the Fraser River.
Habitat enhancement. I noticed this nice little statement in the green plan by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He does not say when he is going to announce a
December 12, 1990

plan to increase the fish population of the river. He said: "The objectives will be achieved through stock rebuilding, protection of the habitat base". There is no talk about how they are going to protect the habitat base.
I at least hoped they would mention the Surrey Bend in there as one of the major habitat areas under threat. I do not even think that the government knows about the Surrey Bend and what the threat is or what impact it will have.
In conclusion, the New Democrats support some of the things in Bill C-74, but we are frightened that unless there is a change in the will of this government, something far more forthcoming than what has been vaguely outlined in the green plan, this bill is not going to protect the fish in the Fraser River or elsewhere. What is really needed in this country is the political will. I have not seen the political will in Bill C-74, or certainly not in the green plan.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, you will find consent for the following motion:
That tomorrow at 5 p.m. debate on government business No. 25
and on any amendment thereto be deemed completed and voting on
such be deemed deferred to 7 p.m. Monday, December 17.


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, Madam Speaker, there have been some discussions with the various House leaders of the respective parties, and we would grant our consent both to the introduction of the motion as well as its contents.


Mr. Gardiner:: Madam Speaker, our party agrees with the motion as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Surrey North for putting some excellent comments on the record in terms of his concerns about Bill C-74, respecting fish habitat protection, and about the Fraser River, a major river in British Columbia. I know all members of this House are aware of it and how it relates so importantly to the questions we have been debating in this legislation.
The question or comment I would like to put to the member is actually a reference from a document to which I referred yesterday, I believe it was, in the House when we started debate on Bill C-74. This document has been prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the Fraser River. I would like to read briefly
Government Orders
from it and ask the hon. member to comment on it. I think it is an indication of what many of the witnesses had to say in committee on this bill and a lot of the comments members are making about the political will to ensure that the good deeds we are likely to pass today in this bill are in fact followed and carried out.
Page 18 of the report reviews the Fraser River. It takes a look at productivity in terms of salmon production of all species. It reviews from top to bottom some of the concerns of the department about the river. In fact, as I said yesterday, it is a very controversial document and actually a very revealing one.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the reporter wherein it refers to the Fraser River and the lower Fraser from Hope to New Westminster, that part of the river. It comments on the present status and reads: "The lower mainland supports over 50 per cent of the B.C. population and the impacts of constant industrial and urban development have taken a significant toll in production in many urban streams and the Fraser River foreshore. Past diking of rivers and hydro development has caused great losses to the resource".
There is the comment about the future of the river: "With present development practices a loss of salmon production in the urban areas will inevitably continue and the streams will eventually cease to be productive. Urban development, land use practices and technologies must change. All streams must be protected by buffer zones and not be considered storm sewers. Urban run-off must be treated".
Could the hon. member comment on that in relation to his experience with issues in his riding related to the Fraser River, on what the expectations may be arising out of Bill C-74, and if there are some hopes that the announcement of the green plan, if and when we get some specifics, may in fact result in some action from this government?


Mr. Attewell:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I compliment the member for the way he spoke. It was very calm and I could hear. However, when the member for Surrey North replies, I wonder if he might just think of some of us. I must say, without any offence, that my ears are sore from his shouting. We have a very good sound system here. I went outside and turned down the TV when the member was speaking because it was too loud. He should feel free just to speak in a normal

Government Orders
tone, and we can listen. This is the season to be generous.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, if that is the way to get the attention of Tories over there, I will speak even louder. It is time they started to listen. Once they start to listen, then maybe we can calm it down. One of the things that happen is that you guys don't listen unless someone somehow knocks you on the head.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member may want to address the Chair and not other hon. members directly.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, one of the things I think my hon. friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley mentioned is the question of political will. We in the New Democratic Party wonder about the political will, particularly when we look at the fact that on November 23 again there were cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans amounting to $11 million, which certainly distract from its ability to cany out enforcement procedures.
My friend asked about problems in Surrey. When I first moved to Surrey many streams in Surrey municipality were salmon spawning streams. Salmon came up Bear Creek and some of the other small streams. Now it is very uncommon to see any salmon coming up those streams. They are lost in terms of salmon fishing.
Another thing that has happened is the loss of habitat. The habitat has been overtaken predominantly by industrial development along the foreshore of the Fraser River. Nearly 90 per cent of the foreshore has been expropriated by the CNR. It expropriated everything along the Fraser River from the Patella Bridge almost up to the Langley border, including putting in an interval yard adjacent to Surrey Bend, again without any assessment of the environmental damage.
The whole question of how to protect the habitat systematically, which has to be done stream by stream and foreshore by foreshore, is vital. As well we have to look at it industry by industry all the way from the headwaters down in terms of pollution.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the third reading of Bill C-74.
We all know the troubles facing the fishing industry in this country. In Atlantic Canada there is a constant fear that tough times will become even tougher as we wait for the 1991 management plan. On the west coast many fishermen are terrified by the damage being done by the individual transferable quotas or ITQs.
The people of Atlantic Canada know what hard times are like. We had many hard times through the years, but in the last six years this government has certainly contributed to them, particularly in the fishing industry. When we look at the government cuts we look at ACOA, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Marine Atlantic. A prime example of the government's inconsiderateness was the closure of CFB Summerside, a very important part of our economy and a way in which the government could stimulate the economy in Prince Edward Island. Without any thought at all it removed CFB Summerside, which was also used to patrol our coastal fishery.
Members of the Liberal Party welcomed the government announcement that it would increase penalties for fisheries offences. The minister of fisheries committed himself to stiffening the fines for people who violated the act by overfishing. The bill before the House today was a long time in coming, and we are glad to see it here. The bill goes a long way in addressing the needs of fishermen in all parts of the country. Despite this, the bill does not go far enough.
One of the biggest problems facing fishermen in my riding is the state of the wharfs and harbours in Prince Edward Island, and in particular in Cardigan. A wharf to a fisherman is like a hammer to the carpenter. If one removes the hammer, the carpenter cannot work. In this situation, we are not keeping the wharfs in shape and therefore we are hampering the fishermen in making a living in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Cardigan.
What are fishermen to do when the wharf walls and the cribbing are rotting away? This is the situation with many wharfs, like those at Beach Point, Fortune, Georgetown, Graham's Pond, Launching, Montague, Murray Harbour, Naufrage, and Savage Harbour. In Savage Harbour, two years ago, there was a problem with the breakwater. If $25,000 could have been spent in that area


