1990-10-12

[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, just before we move to Orders of the Day, I want to bring to the attention of the House a motion, and I believe there is unanimous consent for it. It flows out of the work of the committee of the House of Commons on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. I think there is unanimous consent for this motion:
That the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons travel to Cologne, Germany, from October 13 to October 18 1990, to study the Federal Republic of Germany's progressive accident prevention and rehabilitation programs.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Otto Jelinek (for the Secretary of State) moved: that Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the third time and passed.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. On a point of order, the hon. opposition Whip.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I clearly understood that the parliamentary secretary to the very distinguished government House leader would take the opportunity to explain this. I believe we were to be proceeding with Bill C-74, the Fisheries Act, on second reading, and not Bill C-37. If there is another change in the agenda, I would hope that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader would want to clarify these changes. They seem to have more dekes than Bobby Orr, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think a better analogy might be Wayne Gretzky, something more current.
Mr. Speaker, there obviously is a misunderstanding. It was our intention to call Bill C-74 and then Bill C-73, followed by Bill C-37. So it should have been Bill C-74 that was called first. If we could perhaps, by consent, go back to that and call Bill C-74.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do we have
consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

October 12, 1990
Government Orders


FISHERIES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 2, 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 second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I just had to take a moment to get organized.


Mr. Friesen:: It will take more than a moment.


Roger Simmons: The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley needs a new writer at the very least.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a minute to get myself organized because with that confusion about whether we were on Bill C-37-


Benno Friesen: It will take more than a moment.


Roger Simmons: For a bunch of people who are at 15 per cent in the poll, they are in marvellously good humour this morning. I must say that for them.


Otto John Jelinek: Excellent humour because there is no election this morning.


Roger Simmons: As we were saying, Bill C-74 is a very important piece of legislation. It is important for all the reasons that my colleague at that time-he is temporarily not my colleague-Mr. Robichaud from New Brunswick. I can now say his name because he is not currently a member of this House.


An hon. member:: A very fine member.


Roger Simmons: That will change with the next election, but my colleague at that time who led off the debate on the bill in June when we started second reading on this bill, did a very good job at that particular time.
I have to give credit to my friend for St. John's East. This is another example of how he and I, to quote a mutual friend, are cheek to cheek on so many issues.


An hon. member:: Two peas in a pod.


Roger Simmons: He promised me this morning that he would say that my friend, Fernand Robichaud, did a good
job when he introduced for the opposition this bill at second reading. He laid out very well many of the reasons why we are in support of this good piece of legislation.
Perhaps before we go to the substance of this particular bill, we ought just to pause for a moment to reflect on what I just said. We believe this is a good piece of legislation.
So often we get flayed in this House by the government for always being against everything. The public is getting the message that we will be against it if we have reason to believe it is not good for the country. That is why we are so unalterably opposed to Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act, and why we voted against it and will do so again if the government brings it before the House again. That is why we are unalterably opposed to the goods and services tax legislation.
It is also, by the same token, why we are for the bill now before us here, Bill C-74. It addresses a number of the issues that the industry has been asking for, that fishermen have been asking for, for a long, long time. Indeed, perhaps the only question is why it has taken so long to get the legislative proposals to the stage they are today. But better late than never. At least we are now going to beef up the penalties for polluters, people who go out and dump in the ocean. We are going to see to it that if they insist on dumping harmful substances in our oceans, they are going to have to pay the price for it.
Pollution of fish habitat is unconscionable in the first instance and it can no longer be allowed to happen. There is a bunch of people, a bunch of cowards, who in the dead of night are emptying their bilge tanks and dumping crude. They are messing up the habitat there. They are messing up my front yard, in effect. Don Jamieson, one of my predecessors in this particular seat, the Burin-St. George's seat, put it so well many years ago when he was talking about the geographic confines of Burin-St. George's. He said that it must be the only electoral riding in the world which is 1,800 miles long, referring to the coast line, and a quarter of a mile wide. That is true. The only qualification I would make on Don Jamieson's statement is that it is now 2,500 miles long and a quarter of a mile wide because they have added Stephenville and the Port au Port peninsula since Don's time.
October 12, 1990

The point I make stands. It is that the people who live in Burin-St. George's, like the people who live in all but a handful of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, live within gunshot, within view of the ocean. It is their front yard; it is their doorstep. They almost step in the water when they step out their front door. The whole history of Newfoundland, the whole history of the settlement of Newfoundland, was that people selected a spot near to the fishing ground. That was the prime parameter, the main reason that communities like Francois in my riding, like Grey River, and like Rencontre East. They were not selected for the reasons that Carleton Place down here a few miles from us was selected. I suppose one of the reasons had to do with the fact that it was on or near a good highway network. The people who settled in those communities in the 1600s and the 1700s did not know what a highway looked like. Their highway was the ocean. Their bread and butter was the ocean.
To this day in 1990 the bread and butter for the people who live in Garnish, for the people who live in McCal-lum, for the people who live in Grand Bruit is the ocean. Their highway still is first and foremost the ocean. It is true that one of those communities I just mentioned, Garnish, also happens to be hooked up to the Burin peninsula highway. That allows them to get to education facilities, to hospital facilities, and to shopping facilities; but the highway that allows them to get their bread and butter is still by and large the ocean, particularly for the fishermen who live in Garnish and other communities along that coast. It is their highway. It is their breadbasket. It is their front yard. For all those reasons we do not take a very kind view of people, of cowards in the night, who empty their bilge tanks in our front yard, who mess up our breadbasket, and who strew our highway, our ocean, with their leavings or their waste products.
I salute the minister of fisheries. I salute his parliamentary secretary, the gentleman from St. John's East. I salute those who take-


David Charles Dingwall: Who? Really?


Roger Simmons: Yes, I salute the gentleman from St. John's East.


Mr. Nunziata:: Isn't he a Conservative?


Roger Simmons: Now the question comes up: "Isn't he a Conservative?" That question is asked all the time in
Government Orders
Newfoundland. Is he a member of the Conservative Party? The answer is yes. Is he at heart a Liberal? I will let him answer that question. I can only tell you that I have seen him sometimes when he thinks nobody is looking doing very liberal things.