at that time, the situation would have been rectified; but it has been let go on and on, and of course the bill has escalated. At Graham's Pond, we have the same situation. At that wharf the bill has now escalated to $1 million or $1 million plus. It is time that the government put some funding into wharf repair in Atlantic Canada.
When I was elected in 1988,1 made it a priority to help fishermen get work done on their wharfs. I have to admit that we had very little success. As I said, a job which at that time would have been worth about $25,000 has now escalated to $300,000. If fishermen are to prosper in Prince Edward Island and in the rest of the country, we simply have to put more money into wharfs.
Something else which this bill does not address is the entire question of enforcement. True, there are clauses dealing with the power of the fisheries officers, but there is nothing dealing with the question of staffing. During the committee hearings on the bill there was almost total agreement among the witnesses that DFO was not adequately staffed.
One witness, Mr. Jim Rushton of United Fishermen and Allied Workers, said:
There has been a consistent cutback over the last 10 years in the percentage of the budget for enforcement. That needs to be strengthened. A fine will not deter someone who believes they will not be caught.
It is obvious to all that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is understaffed. There are fisheries officers working 20 hours a day. One witness told us of an area where there were two fisheries officers taking care of seven wharfs. I am sure that is the problem in many areas. There is just not enough staff to take care of doing the job properly.
If that were not bad enough, DFO is now faced with more budget cuts as a result of the government's poor fiscal management. A sum over $11 million has now been cut from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Capital expenditures, travel costs and, more important, overtime may be cut back. Fisheries officers have a difficult enough time doing their jobs without more restraint. Fisheries officers truly know how important their jobs are but, if they cannot be paid, they cannot do their job.
Government Orders
Witnesses told the committee that problems also exist in our judicial system. Simply put, judges and Crown prosecutors do not place enough emphasis on crimes that occur off our shores. Many judges do not view fisheries violations as being crimes, but to me no other word fits.
What do we call it when a logging company drives a CAT tractor through the headwater of a river where salmon are spawning, destroying a rich and valuable resource? What do we call it when an outlawed fisherman catches 100,000 pounds over his quota, or when a boat captain assaults a fisheries officer who boards his vessel?
Still others believe that Fisheries Act offences are victimless. What happens when a fisherman from Georgetown, Prince Edward Island has his quota cut simply because somebody else has overfished? In this situation, the fisherman from Georgetown is paying the penalty for the crime.
Also, in this situation there is less fish. The fish plant workers are cut back and, it is a direct slam on the economy of eastern Prince Edward Island.
Some witnesses questioned why there was not a whistle blower provision in the bill that would protect those people who report violations of the act. This would be especially true for employees of companies that break the law. Some protection should be given to these people. Even fishermen need protection when they report and testify against their fellow fishermen who have overfished or used undersized mesh. One witness, Mr. Evan Walters of the Scotia-Fundy Seashore Fishermen's Association suggested:
Something that might do well is the Crime Stoppers system. We
have been advocating this for two or three years now. We like this
system of some financial reward. There is nothing like money to
move the wheels of justice.
Mr. Walters pointed out a number of cases that he knew about where fishermen had sugar poured into their gas tanks or had their tires slashed. He told of one situation where a fisherman had his boat set on fire. These people need protection, and there is nothing in this bill to provide it.
During the committee hearings there was much talk about minimum fines and the like. A number of witnesses from the west coast suggested that they had no

Government Orders
problem with the idea. However, fishermen from the east coast were almost unanimous in their dislike of minimum fines.
It was suggested that Fisheries and Oceans should make better use of its power to suspend or cancel the licences of violators. It was believed that this was a much fairer way of dealing with the situation. Suspending a licence could be useful in dealing with the person who breaks the law just once, and the person who brazenly breaks the law every chance he can get. Basically the system would work like this.
A fisherman overfished his cod quota in 1990 by 5,000 pounds and is convicted. In 1991 his licence would be suspended for a period of time that would be equivalent to fishing that amount of fish or more, which would include a fine above the total amount of the catch. This punishment would fit the crime. If a fisherman catches too much this year, then he loses it the next year.
As we all know, this bill is part and parcel of the fisheries aid package that the Minister of Fisheries announced back in May. It is a part of the government's over-all plan of helping the Atlantic fishing industry, flowing from the Hache and Harris reports. The studies done by these two men have been helpful in outlining some of the many problems faced in the Scotia-Fundy and Newfoundland regions of DFO. However, there has been no study done in the Gulf region.
The fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is in a desperate state. In some parts the groundfish stocks have all but disappeared, leaving fishermen and communities in a desperate state. This government has not taken any action to help find solutions to the problems in the Guif fishery. Until something is done, the situation will only get worse. While the government should help those communities suffering from the declines in the northern cod, it also should be working on the prevention of a total collapse in the stocks of the Gulf, including groundfish and crab.
I certainly would not want to give the impression that there was nothing positive about this bill. There are some giant steps forward, especially in the area of fish habitat protection. Before this bill, the maximum penalty for the destruction of fish habitat was $10,000. This is less than the cost of doing business. To put it another way, a $10,000 fine would be equivalent to the cost of a few
paper clips for the government. Those sections of the Fisheries Act were basically not adhered to at all. However, the fines have been increased to $1 million for some serious charges. This is certainly going to show the violators that the government is serious in protecting the fish habitat and that their actions certainly will not be tolerated.
The provisions for the charging of company officers for the violations of their employees is also an important advance. With this new section, corporate officials of Nat Sea, British Columbia Packers or MacMillan Bloedel will have to deal with the possibility that they can be charged if they allow for the destruction of fish habitat, or allow a fishing captain to overcatch his quota.
This bill also allows the courts to impose what are called alternative measures at the time of sentencing. The court can order a person to perform community service, have the person publish the details of the offence or order them to restore a disturbed site. In the fish habitat area, if someone goes in with a bulldozer or whatever, he will be forced to repair the damage. This is a very positive part of the bill.
These provisions will allow the government to properly manage our valuable fish resources. However, if the government is truly committed to preserving our fish stocks, and a way of life for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it must give Fisheries and Oceans the dollars to do the job. Cutting $11 million from the budget is certainly not the way to help Fisheries and Oceans do their job. Fines are very important. We must show that we are going to stop the violators but we also show the violators we have the means to stop them. We are putting the funds in the area and we will have the officers and enough equipment to patrol the coast. But in this situation we do not.
The government has to be prepared to educate the judiciary so that judges are aware of how serious violations of the Fisheries Act are. If the government does not act on this and the recommendations of committee witnesses, then it has to be prepared to deal with the total destruction of a 400-year old way of life in Canada.
I urge the government to put the necessary extra funding back into DFO. Let us repair the wharfs and put them in a proper state. I mentioned Savage Harbour. At Fortune it is not safe to drive a fishing vessel alongside
December 12, 1990

the wharf. There is debris sticking out and a vessel could be destroyed. It is going to get worse as time goes on. We need to spend the dollars now. If a window blows out of a building and we do not repair it and a door blows off, after a while the building will fall down. If we put a few dollars into wharf repair now, we will have the wharfs in a proper condition and the fishermen of Atlantic Canada will at least be able to fish.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Cardigan for a very balanced and comprehensive overview of this legislation and of many other matters affecting fisheries policy.
I would also like to pay tribute to his excellent work on the committee studying Bill C-74. As other members who participated in that committee will know, he was a very diligent and hard working member. He spoke well on behalf of the fishermen in his riding and indeed, of all the Gulf of St. Lawrence region.
I would like to note as well that he moved an amendment to this legislation which would have provided additional protection for lobster fishermen. That amendment, had the government seen fit to accept it-I still do not understand why they would not-would have benefited not only the fishermen in his area but the lobster fishermen in my area as well.
Indeed, the member mentioned a number of points of concern in his remarks on which I would ask him to embellish if he would. As he said, we support the principle of higher, more stringent fines for fisheries violations, particularly in this time when the resource has been declining and where the consequences for this industry are dramatic.
There remains a concern, particularly with the resource declining, of the application of these fines and especially of the fact that it seems that those most vulnerable will be the inshore fishermen. I want to ask the member, particularly with his great knowledge of the inshore fishery in his area, whether he believes that the act by itself will be sufficient to protect those inshore fishermen.
Government Orders
Also, in his opening remarks he mentioned the individual transferable quotas, which was a recommendation of the Hache task force, concerning the licensing for a large segment of the fishery. He made a point that I think is very relevant not only to the immediate debate of Bill C-74 but to fisheries policies in general. These individual transferable quotas, if not properly regulated, can have a devastating effect on the smaller fisherman who will be facing reduced catches. The quota will not be enough for the small fisherman to survive. Consequently we will see a gradual buying out of the smaller fisherman by larger fishing firms. I would like to ask the member for Cardigan if that is not a fear that he has about the fishermen in his area with respect to this individual transferable quota and other policies of this government.
Finally, the hon. member made a plea for greater expenditure on wharf construction. I could not agree with him more, but I also want to note that part of this government's plan has been the fisheries adjustment package which if my memory serves me right has not been of great value to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island. Perhaps he would like to comment on that as well.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Cape Breton. Of course we are very concerned about individual transferable quotas and that the fishery will be swallowed up by larger companies. Fines are adequate, but the problem is that we do not have DFO properly staffed to take care of the offshore. One of the prime examples would be in our area when Summerside air force base was closed, and the Tracker aircraft removed. This was something that should not have happened.
Concerning wharf repair in my district, I could go on for the day. It is a continuous battle to get a small amount of wharf repair, even general maintenance, in Cardigan in particular. For example, a $25,000 job after just one windstorm can become a $300,000 job. Shortly after that it becomes a million dollar job. If the fishermen do not have wharfs, there is no fishery.
Without a doubt we support the bill. But we need money for DFO and we need more wharf repair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this rather rare moment of support for government legisla-

December 12, 1990
Government Orders
tion, in this case regarding this very important bill, Bill C-74.
At the outset I want to say that my colleagues and I certainly do support this legislation in terms of recognizing the advantage of increasing the level of fines associated with convictions for general fishing offences as well as fisheries habitat offences. This is a move in the right direction, particularly when we look at the evidence. It is actually quite staggering. I have often wondered when one offends fisheries habitat, what is the cost? Is there a cost attached to it, if one is offending the fisheries generally?
The statistics that we were presented are from 1988, but it is fair to say that today it would be somewhat similar. In 1988, for the Pacific region alone, the convictions totalled 1,959, amounting to $320,000 in fines. The average fine for a general fishing offence was $266 and for the average sports fishing offence, the fine was $90. This seems to be rather weak. The telling aspect was that habitat convictions totalled 11, with an average fine of $3,135. In other words, out of all of the convictions of nearly 2,000, only 11 were the result of habitat problems. This comes at a time when we are concerned about the environment and reminds us all of too many scenes that we have seen.
I, for one, time and time again, have wandered up streams or canoed along lakes, only to notice that logging shows have been clear-cut in terms of whole mountainsides. We can argue the merit of that on a site-by-site basis, but we all know that when one logs a mountainside or a hillside down into a lake where fish are found, a band of trees is supposed to be left along the edge in order to protect the fisheries habitat. Often that is not the case. The logging takes place right into the river, right into the stream bed, or right into the lake.
The company then is caught. It is fined $3,135 if it is caught. Of course, that is the cost of one good B.C. tree. When a mile of lakefront is harvested, we can see very quickly that a company would reap literally hundreds of thousands of dollars from that resource and in the process destroy what could be a very important fisheries habitat.
This legislation moves us now in the right direction. I think my colleagues would agree by saying that if one carries out fisheries habitat destruction, was caught, and had to pay a hefty fine, then so one should.
I want to congratulate my hon. friend for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. He put forward two very thoughtful amendments in the discussions in committee. They were some of the most thoughtful amendments I have ever witnessed while I have been a member of the House of Commons.
The first, for example, is an amendment that would fine an individual or a company guilty of a habitat infraction. Not only would they be fined appropriately- that is the minimum-but, if the court so ordered, but they would have to pay for the promotion of proper management and control of fisheries or fish habitat. We would be saying to the company: "Listen, you have carried out a dastardly deed in terms of the fishery habitat. While you probably should be serving 15 years in jail for this horrible offence against the environment, we as a court are going to say that you need to go out into the community and carry on a process to educate and demonstrate that you clearly understand what the offence of which you have been convicted." In a sense, it would help educate the public generally. I think it is an excellent amendment and I congratulate my colleague for that thoughtful interjection.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: While I am dealing with the excellent amendments that my colleague from Prince George- Bulkley Valley made, I will go on to one other very important issue which is the requirement that of the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, file with the Parliament of Canada on an annual basis a report that lists all of the convictions that have occurred in the previous year in terms of convictions regarding fisheries habitat destruction so that we, as members of Parliament, can be appraised annually of the work being done.
It is not because we do not trust the government. Probably we do not trust the government, but in terms of individuals within the cabinet, we can say, sure, there are honourable people there. We are going to look to the minister responsible for the fisheries habitat and say, on an annual basis, we will be waiting with bated breath-no pun intended-for this report so that we can see that things have changed. If we find out that in a year only 11 convictions occurred as a result of the fisheries habitat, we will be very disappointed. We would then like to point
December 12, 1990

out that in fact the minister and the department have not lived up to the obligations of this legislation.
I think it is a nice watch-dog situation. This of course will be ongoing from government to government in the future. Again, it is an excellent initiative by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I want to refer you to the work that has been recently completed by the federal New Democrats in terms of a task force on the Fraser River. We recognize this as the jewel in the British Columbia crown. Elere is a river that makes sense for so many reasons, not least of which is the sports and commercial fishery attached to it, but of course the fact that it is the unifying ecological element that provides life for so much of the province of British Columbia, draining about one-third of that province.
Under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, a number of New Democrat colleagues who have been studying the entire watershed of the Fraser. This has been done for the first time. An excellent job was done by some very dedicated members of Parliament holding hearings throughout the region. This is on an ongoing basis. It will occur in the future as well to try to understand clearly all the implications in terms of the problems and challenges associated with that watershed.
Part of the hearings revealed an excellent presentation by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from the Pacific Region. It presented a paper entitled, The Fraser: A River of Opportunity, in which it points out throughout the entire drainage some very serious concerns. I want to raise these today briefly, if I have time.
For the Thompson-Nicola system, mainly of course recognizing the production of Chinook, coho, and pink salmon, the officials indicate in the paper that its present status is:
An area of severe-water use conflicts that significantly impacts production due to physical destruction of the habitat (e.g. water diversions, channelization, etc.) low flows and high temperatures.
The paper continues:
Water management legislation does not recognize fish as a legitimate user of water. Water quality impacts originating at Kamloops (i.e. sewage and pulpmill) make this area one of the three largest water quality hotspots on the entire Fraser River (in addition to the Prince George-Quesnel and [the greater Vancouver regional
Government Orders
district areas]). Recent co-operative efforts have been made on the Bonaparte, Nicola and Deadman Rivers to restore or develop production through habitat improvement and better water management. Impacts of the Coquihalla Highway have been mitigated.
I want to take this opportunity to recognize the superb work being done by the tribal council and the Indian bands in the central interior in terms of taking the leadership in providing enhanced habitat for the fishery to the extent of developing their own nurseries. The native people of the area need to be commended for the leadership that they provided in developing fishery stocks of one kind or another in the area.
The report continues:
This is an area where greater water use conflicts will occur. The inadequacy of water rights legislation must be addressed. Encroachment of linear facilities (highways, pipelines and railways) into habitat and salmon migration pathways are of concern and must be closely controlled.
Now, this becomes very scary. It continues:
A large unstable rock cliff will eventually result in a slide at Black Canyon on the Thompson River. This is a special concern due to its inevitability and the potential to block the river.
This is almost a shocking revelation and something we have to address very seriously.
You will recall, I am sure, Madam Speaker, being a student of geology, that back in geologic time that particular part of the river was actually dammed off as a result of a major shift of glacial till into the valley and the entire system reversed and ran down through the Okanagan Valley. Over time, erosion occurred and the Thompson River now flows into the Fraser River and becomes part of that great drainage basin.
In passing, I should also mention that with regard to the North Thompson-Shuswap system, again recognizing the production of sockeye, Chinook, coho and pink, the report states:
The habitat basin in this area is under very great pressure from forest harvesting, wood processing, urbanization, recreation, agriculture, water diversion and flood control. Low flows, high temperatures and water quality are constant limitations to fish production in many streams. Shuswap Lake is one of the most important sockeye production lakes in B.C. However, it has been subjected to the greatest developmental pressures of all B.C. sockeye producers. The invasion of the aquatic nuisance plant Eurasian Milfoil into this system is also of concern to salmon habitat.

December 12, 1990
Government Orders
With regard to the future, the report states:
In that logging, industrial and urban development has advanced in an unplanned manner-
-in other words, haphazard and chaotic-
-this area could greatly benefit from a comprehensive land-use plan.