John V. Nunziata: Such as?


Roger Simmons: Such as bringing in this kind of legislation. Let's give the man from St. John's East credit where credit is due. I would put it the other way around. I would say to him that he is modest and all that, but I would submit to the House that the parliamentary secretary is one of the reasons why we have this piece of legislation here today.


John V. Nunziata: Did you vote for him?


Roger Simmons: One of the problems with my good friend here just off to my right, philosophically and otherwise-


John V. Nunziata: No, just otherwise.


Roger Simmons: One of the problems with my friend from York South-Weston, Toronto, is that sometimes he takes a particular example and generalizes. Because I happen to believe that the gentleman from St. John's West is supporting here a good piece of legislation, the kind of legislation that a Liberal government would write were it in office at the moment, that does not mean that I am going to get carried away and suggest that all the things he does needs to be embraced.
For example, he opposes the variable entrance requirement. He voted against it twice in this House.


John V. Nunziata: Does he support the GST?


Roger Simmons: He supports the GST.


John V. Nunziata: Shocking.


Roger Simmons: There are differences between the member for St. John's East and us, but that does not mean that we cannot pool our resources when it comes to something as important to our respective ridings as this particular bill. That is what we are doing in this particular instance.
I say to my friend from York-South Weston that when I went to university in Boston some years ago- and they had universities in those days-


John V. Nunziata: Did you graduate?

October 12, 1990
Government Orders


Roger Simmons: That is another question. When I went to university in those days in Boston I had a professor who when using the example that was current at the time said: "All Indians walk in single file. At least the one I saw did." Of course he was making a very important point, that we ought not to overgeneralize from one particular instance.
I am just encouraged that the hon. member for St. John's East is onside on this particular bill, but I am not going to get overly excited that he is about to cross the floor to join us, because that would create a whole set of problems on its own.
The bill is a good bill because it is going to chase down those cowards in the night, those people who when nobody is looking dump their waste in my front yard, in the ocean off Newfoundland. That has got to stop, and I believe this bill goes a long way toward helping to put an end to that kind of cowardice.
If we want to get into one or two details, the very first amendment in this bill would increase the fines for general fishing violations. Quite apart from the pollution issue that I have spent a few moments on, this bill would also increase fines for general fishing violations.
At the moment offenders are liable to a $5,000 fine or a 12-month prison sentence. The new bill increases that fine to a maximum of $100,000. As my good friend and the former premier of Newfoundland would have said, "not $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000, but $100,000 all the way up from $5,000".
I commend the drafters of the bill and the people in this House who are responsible for increasing that fine all the way from $5,000 to $100,000 in the case of a summary conviction and $500,000 on indictment, as the maximum for the indictable offence. That is exactly as it should be, and we on this side have no difficulty supporting the bill.
We come to a third point which this bill addresses. We talked so far about the question of pollution of the fish habitat. We talked about the bill's intention to bring in heftier penalties. There is another issue of course, and that is the question of adequate surveillance.
We happen to believe over here-and we have said so many times-that if the government is failing the fishermen, the fish plant workers, and the fishing industry on a
number of counts-I could go into that, but let me stick with a particular item-it is failing them most miserably in the area of surveillance or, more to the point, the lack of adequate surveillance.
I could take you, Mr. Speaker, to a community in my riding called Seal Cove in Fortune Bay. I remember one time last winter when I was there just over the Christmas season. It was seven o'clock or eight o'clock at night and it was dark. I was sitting at a kitchen table having a bit of saltfish and so on with one of my friends, and we looked out the window.


Mr. Malone:: What is saltfish and so on?


Roger Simmons: He wants to know about the so on. We had saltfish. It is a good question. He wants to know what we had for supper. We had boiled saltfish, we had boiled potatoes, and we had what we call drawn butter. We had a few onions. It was a good combination.
While we were having our bit of saltfish and potatoes and drawn butter, I looked out the window into the darkness and I saw those lights. They are almost up there. I say to my host: "I thought I knew the harbour. There are no houses in that direction. What are the lights doing out there? There should only be water out there". He said: "Yes, that is all there is. That is the harbour, of course". He said: "These are not lights from a house in Seal Cove. These are lights from the foreign boats". I said: "They must be right on top of the wharf". He said: "Yes, just about".
They are supposed to be off 12 miles somewhere. They are so close that, as you look out this guy's kitchen window, you have to stare up to see the light on the mast because they are right in on the shoreline. Why are they in there? Because those foreign ships and the captains on those foreign, be they Spanish or Portuguese- in this case they happen to have been French-know that surveillance in Canada is an eight to four job. It is basically an eight to four, Monday to Friday job. You don't push your luck if you are the captain on one of those boats between those hours. After four o'clock, particularly after dark, you have a free run of it. It is the equivalent in urban terms, to use an example that maybe people in more urban centres might identify with, of saying that the cops are only going to police the streets at certain hours of the day.
October 12, 1990