An hon. member:: A SoCred manner.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, my hon. colleague says that this is often the way the Socreds approach development throughout the province. I am pleased to say that the regional district of that area has now taken the task upon itself to ensure that comprehensive land use planning occurs in a thoughtful manner in the future.
The report continues:
Resolution of water conflicts and removal of the veiy old and obsolete Hydro Dam on the middle Shuswap River would increase fish production substantially. Intensive large scale agricultural activities with major water demands or effluent production must be isolated from the streams. Many opportunities exist for habitat restoration.
points. Of course, if anybody is interested in copies of this, they are certainly available.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not refer to the serious challenges facing steelhead in the Thompson Basin, particularly north and south of the Spences Bridge area. Not many years ago there used to be 20,000 or more steelhead in the area which, of course, was the basis for a major sports fishery. I have had the experience and pleasure of participating in steelhead fishing in the past myself and must say today things have changed dramatically. There are not 20,000 steelhead in the river any longer, there are fewer than 1,500. Just a few weeks ago, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans allowed commercial salmon fishermen to set their nets during the height of the Thompson River run and an estimated 600 steelhead were killed in the fishery which was meant to harvest surplus chum salmon in the lower Fraser Valley. They assumed that only 15 steelhead would be lost but 600 were lost. There is a real fear now in the area that the steelhead run itself may even face extinction as a result of this unfortunate incident.
Anyone from that area would be very familiar with that.
Last, I want to refer to the North Thompson system. This is a system that is valuable in terms of the production of sockeye, Chinook and coho salmon. Of course, I am just referring to the salmon. I could refer to the great and famous Kamloops trout that is found throughout this entire area. It is important particularly in terms of the sports fishery.
With regard to the present status of the North Thompson system, the report states:
Streams flowing into the lower North Thompson River are under water-use pressures-from agriculture. Logging is the most widespread concern in the watershed.
This is particularly as a result of some clear-cut practices that are open to some serious question. I am pleased to say that the Canadian National twin-tracking impact has been mitigated.
For the future, the report states:
Forest harvesting practices must be improved in order to protect the [fisheries] habitat. Water-use conflicts in the lower basin area must be resolved with the Province.
As a result, much of the interior hospitality industry which is dependent in this season on the steelhead run is literally going out of business. Many places have had to close because the fishermen and fisherwomen simply are not there because the fish are not there. I am disappointed personally because, not being the greatest fisherman, and because of the number, I will probably not catch any this year.
In closing, I want to say that we support Bill C-74 and will vote in favour of it. We will be watching the government closely to ensure that this whole matter of enhanced convictions, if you like, in terms of fines for general offences and especially fisheries habitat offences is an important step in the right direction. We will be watching the government as a result of my colleague's amendment, which will require annual reports to Parliament, in terms of the number of convictions associated with habitat destruction. I hope this will ensure that the Canadian fishery will advance in terms of increasing stocks and a more sophisticated use in terms of fisheries management.
I could go on and on in some detail, Madam Speaker, but I simply want to say that this aspect of the report by the New Democratic Party Fraser River Task Force entitled, The Fraser River Under Siege and chaired by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap makes these


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in the House today and give my comments on Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. I am also pleased that, as a member from southern Ontario, my colleagues have given me the
December 12, 1990

opportunity to speak on this bill, which affects our major fishing resources on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
We must not forget the fishing areas of our Great Lakes. Indeed, Lake Erie is well known for Olmstead Fisheries, which is the largest inland freshwater fishery in the world. Mr. LaVerne Kelly is just one person keenly interested in this bill. He is a fisheries inspector. As well, I am no stranger to fishing, Madam Speaker. The St. Clair River, the Chenal Ecarte, Mitchell's Bay, and Lake St. Clair are excellent areas for fishing, in fact the finest fishing in North America. I have been on the water many, many times.
In dealing with Bill C-74, as my Liberal colleagues from the maritimes have noted, we generally support the principle of the new penalties contained in the new legislation. But there are areas of concern. For example, most of the current surveillance effort is concentrated on the inshore sector. And the new resources provided for in the adjustment program are geared toward the inshore sector as well.
It stands to reason that those who will be caught will be overwhelmingly from the inshore sector. Let us look at the penalties. For a general fisheries offence and obstruction of a fishery officer, there is a fine of up to $100,000 on summary conviction and up to $500,000 on indictment, with options of jail terms for one and two years. The alteration of a fish habitat and pollution of a fish habitat are liable to a $300,000 fine, and up to $1 million on indictment, with options of imprisonment for six months to three years.
As well, Madam Speaker, the failure to provide habitat information could mean up to a $200,000 fine on summary conviction, and a court option of six months in jail for a second and for later offences.
These fines and penalties are important. Everyone would agree. Both the Harris and Hache reports recommended amendments to the Fisheries Act to increase fines and penalties for such violations.
These proposals were also part of the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program released on May 7, 1990.
Those documents stated in part: "all the surveillance and enforcement in the world will not contribute to
Government Orders
rebuilding the fish stocks, if those who break the law face fines that are considered the cost of doing business."
That says it in a nutshell. There must be a deterrence factor involved here. These higher fines and penalties will bring the Fisheries Act in line with deterrents contained in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
As an aside, I could go on for hours about the Tories' Environmental Protection Act and how weak and feeble and gutless it is.
As we have seen from the minister when he presented his green plan to the House, the only thing good about it is that it is recyclable.
As we have seen, because I raised it in the House with the former Minister of the Environment, only 3 per cent of polluters were charged last year, and there is only one lonely Environment Canada inspector for all of Ontario.
Meanwhile, the government opposite will hire 4,000 new bureaucrats for the GST to make sure that ordinary Canadians comply with the tax rules.
And yet our environmental rules are not being enforced. It is my sincere hope that the new Fisheries Act does not follow the poor lead of this government's Environmental Protection Act. It is all words and no action. Let us hope that the legislation is followed to the letter.
Indeed, during committee hearings on this bill, Mr. Jim Rushton, of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union stated: "There has been a consistent cutback over the last 10 years in the percentage of the budget for enforcement. That needs to be strengthened. A fine will not deter someone who believes they will not get caught."
I have stated how most of the surveillance effort will be concentrated on the inshore fisheries. What about offshore?
We saw the embarrassing example last year of an American trawler ramming one of our navy ships in the Atlantic, and then hightailing it back to the east coast of the U.S.
Let us hope that never happens again. I know that my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has very strong views on that particular matter.