Guess what happens at the other hours. Guess what the irresponsible people do. Guess what the drunken driver does. Guess what people who would breach the law do. They obviously time their actions to ensure that they are not breaking the law when the cops are policing. That is basically what is happening in another context. That is what is happening right there off Seal Cove, Fortune Bay in my example and off all those communities.
The ocean cops, the people who are supposed to be providing surveillance, I do not blame them. They have not been given the person-years, the manpower, the womanpower, or the boats and facilities to do their job. They are prepared to have additional numbers out there. It is not their problem. It is the problem of a political decision that has been taken, that in the interest of scrounging a few bucks we are going to sacrifice an entire fishery. That is what is happening out there.
In my example, off Seal Cove that night, here were French draggers within literally a thousand feet of the shore where the law said they ought to be 12 miles off.
That does not happen one night. That happens literally every night of the year during the appropriate fishing season. It happens every single night without exception.
The authorities have been told many times. They say "we know", and then throw up their hands and ask: "What can we do about it?" If they provide surveillance at night, they will have none during the day because they are locked into a very tight schedule in terms of what kinds of resources they can expend on providing surveillance.
If there is one weakness in this bill, it is that it does not do any more than pay lip service to that important question of surveillance. That is a big term for what we saw that night out of the kitchen window in Seal Cove. That is what Newfoundlanders all along that 2,500 miles of coastline in my riding see. It is what people along the coastline in the riding of the member for St. John's East see every night. They see people raping their fish stocks, and they see it being done blatantly though in the dead of night. They are allowed to do it for a very particular reason, because they know all too well that the Government of Canada does not have either the political will or
Government Orders
the resources, as the case may be, to get out and protect our fisheries. That is sad, but it is true.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a very difficult position because I want so much to comment on some of the things that my colleague has said, but first I want to thank him for his very kind words, and for his support in a number of areas of the fisheries.
Yes, he and I agree on some matters. He voted against the variable entrance requirement last November when we passed Bill C-21. We disagree certainly on the goods and services tax, which will create jobs in my province and his as well. But we certainly agree on things like overfishing and some of the actions that should be taken there.
I want to express in this House my appreciation for his very active, vocal and visible support in the activities and the undertakings of a number of people to draw the attention of the world to this tragic problem.
I also want to congratulate him on his clearly different approach to this piece of legislation than of his colleagues. I have been stunned by the attitude of some of his colleagues which was based on the assumption that everybody in the fishery would be subject to the provisions of the Fisheries Act because everybody in the fishery was committing an offence.
The real approach, and the approach of my friend opposite, is that this Fisheries Act with its $100,000, $500,000 and in some cases much larger fines is for those that a breaking the law. It is those who are jeopardizing the fishery and putting at risk the resource for the 99 per cent of the fishermen who obey the law, who have conservation on their minds. I appreciate his approach because it is very different from what we head the other day. I think it is an important distinction.
However, I would like to comment very briefly on the question of surveillance. I remind my friend opposite that observers will be on all foreign vessels fishing inside 200 miles. They will have new powers given to them by the Minister of Fisheries and will play much less of a monitoring role and much more of a role of imposing law. We have seen dramatically increased air surveillance out of St. John's and the other Atlantic provinces.

Government Orders
For about the same amount of money the number of hours have been increased to well over 3,500, which have been provided by the-


David Charles Dingwall: Is this debate or comment?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: This is questions and comments.
I also remind him that we have new vessels in the gulf to support the surveillance opportunities.
My colleague made a very good speech, a very flattering speech for the government. I thank him for all he has done. I think he is right in recognizing that surveillance is absolutely critical. I just want to remind him that we have moved very quickly and very dramatically over the last 18 months to address exactly that question.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my friend mentioned the GST in passing. If he genuinely believes that the GST is going to create jobs in Newfoundland, he must be making an announcement that the centre that was going to Summerside is going to Newfoundland because the only jobs that are going to be created by the GST are those jobs done in Summerside and an appalling lot here in Ottawa, appalling lot in terms of numbers, not the quality of the people hired, mind you-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Don't be so sure.


Roger Simmons: So outside of Ottawa, unless he is moving the capital to Newfoundland, which is not a bad idea, unless he is moving the tax centre from Summer-side to Newfoundland which is not a bad idea in Newfoundland terms but a lousy idea in Summerside terms, unless one or two of the above, then I would say that he is not being very candid on this issue.
Let us come to the issue of surveillance. The member says that there are going to be observers on all the boats within the 200 mile limit. Is he telling us that the government is now reneging or otherwise abrogating the treaty, the last agreement between Canada and France?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I note what you are saying.


Roger Simmons: Exactly. Because, Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 months his other cheek-to-cheek friend, the member for St. John's West, went out and signed one of the more crazy documents ever. Basically the agreement with France says, "From now on if you want to rape our fish stock you have got to give us notice." That is what the document said. France may say it differently, Mr. Speaker. Under the agreement, signed in 1988 I believe, Canada has to say to France, "We want to board your ship. We want to board this particular ship." We, Canada, have agreed in writing to give notice that the day we come to check on them we are going to give them lead time so they can get ready.
Well, let's think that one through. What do you think will happen if we say to France next week that we are going to put an observer on its boat? Do you think France will be stunned enough, stupid enough, on that particular trip to commit any violations? That is what we have locked ourselves into with respect to the Canada-France agreement of 1988.
If the member for St. John's West tells the House that we are going to have observers on all the foreign boats within the 200-mile limit, I say to him that, in principle, it is a great idea but he is wrong at least in one important respect that comes to mind without having benefit of checking my notes. I can tell him right off the top of my head that he is wrong in so far as the Canada-France agreement is concerned because under that agreement, as he well knows, we have to give prior notice to the French that we want to put an observer on board the boat.
That is like saying to me, "Simmons, drive down the highway at 150 miles an hour for 10 miles, but after 10 miles there are cops." Now what do you think I am going to do when I get to the 150-mile mark? That is exactly what the French fishermen are doing. They have been given notice in the agreement. They have it in writing that they will be given notice if they are going to be raided. Well, if I were them I would be on my best behaviour during the raid.
The member and I agree that we have observers on the vessels by prior arrangement. They know in all cases before the fact that there are going to be observers aboard. But more to the point-here's the point that I think my friend from St. John's East misses; I will say it in a sentence and then I will sit down-it is not important to know which boats the observers are on. If you are out to break the law it is more important to know which ones they are not on. They also know that, too.


David Charles Dingwall: The member for Burin-St. George's has given a very good speech with regard to Bill C-74 and it shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the expertise with regard
October 12, 1990

to fisheries related matters is certainly on this side of the House.
I wonder if he would care to comment with regard to other issues of surveillance. It is fine to have provisions under the act in order to increase the various penalties and sanctions. Could the hon. member indicate to the House whether or not, as a result of Bill C-74, additional individuals will be retained by the Government of Canada in order to facilitate the enforcement of those new laws. It is my understanding and that of some other colleagues that the Government of Canada is not intending to proceed with the hiring of additional individuals in order to assist with the enforcement of these new standards.


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend for Cape Breton-East Richmond. This is my first opportunity to congratulate him publicly on his latest achievement, having been designated by our leader, Jean Chretien, the next member for Beausejour, as the chief Whip of the Liberal Party. I want to congratulate my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I see your signal that I am out of time so I will be very quick and to the point. He asked a question and then he answers it. Are there going to be additional enforcement personnel? Of course he answered the question because it is blatantly obvious to the whole world that this government is going to bring in some marvellous legislation, legislation that we can support. But it is a case again that this government does not put its money where its mouth is. It says fine words, and nobody can knock this piece of legislation.
What it can knock and what it does knock, and what the gentleman for Cape Breton-East Richmond just knocked in effect, is the appalling fact that this government is going to create the mandate for extra surveillance and then fail to provide the resources, the manpower, the womanpower, the person-years to follow up to enforce that surveillance. That is the tragedy.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in this debate on Bill C-74, amendments to the Fisheries Act. I want to join with colleagues on this side in giving just due to the
Government Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who I know has some understanding.


John V. Nunziata: Don't get carried away.


David Charles Dingwall: I am being very liberal, Mr. Speaker, when I say some understanding of some of the concerns of individuals in Atlantic Canada.
The substance of this bill, has received the support of many of my colleagues on this side. I know that the parliamentary secretary has had a fair amount to do in making certain that this bill has come forward.
I want to put on the record, though, that by increasing summary conviction fines up to $100,000 for general fisheries offences, and then indictable offences up to $500,000 with options for imprisonment of one or two years, I can concur with that. I fully understand, as my colleague has said, the importance of increasing those fines.
There is another part to the equation. It is well and good to have sanctions under a statute, but if those sanctions cannot be enforced by the Crown, it is all for nought. Members can argue, and argue correctly, that this is a signal to those who wish to breach the Fisheries Act that there will be substantial fines against them.
On the other side of the coin, there is no reasonable guarantee that fisheries officers and the Crown will supply the individuals to do the enforcing. Therefore, one has to question the bill both from an intellectual perspective as well as from a practical perspective. It is great to have a sanction, but if one cannot enforce that sanction, it is just window dressing.
There are fines of up to $300,000 on summary conviction for the alteration of fish habitat. On an indictment, it is $1 million. The Crown in a criminal case has the option to proceed on summary conviction or it has the option to proceed on indictable offence, depending upon the value of the product which is in question.
I have great confidence in our judiciary system, but what the act fails to state is what is a minimum fine. I know members opposite and perhaps members on this side would agree that the judiciary has to have some latitude in the exercising of its role in the adjudication of different cases. But there is a big difference on summary conviction when you talk of a hundred bucks versus $300,000. A substantial difference.

October 12, 1990
Government Orders
Likewise, if you proceed under the indictable, there is quite a difference between $301,000 and $1 million. I would have thought that somewhere within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and to use a phrase-aided and abetted-by the Department of Justice, the bureaucracy in the minister's office would have wanted to tty to clarify for us what the minimum fine is going to be. I am afraid that some of these fines will not have a minimum, but in fact will end up being very, very, low, thereby defeating the purpose or the purposes of the act.
Again, where are the practical aspects of the act? Have we heard from ministers of the Crown that additional individuals will be retained? Have we heard that various enforcement agencies are going to be utilized to enforce these sanctions? We have not heard that. We have heard the opposite. In point of fact, no additional individuals will be retained in order to enforce the sanctions under that particular statute.
The same sanctions under Bill C-74 have to do with the pollution of fish habitat. The Harris report, the Hache report, and, I believe, under the auspices of the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, all alluded to greater sanctions under the Fisheries Act, and I think the parliamentary secretary, who is nodding his head, would concur with me on that.
There is a bit of a concern, and I just flag it. I do not think it is an overwhelming omission, but I think it has to be put on the record, and it is this. Is this new law and these new sanctions, under the Fisheries Act, discriminatory in this sense? Many individuals, in the Atlantic fisheries particularly, believe the sanctions are earmarked for the inshore fishermen.
I hope the parliamentary secretary would avail himself, when it is his turn to speak, to inform the House in greater detail. But there is that concern. These sanctions are in place and, if they are to be enforced, they will be enforced on one sector of our fishery, namely, the inshore fishery.
The policies opposite and the made-in-Canada recession, or as the Prime Minister says, the slowdown or the shutdown-whichever one you wish to pick-have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada. Members on this side, my colleagues, the hon. members for Cardigan and Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, have brought to the attention of the House on several occasions our attempts to provide a variable entrance rate, to assist fishermen. But
the government, for whatever reason, refuses to put that into play in order to assist our fishermen and our inshore fishermen, in particular.
There is legitimate concern out there because of the recession and because fishermen are not obtaining the benefits of the variable entrance rate which was in place for 14 years. It was brought in annually by the respective governments opposite as well as this party. The governing party does not wish to go along with that at the present time. And, of course, there is the fact of fish stocks. All of those, collectively, have played very negatively on our inshore fishermen and now the sanctions of Bill C-74 seem to suggest that it is discriminatory against the inshore fishermen.
Why would I say that on the floor of the House. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because there are some groups who have not had meaningful consultations or who feel that the consultations that they did have have not been meaningful. In particular, they have been organizations in the inshore fishery.
I would hope that when the bill is referred to a legislative committee that it will make a concerted effort to seek out those groups who have expressed legitimate concern about the discriminatory aspects of Bill C-74 and, as they say, clear the air by having that rectified.
The industry has generally supported the provisions of Bill C-74. But I want to flip from the inshore to the offshore. I hope the parliamentary secretary, when he gets up to speak later, will be able to outline in spades for members of the House as to what the Government of Canada is going to do to enforce the sanctions under Bill C-74 with regard to the corporate sector.
Before the hon. member rises and alludes to the fact that members on this side are perhaps against corporations, that is not the case at all. We are very supportive of businesses and free enterprise, but there has to be a measure of fairness. Under the provisions of Bill C-74, are we going to charge an inshore fisherman $250,000 because he has a general offence against the Fisheries Act? Then National Sea Products, bailed out by banks and governments, will get a fine of $150. That is the fairness, but there is no minimum. There is wide latitude, and we know what happens. We have clear evidence before us. We see it all the time where inshore fishermen are sustaining the worst, while in other instances individuals do not share their fair burden. I