Government Orders
Overfishing is a chronic concern; the government never seems to put its money where its mouth is.
While tougher penalties are necessary, will the proposed legislation accomplish what it is intended to do? If we use the Environmental Protection Act as a guide, as an example of this government's commitment, then the new penalties in the Fisheries Act may just be words, just rhetoric, just promises.
Fishermen and all Canadians want action, not just public relations. While the government blows its horn on how wonderful the fines are, the proof will be in the results.
The government still lacks a comprehensive strategy to apprehend foreign violators, particularly American fishermen on the Canadian side of Georges Bank.
The proposed act will also require fishermen and processors to keep more detailed records. As well, fisheries officers will be given new powers to verify and seize such information. Penalties will be levied against those who fail to produce this information on request.
The bookkeeping requirements of Bill C-74 are extremely stringent.
For instance, Section 61(2) states that fishermen and purchasers may be required to keep records of the number, sex, size, weight, species, product form or other particulars of any fish caught.
Other information required will include the time and place of landings and type of gear, buildings and other equipment.
At first glance, that requirement seems overly draconian for our small, independent fishermen who are just trying to make a living in difficult circumstances.
Section 49 provides for inspection powers for fishery officers to examine records and books of account to verify information, but that is overkill for our fishermen.
I wonder if it is not too much to ask from them. It can be very time consuming for small companies to be audited in such a manner. Sections 78(2) and 78(3) could be seen as unreasonable. The terms of these sections must protect the innocent parties and convict with the full force of the law the guilty ones.
The current resources and personnel needed to enforce the new Fisheries Act are greatly lacking. As Evan Walters of the Scotia-Fundy Seashore Fishermen's Association told the committee: "There are 7 wharfs in my area, and they have 2 fisheries officers. We're back to 20 hours a day."
The government must commit new funds, more surveillance vessels and additional personnel to ensure that the provisions of this new act are executed.
While the increase in maximum fines will discourage illegal fishing, such a measure remains incomplete without the proper enforcement resources. It is unclear as well that given the hike in fines, minor offences could put small fishermen out of business. Many small operators are worried about the unequal treatment of enforcement.
Will they be fined as much as the big companies for the same offence? For large companies, a fine may just be the cost of doing business. The bill only points out the maximum penalty possible. There should also be a minimum fine.
Judges have a tendency to give lower fines; without any guidelines, the minimum practice is likely to continue. We must make sure that the fines are superior to the licensing fees. I quote Mr. Walters again: "The deterrent effect on this bill is and will only be as good as the determination and dedication of the judicial system."
On another issue, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is proposing that his new act will be part of the solution to many of the fisheries' current problems. He then concedes that more must be done for the conservation of stocks. Surveillance is a step in the right direction, but it is not the only answer to all of the problems for the modem fishing industry.
I would like to conclude by stating again that we on this side of the House, led by our fisheries critic, are in general support of the principles of Bill C-74. My only hope is that the new enforcement regulations, such as the three charter patrol vessels announced on October 2 of this year, do not follow the poor lead of the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Our fishing industry is in dire straits. The maritime provinces and the west coast depend on a successful and productive fishing industry. We need leadership on this issue. We have a lot of work to do.
As a member from southwestern Ontario, my riding knows the importance of the fishing industry. Fishermen are the "farmers of the sea", who have to deal with not only mother nature, but varying prices and depleted stocks.
Let us support our fishermen.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, this bill before the House of Commons does a lot of things that have not been mentioned in the House. One of the things is that in clause 3 of the bill, it removes sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act. It throws that out. It removes it. It takes it out of the law of Canada.
For the record, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you what these two sections are. The first section reads: "No one shall, with boat or vessel or in any other way during the time of hunting for seals, knowingly or wilfully disturb, obstruct or interfere with any seal hunting area or prevent or impede the shoals of seals from coming into that area or knowingly or wilfully frighten those shoals."
That is section 10. That has been taken out. Section 11 in the act-it is the law of Canada-is now being removed by this bill before the House. The first section reads:
Clause 3: The heading preceding section 10 and sections 10 to 16
of the said Act are repealed.
There is no reference to what is in those sections. The House has heard about the first section that is being removed. The second section reads:
Clause 3: The heading preceding section 10 and sections 10 to 16
read as follows:
11.(1) Disputes between occupiers of seal hunting areas concerning limits and the method of hunting or setting nets shall be decided summarily by an fishery officer or justice of the peace.
(2) A fishery officer or justice of the peace may appoint arbitrators to assess damages in respect of a dispute -
Then it goes on and on. The NDP should be very happy that this is being removed from the bill, because it was the NDP that objected in 1977 when it was included in the bill. It was its critic, Mr. Stuart Leggatt from New Westminster whom we all remember-
Government Orders


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Justice Leggatt. He was appointed to the bench.


George Baker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tells me that he has been appointed to the bench in British Columbia. He spoke on behalf of the NDP at that time. He said, as reported at page 7157 of Hansard for June 28, 1977:
I am opposed to the amendment, not because I am opposed to the
seal hunt but because we have nothing to hide and it seems to me the
amendment is designed to prevent complete media coverage of the
hunt.
That is the first point that should be made about this legislation. I do not now how to describe my dismay in reading this bill before the House.
The gentleman who was pushed for and tried to help the poor people all along the east coast of Canada is the member for Labrador. He is in the House today. He was the one, over all those years, who would stand and move amendments to legislation. Although the government of which he was a part had a bill before the House, he would stand to protect those people who needed income from the seal hunt. It was gratifying to see. He had his motions seconded by an hon. member from the west coast, Senator Marshall, a Tory. They joined forces.
The only objectors were of course members of the NDP. The only people who would not support the motions were members of the NDP. That is why they can stand in this Chamber without mentioning how delighted they are whenever a change is made that will sweep the seal hunters out into the cold, all those people in northern areas of Canada.
I do not know how the government can increase fines for Canadian fishermen when it has given in five different ways this year licences to foreign nations to fish our fish stocks within the 200-mile zone. I have here the foreign allocation summary of Canadian managed stocks, published this month by the department of fisheries: cod, 2G and 2H, Labrador, Faro Island, 2,000 tonnes; France, 4,500 tonnes; German Democratic Republic, 450 tonnes; Norway, 1,820 tonnes; Poland, 725 tonnes; U.S.S.R., 1,635 tonnes.
It goes right down the coast, and then we can go to 4Vn. That is an interesting area. That is Cape Breton Island. We see allocations for redfish and for cod, because of the special agreement with France. We have

Government Orders
redfish and Greenland halibut which is the same as turbot.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: It is not the same as turbot.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says: "It is not the same as turbot". I might take a little time to explain to him. The scientific name for Greenland halibut is rein-hardtius, and that is spelled r-e-i-n-h-a-r-d-t-i-u-s. The scientific name for halibut is hippoglossius, and that is spelled h-i-p-p-o-g-l-o-s-s-i-u-s. The scientific name for Greenland halibut caught off the east coast of Canada is reinhardtius hippoglossius, a combination of the two. It formed the basis of court challenges in Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and Alaska. It is defined today by the department of fisheries in schedule 1 of the Fisheries Act as No. 10, under groundfish, Greenland halibut (turbot). I will give the hon. member a copy of it. In fact I have it here, enlarged for him. One is a smaller copy and the other is an enlarged copy. I would like to table it so the hon. member can read it at his discretion.
As I was saying, according to Fisheries and Oceans, we have in Canadian managed stocks for December of this year a total in squid, capelin, Argentine, silver hake, grenadier, witch, Greenland halibut, turbot, redfish, and cod of 206,937 tonnes allocated to foreign countries inside the 200-mile zone, while the Canadian allocation is 637,000 tonnes, of which 109,000 is squid. Almost half of the Canadian allocation is assigned to foreign nations inside the 200-mile zone. As if that were not bad enough-and that is under Canadian managed stocks- let us turn to another way that foreigners get inside the 200-mile zone. That is 200,000 tonnes of groundfish under our management plan. They also got for 1991 from the Government of Canada another way of getting in under NAFO.
This has not been announced publicly, but here it is. I will table it. First, there is a new zone opened in Canada for codfish this year. It is called the Flemish Cap. It was always restricted fishing. There was a moratorium on the Flemish Cap outside the 200-mile zone because it is a spawning ground. But this year Canada has agreed to give on January 1, 1991 an allocation of 12,900 tonnes of cod for fishing. Of the 12,965 tonnes of cod, Canada has agreed that Canadians can fish 100 tonnes, 100 of 12,965 tonnes.
Canadians could not take any because Canadians would have been arrested. Canadians can now take only 100 tonnes, while Cuba gets 480 tonnes. This is agreed to by the Government of Canada. Denmark gets 2,900 tonnes; Canada gets 100 tonnes. The EEC gets 6,465 tonnes; we get only 100 tonnes. Norway gets 1,200 tonnes; we get only 100 tonnes. Poland gets 500 tonnes; we get only 100 tonnes. The U.S.S.R. gets 1,270 tonnes; we get only 100 tonnes. There is another specification that is called others. Others get 50 tonnes.
That is the second way that they get fish. 3L-N, that is a trans-border stock. That is inside and outside, 3L-N. Cuba, G.D.R., the U.S.S.R. 6,104 tonnes; others, 86. 3L-N-0, American place. It is a magnificent fish. Yellowtail, that sounds like the government. Yellowtail flounder, 3L-N-0, EEC; again other nations. 3N-0, capelin; Cuba, EEC, Japan, Norway, Poland, and U.S.S.R. Then squid in 3 and 4 along the coast of Canada, the coast of Nova Scotia mainly, a great province with great fishermen.
The squid try to get up that coast every year on July 1. Every July 1, Cuba, U.S.S.R. and other nations have the highway, the 401 of the squid, blocked off with nets assigned by the Government of Canada inside the 200-mile zone. The fishermen of Nova Scotia want that squid inshore for their fish. For the first time in Canadian history this year, this summer, in Sydney Bite, an area just outside Sydney, I suppose northeast or north north by east from Sydney to Newfoundland, that is the way the fishing zone was. Belgium was allowed to fish there this year. We have all those fishermen in P.E.I., New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia trying to sell mackerel and cannot sell it, needing mackerel for bait for their lobsters and eveiything else. This year for the first time in Canadian history in Sydney Bite and all along Nova Scotia, what did we have? We had four Bulgarian factory freezer trawlers catching mackerel. On what kind of a deal? The deal gave them 5,000 tonnes if they turned around and worked at 1,000 tonnes ashore. These are precedents. That is the second way they can get quotas.
There are five ways to get quotas. I am going to have to be quick about this. The third way is by international agreement. Every single fisherman in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Quebec is demanding more tuna licences. There is no problem getting a tuna licence in Canada. All that is

needed is a Japanese boat. Japan this year licensed 25 of their vessels in Halifax to fish tuna. They had a higher bi-catch of bluefin than we had total quota on the Virgin Rocks. That is by international agreement.
Then there are special agreements. We cannot get a capelin licence. I would be arrested if I went down and fished capelin. Any member of Parliament would, any Canadian would. There is a freeze on groundfish licences in 2J, 3K, 3L and 3Ps right now. Not a person, not even a fisherman, can get a groundfish licence if he does not have one. I cannot get a capelin licence but the Soviet Union this year by this special arrangement were not only given 32,000 tonnes of capelin in 3N and 3-0 off the east coast and 21,000 tonnes in 3K off the northeast coast, but they were given an additional 50,000 tonnes. That is 100,000 tonnes. That is 200 million pounds inside Canada's 200-mile zone.
Here we are today talking about increasing penalties to Canadians for bringing in fish.
Madam Speaker, I can see that you want me to sit down.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Criminal Code.
It was interesting to hear the previous speaker from the Liberal side make comments about one of my predecessors, the Hon. Judge Stuart Leggatt who was a distinguished member of this Chamber and was a very well-known and well-respected British Columbian. I am proud to follow after him and after Pauline Jewett in the riding of New Westminster.
Amendments to the Fisheries Act are urgently needed and long overdue. In the past, penalty and enforcement provisions were sadly lacking. Fisheries is a very important industry in my province of British Columbia and Bill C-74 is a step towards protecting fisheries in B.C., as it does increase fines for those fishing illegally or those who contaminate our fish habitat. It strengthens the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' ability to collect data and broadens the investigative powers of fisheries officers.
Government Orders
I know of the hard and somewhat frustrating work of fisheries officers in enforcement and how frustrated they have been in the past when the enforcement mechanisms have not been properly used. Several clauses in this bill do address that matter. Of what use is legislation if there is no mechanism to enforce it?
We know that toothless legislation has often been tabled by this government, so we are pleased to see that Bill C-74 does have some strength. I only hope that it will be enforced. It is not just simply a matter of policing.
The changes also help in the collection of data. We all know that effective data is very necessary in the management of our fishing resources. This bill will improve data collection. We will have better records of the species of fish that are caught. They must now be given to a fisheries officer on request.
We are entering a new era with a different approach. Canadians want to approach our environment in a responsible manner. The people who make their livelihood from our seas and rivers are no exception. They have often been at the forefront in demanding effective environmental controls, because they know that without them the resources will not be there for future workers, and in fact, for themselves.
They also understand that the collection of data is important. Unfortunately, for many of the people who work on the seas and rivers this will be somewhat of an additional burden. We know that the fishing industry has been under a heavy burden lately.
There have been trade disputes that have been decided in favour of the U.S. There has been overfishing, as was so dramatically mentioned a few minutes ago. There have been cuts to the unemployment insurance program that have had a detrimental effect on those in the fishing industry. The additional cost may be a significant factor for some of the small fishermen.
My main interests are the clauses that affect protection of fisheries and the environment. This has been of special interest in my own province of British Columbia. Earlier this week we saw the Social Credit minister of the environment resign because he did not have the support of the premier in British Columbia to bring in controls over the pulp industry which is one of the main polluters of the rivers in B.C. Many of us wonder if this is the first statement in the opening of another leadership

Government Orders
contest in the province of B.C. in the Social Credit Party. I guess those events will unfold as they might.
Environment has always been a very key concern to British Columbians. Governments at the provincial, federal and even at the municipal level have not been keeping pace with what individuals want, what average British Columbians want, in terms of protection for our environment. We all know and understand that people are leaving government on the issue of a safe and clean environment.
Clause 10 in this bill increases the penalties for harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat caused by the carrying on of any work or undertaking. A summary conviction rises from $5,000 to not exceeding $300,000 with subsequent offences carrying that fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. The penalty for the first indictable offence is also increased to a fine not to exceed $1 million or a term not over three years, or both.
We see the maximum penalties being increased, and what we want to see further is that the provisions in this act will be enforced and taken seriously. We know that we have had regulations in place in the past that have not been adhered to. The penalties have not been used to ensure correct fishing methods and sense of caring about our environment.
In the New Democratic Party we say that polluters must pay for the damage they cause, so I am pleased that the government has incorporated two amendments to Bill C-74 for this third reading.
Both of these amendments were presented by my colleague, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. I want to congratulate him for his effective work in the committee and his ability to bring the amendments through to third reading. It will make this bill much more effective.
The first amendment means that the minister must table an annual report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act in relation to fish habitat protection and pollution prevention. A summary of convictions under the act must be given. I only wish, Madam Speaker, that the government had listed the number of non-compliances as well as the number of convictions. We all know that convictions are one thing but there are a lot of situations on the Fraser River and other areas of Canada where there are non-compliances
that go on and on and on and people are very frustrated by this. The House is aware of this because of the actions of my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, who has brought the matter to our attention, that many polluters have not been prosecuted.
The second amendment states that a convicted person must, if the court orders, pay for promoting the proper management and control of fisheries or fish habitat. Originally, fish habitat was not included in Bill C-74 and I am pleased that this oversight has also been corrected.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposed legislation has a very big impact on British Columbia as a whole and it also affects my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby. The Fraser River, which is one of the most important waterways in British Columbia, in fact one of the most important waterways in Canada, runs right through my riding. It is a river that is of historical importance. Settlements in British Columbia were, in the early days, along the Fraser and it remains a very important waterway in our province. The surrounding ecosystems, the fisheries, the fish habitat, and the marshlands are increasingly being hurt and destroyed by pollution. The salmon resource of the Fraser River is symbolic as an indicator of the well-being of that river.
Madam Speaker, the commercial fishery is the fourth largest industry in my province, with a wholesale value of over $800 million in 1987. The recreational fisheries are worth $186 million annually, and are an important component in B.C's third largest industry, which is tourism. The salmon catch makes up over 50 per cent of the commercial wholesale value of all fish products. The salmon fleet is made up of 4,500 vessels and has a shore-worker population, at peak times, of 26,000 people.
Salmon is also the basis for British Columbia's important tidal sports fisheries, worth $86 million annually, and generating 4,000 person-years of employment. The Fraser River system produces more salmon than any other single river system in the entire world. In addition, another 29 fish species reside in the river and 87 more in the estuary.
The Fraser River produces 66 per cent of the total B.C. catch of sockeye salmon. With present development practices, a loss of salmon production in the urban areas