would hope the parliamentary secretary would want to address himself to that.
There are several other points I want to raise because I think they are germane to the debate. The parliamentary secretary knows that the Maritime Fishermen's Union is questioning, as I have questioned here this morning, whether or not the purposes of Bill C-74 are directed against the right people. Who are we talking about? Are we talking about an inshore fisherman who has a wife, a family, a mortgage, and a business loan, and who is mortgaged to the hilt at the bank and the fisheries loan board? Or are we talking about those who deliberately, intentionally, consistently, and repeatedly go out and breach the act? I think we are talking about all of them. But, again, I come back to the measure of fairness, and the bill lacks fairness.
The parliamentary secretary is shaking his head. He is a reasonable individual at times, for fleeting moments in the dark, in the night. I can tell him that individuals who are gainfully involved in the inshore fisheries believe that this act has been put in place in order to hit them. I hope he can dispute and clarify for all members as to whether or not that aspect of what I have raised here this morning is on point.
My final point has to do with the over-all issue of surveillance generally.
Canadians on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, or wherever they may be, are sick and tired of governments allowing individuals to pollute our waters for whatever reasons. They ought to feel the full effect of Canadian law.
If we are concerned about the environment as has been alluded to by the minister now responsible for environment, by the Prime Minister, by members of the cabinet opposite, it is just not satisfactory to have provisions within a federal statute of increasing the fines without having the human resources to put them into effect. I made that argument with regard to fisheries, and now I am making it with regard to the environment. Either one is serious or one is not serious. The lack of a financial commitment by the Government of Canada to see to it that these sanctions will be enforced has caused not only great concern among fisher people-persons in
Government Orders
the fisheries-but great difficulty for Canadians who live in urban centres as well that our environment is not being protected. The likelihood of it being protected is not very good.
The track record of the government opposite demonstrates to most reasonable Canadians that its report card is at about 22 per cent, 7 percentage points higher than what it is in the polls. That is not very good. Just recently we saw an example in Saskatchewan with regard to an environmental project.
I say to you, Sir, and to the parliamentary secretary, to whom I am going to listen when he has the opportunity to stand in his place and try to defend the indefensible, I will listen.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: You shouldn't prejudge.


David Charles Dingwall: That is right. I should not prejudge.
Hopefully, the parliamentary secretary will take to heart the omissions in the federal statute, will want to clarify the discriminatory aspects of Bill C-74, will want to engage actively and enthusiastically such organizations as the Maritimes Fishermen's Union, the various co-ops, the fishermen's organizations in all of Canada and will listen to them. It should provide recourse so that they do not feel or are under the impression at any time that Bill C-74 is discriminatory.
The comments that I have made in this debate, I hope will be taken seriously because they are offered in a serious way. They have to do with criminal law, the enforcement, the human resource aspect-a failure by the Government of Canada-and, of course, the environmental concerns that all Canadians share from coast to coast.
More important than the parliamentary secretary is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is the one who has to enforce this bill and in whose name it is. He is the one who must show some leadership. He must come to the Commons and to the committee and tell us all the new moneys he will provide for enforcing the sanctions under Bill C-74. That is what he should do. He should come to the committee and talk about the human resources. He will come to the committee and give us provisions with regard to minimum fines. Maybe the minister-

October 12, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the Elouse will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has cancelled Saturday rural mail delivery in Prince Edward Island, the country's most rural province, effective October 15. This decision was made without the consultation of those whom the decision most affects, the people of Prince Edward Island.
I have written several times to the minister responsible for Canada Post, asking for a reversal of this decision, or at the very least, a six month extension. This six month period would allow for proper review and consultation to take place.
I am also concerned with Canada Post's recent cuts to the hours of service of rural post offices throughout Prince Edward Island. Today, in the House of Commons, I am requesting the minister responsible for Canada Post to grant a six month extension and demonstrate to rural Prince Edward Island that this government is interested in supporting rural life, not dismantling it.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, despite all evidence to the contrary, this government refuses to face the truth and admit that we are in a recession. It refused all week to consider alternatives that would help Canadians survive the hard times.
This week fish workers from the west and east coast tried to get the government to listen. Instead, they found bull-headed Tories who cannot or will not grasp the fact that there is a crisis. I want to point out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that her government can do something right now for the fish workers in Canada and re-introduce variable entrance requirements to unemployment insurance. It would be a step in the right direction.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Diversification Office recently provided a $3.3 million repayable contribution to assist in the installation of a flue-gas desulphurization demonstration unit at the Poplar River Power Station near Coronach, Saskatchewan.
The LIFAC process, which involves limestone injection in furnace and calcium oxide activation, should reduce by 90 per cent the sulphur dioxide released from coal fired power stations.
Sulphur dioxide is one of the leading causes of acid rain. This new LIFAC technology will provide a cost effective means for assisting in meeting the goal of reducing acid rain causing emissions by 50 per cent by 1994.
I congratulate Western Diversification for its initiative in this partnership with SaskPower and Tampella Ltd., a partnership which could have far reaching environmental benefits for all of North America.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the most pressing mission now before us is to rekindle our visions for a united country.
I would like to speak for a moment about our commitment to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is going to be a difficult concept to initiate and establish in Canada. Many of my citizens talk about the melting pot philosophy in the United States and how it appears to work well for that country.
I would like to say that we in Canada have always stated very clearly, and did so in the free trade debate, that we are not Americans, we are Canadians. That difference, and as our French citizens would say, vive la difference, is multiculturalism. The differences, variety and diversity it brings to our country will make us stronger and will make us great. It is a concept that I support completely.
October 12, 1990


CANADA POST
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lawr ence MacAulay (Cardigan): Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 1990, officials from Canada Post announced the elimination of Saturday rural mail delivery in Prince Edward Island. Since that time I have written to the minister responsible numerous times and I have been pushed off.
The minister must know that the people of Prince Edward Island are outraged. There was no consultation with the public or members of Parliament from the island. Indeed, officials from Canada Post have admitted to me that the decision makes no economic sense.
On Wednesday, I presented hundreds of petitions protesting this decision. The people of Prince Edward Island want Saturday mail delivery. On Monday, Saturday rural mail delivery will be no more because of the attitude of this government. The people of Prince Edward Island will not forget what this government has done to them and this unnecessary action will be remembered when the people go to the polls.
I urge the minister to listen to the people of Prince Edward Island and maintain this customary service.

Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the first ever National Science and Technology Week in Canada.
In our ever-changing world, Canadians need science to succeed. Technology is advancing at an extraordinary pace and in order to compete in a global market, Canadians must continue to be on the cutting edge of new technology.
In our riding of Elk Island, there are some exciting new initiatives. In Fort Saskatchewan we have Westaim, a world class research and development centre for advanced industrial materials. In Strathcona County a Canada-Finland joint venture will produce MTBE, an octane booster to replace lead in gasoline, and at the Beaumont High School, a pioneering high tech curriculum program designed and taught by instructor Paul
Wozny will enable his students to encounter high technology applications in their science studies.
Let us work together to make National Science and Technology Week a success. Let us all work together to build a stronger Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance claimed yesterday that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was in complete and utter support of the GST, but reading their brief of June 28 to the Senate shows something completely different.
"The federation worries that the tax will have a negative effect on households. Net farm income will be extremely affected." That is a quote from their brief. Farmers worry about the visibility of the tax, and the paper burden. Farmers wonder if the 7 per cent rate will be raised in the future. It is likely. The current sales tax was raised 50 per cent by the Tories.
The federation wants an independent body with real power to monitor consumer complaints, not the toothless, feeble watchdog recently set up. I quote: "The usual response to the first whiff of inflation is to raise interest rates. Farmers don't need higher interest rates on top of tax increases."
Farmers know that the GST is the wrong tax at the wrong time. Farmers across the nation are part of the 85 per cent of Canadians who say loudly and clearly: Axe the tax.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, ethanol blended gasoline has been declared an environmental choice product by Environment Canada. The environmental choice program and the Canadian ecologo is a program involving environmental advocates, consumers, business and the scientific community, and is designed to provide reliable independent information to consumers so that they can make wise environmental choices.
Ethanol blended gasoline becomes the only transportation fuel which has been determined to result in a more positive effect on the environment. The blend

October 12, 1990
reduces carbon monoxide and benzene exhaust emissions. In addition, the production of ethanol would provide an excellent market for lower grade grains.
I urge the cabinet to produce the financial stimulus with which the production and utilization of ethanol blended gasoline could expand.
^	4*


TRIBUTE TO PASCAL PITRE
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the remarkable bravery of one of my constituents in Petit-Rocher, fifteen-year-old Pascal Pitre.
On August 5 last summer, on Kelly's Beach in Kouchi-bouguac Park, New Brunswick, Pascal Pitre saved the life of a seven-year-old child.
The child had apparently lost consciousness in water two metres deep, because of a strong current and high winds. Pascal bravely dived into the water and saved the little boy. If Pascal had not acted at the right time, the child would have died. I think that what Pascal did deserves our recognition and applause.
And I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the heroism of all Canadians who have acted similarly. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no greater act of bravery or heroism than to save the life of another human being.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: The Government of Canada, through the Department of Agriculture, has announced a new agricultural training program. Young farmers and future farmers from Eastern Quebec, thanks to a training program that has received federal assistance totalling $650,000, will be able to upgrade their technical skills and develop their ability to use new procedures, while improving and diversifying their practical experience and training. This program is part of the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement on the economic development of Quebec's regions.
Thanks to the involvement of the Canadian government, many future farmers will be able to develop their skills and gain valuable experience.
Mr. Speaker, this is one more initiative by the Conservative government that will ensure our regions have a future in the agricultural industry.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, throughout British Columbia lumber mills are closing and people in the forestry industry are being thrown out of work because of a made in Canada recession brought about by this government's policies.
Recent closures at Tolko Industries at Heffley Creek have thrown 120 people out of work. At Valemont, B.C., there is a temporary closure of Slocan Forest Products, throwing more workers out.
In Kelowna and Armstrong, Fletcher Challenge is reducing operations 20 per cent. Since May 1989, the company has eliminated 1,114 workers throughout the province.
Weldwood Canada is cutting production by 30 per cent in Williams Lake and Quesnel. At Vavenby, Weyerhaus-er is reducing operations, cutting 60 more jobs.
In the Okanagan-Shuswap, the future of up to 200 more jobs are on the line as mills consider further lay-offs, their only option.
The New Westminster IWA Local has lost over 1,000 members in the last few months and throughout British Columbia, 5,000 forestry workers have been sidelined this year.
When will this government wake up and smell the coffee? It's blind allegiance to an artificially high dollar, it's outrageous high interest policy and it's capitulation to U.S. interests to enshrine the 15 per cent export
tariffs-


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


THE SENATE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in their attempt to undermine the legislative agenda of the legitimate elected government of this country, the Liber-
October 12, 1990

al senators are clearly displaying their contempt for democracy.
Perhaps the Liberal senators are unaware of the practical implications of their irresponsibility. The people of Canada can only stand and watch as an unelected body holds up the passage of important pieces of legislation in the name of partisan politics. No group is paying a higher price for the delays associated with the Liberal antics in the Senate than the people of Atlantic Canada.
Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project, as passed in the House of Commons on October 4, 1990, is a tremendous opportunity for economic development in Newfoundland, Labrador and throughout the Atlantic region. In delaying the final passage of this bill in the Senate, the Liberals are saying no to the immediate undertaking of a project which will mean increased prosperity for Atlantic Canada.
I therefore call upon the Liberal senators to end their self-interested manipulation of the rules of the Senate. I call upon them to let consideration for the interests of those who eagerly await the passage of this key piece of legislation prevail over the narrow-minded partisan politics which have up until now determined their actions.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing -Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has won a prestigious R and D 100 award in an international competition sponsored by the American journal R & D magazine. These awards recognize innovators and organizations for outstanding practical development of significant new technical products.
The product IMPELA is the world's most powerful high energy industrial accelerator. Its development is based on work carried out at Chalk River in the 1970s and 1980s as part of its fundamental science program.
IMPELA will provide an economic source of electrons for use in the manufacture and high speed processing of plastics, rubbers and other materials, the sterilization of medical products, the disinfestation of export commodities and the processing of wastes to enable re-use or
recycling. Industrial applications include strengthening plastics in the automotive and construction industries, treating sewage wastes, treating hospital and airport wastes and treating rubber products.
This award underlines the importance of how continued support for AECL's research programs can result in innovative products for all kinds of industries, and we congratulate them.