will continue and the streams will eventually cease to be productive. Urban development land use practices and technologies must change. All streams must be protected by buffer zones. We have to stop treating the Fraser River as a storm sewer, with effluent coming from our cities right into the Fraser untreated. So many people are concerned about the river but no government has really acted effectively, and all levels of government share responsibility for the condition that the Fraser is in right now.
Our federal caucus of the New Democratic Party established a task force on the Fraser River this year. Part of the mandate of our task force has been to travel through the province to various areas along the Fraser River, and to listen to the people who live, work, recreate, and walk along the banks of the Fraser River and to get the input about their concerns about the Fraser River issues. I was pleased to host one of those meetings in my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby, and I was truly amazed at the expertise that is out there. This expertise comes from people who have been working in the environmental movement, people who have been working on the river as fishermen and fisherwomen, and people who work in the industry along the river. They all share a common thread; they are all concerned about the river and what is happening there.
Madam Speaker, what future is there for the Fraser River? What future is there for the fisheries, for the fish habitat, for controlling pollution, and for the polluters themselves?
The task force on that river that we had and the co-operation that we received from people who were only too happy and willing to share with us their views on what is happening on the Fraser River serves as a prime example for the need to co-operate to get an effective strategy.
We must concentrate on pollution abatement and cleanup. It is possible to clean up our environment. It is possible to clean up the Fraser River through tough standards. Bill C-74 is just one small step along that route. But it is an important step.
I want to urge this government to go further, and to go further with the green plan that we heard about today, so that our children and our children's children will be
Government Orders
assured that when they fish on the Fraser River or on the east coast or on the seas of the Pacific, that they will be able to eat the products that they fish.
As a young child I dug for clams and oysters, and we went crabbing and collected seafood every summer off the shores of Vancouver Island. Today, many of those areas are closed to shell fish. You cannot collect the crab and shellfish there any longer.
We must make it clear to polluters through bills such as this one, through enforcement, and through the courts, that it is a serious matter. We must agree that the time for strict legislation is here. Some legislation is in place, but, unfortunately, it has not been enforced effectively.
Urban areas must also look at their impact on the Fraser River and the fisheries in general. Inland water should no longer be treated as sewers. Habitat must be protected. Fish, birds, and other forms of wildlife are entitled to our waterways. We need them. It is high time that we acknowledge that. We can no longer look at our environment in separate parts. Everything in our globe is inter-related.
Bill C-74 is an important first step for our fisheries. As my colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan has said, the increases in penalties will not help unless these penalties are actually imposed. He also noted that other acts have severe penalties. But enforcement has not gone near that amount, because the courts have treated these violations with lesser penalties. If Bill C-74 is to be worth while, there must be a strong emphasis on controlling, surveillance, and enforcement. I am concerned about this because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is somewhat under-staffed and lacking the number of vessels to carry out proper enforcement.
If fisheries is as important to the government as it is to other Canadians, as it is to the members on this side of the House of Commons, this legislation, when passed, will be given full support.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I think there is a disposition in the House that the two remaining speakers, the hon. member for Labrador, who wishes to have the floor for approximately 10 minutes, and thereafter, I believe, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who wishes to have the floor for 10 minutes as well.

Government Orders
I do not really understand why he would want to speak in view of the fact that members of this party and, I believe, members of the New Democratic Party support the bill.
Perhaps to expedite matters, Madam Speaker, you might want to see the clock extended to approximately 6.10. Thereafter, we could terminate debate and there would be no necessity for us to proceed with any kind of a vote. I think it would pass unanimously.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, my party will agree to that, on the condition that it is not approximate, but that it is exactly at 6.10.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, if I may comment, the reason that I will speak on this debate is because I made a commitment to my colleagues that I would speak on this debate. I intend to keep my word in the arrangements that I make in the House.
Second, I will agree that at 6.10 we will have that vote if my hon. friend from Labrador speaks no more than 10 minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This puts the Chair in a difficult situation. I do not think "yes, if-" is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the Chair not to see the clock until 6.10 p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: Precisely.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Precisely.
Agreed and so ordered.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I certainly cannot match the eloquence of my colleague for Gander-Grand Falls. I wish he had not left the Chamber, because I want to say that we have seen an example of something close to the ideal member of Parliament, that is one who is very knowledgeable. There is nobody either in this House or outside who is more knowledgeable than the member for Gander-Grand Falls, a member who has a commitment and a concern.
As I only have 10 minutes, and because the parliamentary secretary is going to speak after I do, perhaps I could simply lay out for him the difficulties that I have, and he can address those difficulties when he speaks.
The difficulty I have is not with the bill itself and not with the increase in penalties. An increase in penalties is fine for those who are breaking the law. There are people breaking the law. There are people who are raping a resource off our shore that is the sole means of livelihood of the people that I represent on the Labrador coast.
The bill does not go far enough. The problem is what is not in the bill. This is a band-aid to stop the haemorrhaging of not only a fishery, but a way of life. There are communities on the coast of Labrador whose sole means of support is the fishery and whose inshore fishery has gone down steadily year after year. The proof of that is the kind of response that the government has had to make. The emergency response is in answer to a failure in the inshore fishery and the fact that inshore fishermen and plant workers have not been able to quality for unemployment insurance-not just one year, but year after year.
Some of those people on my coast have not been able to get even the minimum qualifying period under emergency response. There are 100 people on a list in my office now who still do not qualify for the emergency response. Nobody wants emergency response. Nobody wants to qualify because nobody wants the program in the first place. What they want is some way of making a living. That is the difficulty.
If the inshore fishery has failed-and it has year after year-where will you get the wherewithal to fill those plants to give the fishermen and the plant workers work? Where? The only answer is in the offshore. Yet, the government has refused consistently to give Labrador an offshore quota. Here is a people who are closest to the best resource that we have. The northern cod is the richest, most lucrative, resource that we have off the shores of Labrador. Yet the government has denied the fishermen of Labrador a quota of offshore cod, in spite of the fact that the go\ ^mment policy lists proximity and historic use as fundamental to qualifying for an offshore quota.
These people whom I am talking about are, to a degree, aboriginal. In past years, through giving them an access to an offshore shrimp quota, for example, we have been able to create two co-operatives on that coast. Where the private sector has never gone or worked, we have created two native co-operatives, one in northern Labrador and one in southern Labrador, in which aboriginal people and others are making a go of their plants. A
December 12, 1990

government in the past saw fit to give out those shrimp licences and to use the policy of proximity and historical use which this government refuses to do.
There is no alternative for those communities. The only way that those communities are going to survive is if the people wanted to be moved, which they do not. They could not be moved because there are no alternatives there or elsewhere for them. But there is a possibility of making those communities work if we had the offshore quota.
That is what I want to see. Not simply penalties, but a management system which puts into place a long-term rehabilitation of that resource-not just the rehabilitation of the groundfish.
We also need some democracy in the allocation of quotas, because the allocation of groundfish quotas now in this country is a closed shop. Those people who are in there, the multinational companies who have the quotas now, have the right-as far as I can tell-to those quotas for all eternity. If one happens to be a co-operative on the coast of Labrador, there is absolutely no way to get in.
I understand that the resource has to be managed and I understand that quotas have to be kept in line. But I believe there should be some democracy built into the system whereby people who have not had access to that resource and yet people who are close to it and have historically used it should have some right of even a small quota. The quota that would satisfy the coast of Labrador would not be all that much. We are talking about something like 4,000 or 5,000 tonnes which is peanuts compared to what other large companies use. We have small plants on that coast and it would not take a great deal of fish to fill them.
Then there is the under-utilized species, the species to which my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls has referred to. Those could be allocated to those co-ops as well, and I believe that should be done.
My difficulty with this bill is not the bill itself, not the fact that there are penalties and not the fact that the penalties are going to be increased, but what the government has not done which is to bring in a sound management plan. The government has not built in some democracy to the allocation of quotas. What the government has not done is stand by its own policy of proximity and historical use in the allocation of those quotas. What the government has not done is say to aboriginal people:
Government Orders
"You are equal to everybody else. You have equal access to those stocks off your shore."
I hope that when the parliamentary secretary gets up he can address some of these points because I feel they are legitimate. We do not get cable television on the coast of Labrador so nobody sees the House of Commons. None of my people are going to hear what I am saying today. But I hope when he gets up that he addresses those problems because they are important problems. They are important problems not just to the livelihood of a resource, but to the future of people and entire communities. There is no alternative for those people and it is up to the government to come in, not simply with this bill, but a bill that addresses management, quotas, and some democracy in the allocation of those quotas.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I shall try to be brief but, as I promised earlier in the week, I would on behalf of the government make a few comments on this legislation.
I am pleased, despite some of what has gone on in the last three months, that the House is supporting this piece of legislation. I think it is particularly important and it does some things that will be of significance to the fishery in the future.
It has to be recognized that the actions we have taken here in amending the Fisheries Act are just part of a larger effort about which my friend from Hillsborough made a few comments about. It is important to recognize that there has been a concerted effort on behalf of not only the government of this country, but the government of the provinces and the industry as well, to try to address some of the problems we face in the fishery.
With this piece of legislation we increase the fines and the penalties both for fisheries offences and habitat offences. We also provide for the gathering of information that will help us have better knowledge and understanding of the fisheries so we can make better and more secure decisions in the future. It takes away some of the antiquated parts of the legislation and puts in some flexibility.
It is very important to stress that the people who will come into contact with this legislation are people who commit offences against the people next to whom they work, next to whom they live, and who depend on the resource. We are talking about very few people. It is not

December 12, 1990
Government Orders
the lion's share of those who depend on the fishery, and let us keep that in mind.
Most people want to work with the fisheries officers. Most people recognize they have a substantial role to play in conservation. That is important to remember as we deal with penalties for fisheries offences.
We heard a number of things from some excellent witnesses. We had a very good week of very interesting, articulate, and perceptive witnesses. They told us a number of things and I think I summarize fairly, in general terms, when I say, first, hit the violators hard. "Nail them to the cross" was the way one group from British Columbia put it. Have the support of the courts. It is essential that the courts support not only the amendments to the Fisheries Act, but the fisheries officers and the peace officers who bring the charges.
If this House can send a message to the judicial system, I think all of us would agree that that message should be to make the penalties suit the seriousness of the crime. As we heard from witnesses, ensure that the penalties reflect not only the severity of the crime but the enterprise involved, recognizing that a $200 fine to one fisherman is nothing compared to another. Quite clearly, what we heard a lot was to have the fisheries minister use his or her power to lift licences, and to suspend or cancel licences.
As parliamentary secretary, I can tell the House that this Minister of Fisheries intends to do exactly that, because the suspension of a fisheries licence is equally applied. I was very impressed by the number of witnesses who told us to do exactly that.
I would be remiss and, frankly, quite frustrated if I did not respond to a few of the comments made here today. I will do so briefly. I think it is important to note the number of comments, particularly from my friends from Prince Edward Island, and also raised by witnesses, in terms of the department's ability to enforce the regulations, to provide the surveillance and management. It is a very legitimate question.
As we look at offences on both coasts and in the freshwater, as we think about the new quotas we will have to deal with in the next couple of weeks and the new regulations stemming from Hache and Dunn, it is important.
There are 758 fisheries officers in 248 locations across this country and 17 other agencies can also enforce the Fisheries Act. We also have a number of ships. With the closing of Summerside, all that air surveillance disappears. To replace the DND surveillance we went to private aircraft. For the same money we got more hours. Today, DFO delivers over 7,000 hours of air surveillance at a cost of approximately $12 million. Our observer program is quite extensive and quite well known. We have new funding for surveillance and enforcement; in the Atlantic over $38 million over five years and in the Pacific almost $6 million. I think that is important.
We heard a fair bit about the Fraser River, and I think quite rightly so. Our friends in the New Democratic Party and, indeed, all the people of British Columbia are quite concerned about the Fraser River. I would draw their attention to the comments made in the green plan where quite clearly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is committed to doubling the amount of salmon in that river. It is going to take a lot of work. The government also recognizes that it will take a co-ordinated approach, using the provincial governments, the support of the stakeholder groups, people who are knowledgeable and anxious and are willing to participate. We will deal with some of the habitat questions and some of the fish questions.
It is an important endeavour and I think it is fair to say that the success of the salmon enhancement programs that we have seen in British Columbia are due for credit, and that is because there has been a shareholder approach. It is not just the federal government throwing money at it. It is the federal government in co-operation with industry, user groups, associations and the provincial government. That is why we have such a fruitful and productive salmon fishery on the west coast, and hopefully we can see some of that on the east coast in the future.
On the question of live cod, I would have to pursue this question with my colleague from Vancouver. We may be talking about a different kind of cod than my friend from Labrador and I know.
Mention was made about cutting ACOA. ACOA's money was reprofiled. My friend from Charlottetown said the government does not pay any attention to regional development because it cut ACOA. This government introduced ACOA. This government intro-

duced $1.05 billion for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency If we want to reprofile that, it has to be done, the money is still there. But, the commitment came from this government and is maintained.
First of all, I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Kent speak. Quite often we forget the situation in the freshwater fishery.
Twice during the month of November I was in Europe. It sounds glorious and marvellous, but I made eight or nine presentations a day, Madam Speaker,-I had a few days off, I recognize-with one whole day in French, and for me that can be a bit of a challenge, particularly in Paris, both in the National Assembly and at the Palais du Luxembourg where the Senate is, and at the Brussels meeting with European parliamentarians and a number of other people. I will not go into it, but it included media and groups from all over.
I led a group of members of Parliament from the Liberals. Unfortunately, our New Democrat colleagues could not join us. I know they would have if they could.
The message that I brought on behalf of my colleagues and supported by my colleagues was that Europe and the European community should meet its commitments under the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The management system was set up by the users of the resources of the Northwest Atlantic following the imposition of the 200-mile economic zone by the Law of the Sea Conference.
That organization should be the basis for managing that resource along the principles of sustainable development.
In 1977, the Law of the Sea put the 200-mile limit in place. We, as a coastal state, made a commitment that in recognition that we manage what is inside as part of our obligation, we will allow countries to come and fish for fish we do not take.
For instance, cod in 2G and 2H. I hope I can find it. Unfortunately, I do not have it here. The cod that we heard about from my hon. friend opposite, Canadians have not caught.
Government Orders
One example I can give is the quota for turbot in 1989 in 2G and 2H, 11,000 tonnes. Do you know what we caught, Madam Speaker? Thrbot, by the way is Greenland halibut. Canadians caught 18 tonnes of it either by choice or incapacity and capability of doing it.
Yes, we allow foreigners to come in, but the key there also is that we have NAFO, which I will not go into. We are short of time, and I want to get on.
The message that we had to all of them was that the European community should recognize its responsibility, manage the resource properly and get back in and comply with NAFO.
When my friend opposite from Gander-Grand Falls stands up and talks about 12,965 tonnes distributed off the Flemish Cap to a variety of European countries, then goes to Europe with me and our colleagues, tells the Europeans to comply with NAFO, then comes back here and complains about the quota given to the Europeans under NAFO, what am I to think?
It sounds great as we stand here and shake and shift. All his colleagues stand up and congratulate him, but if we are going to get the Europeans to deal with it, we have to be reasonable, responsible and insistent in the message that we send.
WE cannot stand on their home turf and tell them to comply with NAFO and then come back here and stand in front of a television and complain about NAFO.
Madam Speaker, I will sit down because I think you will find that we may be able to have the opportunity to have the vote on this question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 13, 1990