JUSTICE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has two functions. In the second function, as Attorney General of Canada, she is responsible for federal criminal prosecutions, such as drugs, taxation or immigration cases, for examples.
The Law Reform Commission of Canada has just pointed out that this puts the minister in a potential conflict of interest situation. The best example is in my home province of British Columbia where there was an alleged fraud by the tourism minister, Bill Reid, allocating Loto grants to friends.
The then attorney general, Bud Smith, decided not to prosecute. If I can put it charitably, this was a controversial decision and caused an uproar in B.C. politics.
I believe the solution is to appoint a director of public prosecution, both federally and provincially, appointed by cabinet but responsible to the House. The new office would increase the independence of Crown counsel, lessen the apparent conflict of interest and, by placing control in the hands of a person with security of tenure, provide greater continuity to the prosecution service.
I advocate the Government of Canada do just that.


BILL C-21
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I heard from a constituent caught in the system: a woman 49 years of age, unable to find work, lacking skills required to find a decent job. She found hope in a course available in a Calgary college, but that hope was dashed when she found her only subsistence, a UI cheque, would be stopped if by going back to school she stopped looking for work. Catch-22, trapped on the welfare treadmill.

Oral Questions
This woman suffers needlessly because this Elouse passed amendments to correct that inequity. The elected members of Parliament passed amendments to the UI act to support retraining on November 6, 1989. Those amendments have been held up by the Senate, by Liberal senators, for 11 months. This poor woman suffers while MacEachen plays petty politics.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday both he and the Prime Minister lacked the courage to use what is for them the dreaded r word, recession, even though eveiy other Canadian knows it is a fact that we are in a recession. But the Prime Minister made some progress. He used the s word, slowdown. Yesterday he told reporters in Montreal:
-we have induced a slowdown. Mr. Wilson said as much in his budget of February. Look at the budget. It's as clear as springwater.
Those are the exact words of the Prime Minister.
Well, yesterday and earlier this week, more than 5,000 Canadians were told that they were being induced out of their jobs by this government's planned slowdown. I want to ask the Minister of Finance: How many more thousands of Canadians are going to be induced out of their jobs next week? What is the government's plan for next week?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me get back to this point that the hon. member is referring to about his cute little expression, the r word.
I have been quite forthright with Canadians in explaining what is the government's policy, what is happening in the markets and what is happening in the economy, but as Minister of Finance I have to base my comments on facts. What I have said in a very clear way-and I go back to a speech that I made September 17 of this year-"I now expect that the second half of this year will see little or no growth, with the possibility of a further decline in output in the current quarter".
If there is that decline in output in the current quarter then we would have a technical recession. When we see the data and the end of November this year then I will be prepared to use whatever words are appropriate to describe that.
If the hon. member is asking whether we are in a recession as defined by Alan Greenspan as follows: "a period in which business activity not only slumped but dropped significantly enough so that the downturn feeds on itself", that is not what is going on in the economy today. I do not know of any economist who is saying that that is going on in the economy today. If that is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply, he is exaggerating the situation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be surprised that Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States, knows more about the Canadian economy than Canadian economists at the Conference Board of
Canada.
Why does the minister not listen to the economists of the Conference Board of Canada who say that we are in a recession, the first made-in-Canada recession?
Why does the minister insist that what is going on is only technical? To the thousands of Canadians who are losing their jobs due to this government's policies, it is not technical. It is serious. It is damaging. To the thousands of people who are losing their businesses due to this government's policies, it is not technical. It is a fact. It is damaging. Will the minister change his plan from one that is creating recession, inducing the loss of jobs? Why does he insist on making this recession more and more bad and harmful for this economy?


Geoff Wilson: The type of recession we are trying to avoid, Mr. Speaker, is the type of recession that my hon. friend was directly associated with and directly implicated in, in 1981-82. It was that type of recession that was induced by the policies followed by the government he was involved with that let inflation get out of hand, that let inflation move to 13 per cent, and that allowed interest rates to go to 20 to 25 per cent.
To stop the inflation that was getting totally out of hand at that time, we have been trying to restrain that inflation and have been reasonably successful at doing so. Now we have been able to reduce interest rates, as we have done over the last three and a half months, by one
October 12, 1990

and one-half percentage points and will be able to continue that process as we see the progress in the economy continue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada said we are in a recession, the first made in Canada recession, as a result of the policies of this minister and his government.
I want to ask the minister why, if he is so worried about inflation, he insists on introducing his GST policy which, according to the Conference Board of Canada and all the experts, will create even more inflation. Why doesn't the minister withdraw his GST, if he really wants to fight inflation?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I note that my hon. friend has omitted referring to some of the experts that the media have referred to in the last day or so where they talk about the importance of getting the GST-the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce. Each one has said that it is important, in the interests of the economy and the progress we can make in strengthening our economy, to bring in the goods and services tax.
Why is it on the one hand the Leader of the Opposition can get up on his hind feet and say "do something about the economy" and, on the other hand, he condones this activity in the Senate where the senators are holding back on a principal piece of legislation that is very important for the health of this economy, as endorsed by many of the experts to which he likes to refer?
It is this piece of advice that the Conference Board is saying is right for the economy. It is this piece of advice that the Economic Council is saying is right for the economy. The only reason why this is being held up is pure partisan opportunism.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions
Yesterday, in response to the government's aversion for the r word, the Prime Minister said that this is not a recession, that this is, and I quote, "a planned slowdown".
How many more planned bankruptcies has the Minister of Finance in store for small businesses in this country? How many more planned lay-offs and mortgage foreclosures? How much more planned misery does he have in store for the Canadian public before he recognizes the bankruptcies of his own economic policies?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of what is going on in the economy. I have had widespread discussions and consultations with people who have told me of the difficulties they are going through in the economy today. I understand that. I have said on many occasions I take no pleasure in that.
What I do know is that if we had gone the other way, taken the alternative of letting the inflation get out of control, letting the party go on even further, the problems to the economy would be far more severe and the people that my hon. friend is concerned about would be far more disadvantaged by the problems which would result from that.
This is what we are trying to do: demonstrate some leadership, look ahead, try to anticipate these problems, snuff the problems out before they become a real problem, and in that way get on to a path of non-inflationary strong growth in the future at an early stage.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
At the same time as this government's economic policy has wrung the neck of the Canadian economy, this government spends over $1.5 million in the production of comic books and now cartoons in newspapers across the country to sell the unsaleable, the GST Consumer Information Office.
When is the minister going to stop providing comic relief for Canadians and start providing some economic relief to this government caused made-in-Canada recession?

Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me refer again to these business leaders who came out yesterday somewhat critical of the Government of Canada where they-


An hon. member:: Somewhat?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Let me refer my hon. friend to Mr. D'Aquino says: "Mr. Wilson's performance in this area has been better than that of all the provinces. In fact this problem includes all of us. We are all part of the problem. We are not pointing the finger at Mr. Wilson".
The point that these organizations were making is that they want to see interest rates come down. I want to see them come down. Their message is: get the deficit down faster and further and that will help take the pressure off interest rates and allow us to get interest rates down.
I have been Minister of Finance for six years and, in those six years of time, every time we have brought out a measure to reduce a deficit, every time we have brought out a measure to reduce government spending, the Liberal Party opposite has opposed us every inch of the way. Now that we have this goods and services tax proposal, which is designed to stabilize the fiscal position of the Government of Canada, what do we have from the people opposite? We have them supporting the unelected Senate, supporting it in thwarting the democratic process.
*	* sfs


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qti'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Yesterday the independent panel studying the Alame-da-Rafferty Dam project suspended its operations in disgust and frustration over the blatant disregard by the Government of Saskatchewan for an agreement signed last January with the federal government.
The agreement was signed to comply with a Federal Court order which stated that an independent environmental assessment be conducted on this megaproject. The court indicated that if there was no panel inquiry the licence should be immediately revoked.
Now that the panel has suspended its inquiry, will the minister comply with the court order and revoke the
licence today?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I would like to give a bit of the history. This has been a very contentious issue for quite a while.
In July I toured the site. I met with residents. I met with the premier. I met with environmental groups. I met with the governor of North Dakota. Since that time I have tried to reach or to find a reasonable situation where on one hand the interests of the review panel, Saskatchewan, the environment, and the economy could be met.
I have had numerous conversations with both the Government of Saskatchewan and members of the review panel. I must say that common ground could not be found and that led to the decision yesterday by the panel of suspending their operations until a more reasonable situation could be developed. I respect their decision. We are trying to meet the questions they have raised in their letters that I received this Thesday.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Yesterday Premier Devine claimed that he and the federal environment minister struck a secret agreement on September 5, which dramatically changed the scope of the panel and allowed Saskatchewan to go full speed ahead on the construction.
Did the minister sign such an agreement? Does such an agreement comply with the court order?
Did the minister inform the panel? Why did he not inform the public? If there is such an agreement, will he table that agreement right now in the House?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised five questions. The answers are no, no, no, no and no. There was no such agreement so it was not communicated to anybody. There is no secret agreement in this deal.
There is one agreement with Saskatchewan. It is an agreement that was signed between the Government of Canada and that of Saskatchewan in early 1990. That
October 12, 1990

agreement is the one that is signed. It is the one that is in force at the moment. That agreement calls for a number of measures on both sides.
We expect to honour our side of the agreement. Saskatchewan should agree to honour its side of the agreement. If that compliance with the agreement is not met, I can only say that the federal government will take all possible actions to make sure that that agreement is honoured.


Simon Leendert de Jong: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard that answer before. We have heard that answer continuously, even from the previous minister. In the meantime, the Saskatchewan government continues with its construction.
Canadians are watching this new minister and this government very closely. They are judging what real commitment it has to the environment.
Here we have a province which continues to defy three court orders and a premier who is thumbing his nose at the laws of the land. The minister's support for this lawless behaviour by another Conservative government is undermining our institutions, in this case, the courts.
Who is in charge here? Is the minister going to allow Premier Grant Devine to violate the court order, or will he put a stop to it right now and revoke the licence?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, since this controversy came to light publicly yesterday, I immediately instructed my officials that, under the agreement and until we are satisfied that both parties are living up to it, no further payments be made to Saskatchewan.
That has been done, so that the payment for October has been suspended. The payment for November is frozen, and it is really frozen.
Also this morning I asked for further legal advice on the enforcement potential which the government has with regard to the January agreement, which I still consider to be the agreement under which we are currently operating. I want the project to have a full and complete review. I want to make sure that the interests that were protected under the court order are respected.
Oral Questions


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister.
It is very clear that the Premier of Saskatchewan is flouting the federal jurisdiction. He is challenging the right of the federal government to exercise its constitutional powers to protect the environment, and the minister is not prepared to take the necessary action.
I want to ask him this. Under the International Rivers Improvement Act, the federal government clearly has the power to revoke the licence to stop the construction. Why will the minister not go forward and use the powers that are clearly his, rather than the kind of obfuscation and delay he is talking about today?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how my hon. colleague defines delay. I acted immediately, as soon as the news release was put out by the Government of Saskatchewan last night. There is no delay there.
On the other hand, I am sure that my hon. colleague would grant me the possibility of receiving legal advice on the matter before initiating any further measures. I said very clearly that further compensation payments to Saskatchewan had been frozen, that we, as a government, are extremely disturbed by this turn of events. We understand why it has come about.
Before going further, I want to consult with legal experts to know exactly the scope of the means of intervention we have in this whole case. But we are acting, and there certainly is no delay.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the delay is not taking place in Saskatchewan where the government is starting the bulldozers. It is starting to expropriate land while this government dithers.
He has clear powers under the International Rivers Improvement Act. He does not need that kind of legal advice. What we are concerned about is that the past collusion between this government and the Government of Saskatchewan will be repeated again.
Why will the minister not issue an order today under this act to revoke the licence, to stop the destruction

Oral Questions
until there is a proper environmental assessment? This is the real test of where this government is-


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been put. The hon. minister.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if my hon. colleague opposite checked his facts. Nothing is going on than what has already been decided and for a very simple reason. The government of Saskatchewan cannot proceed with Alameda because they do not have the land.


Lloyd Axworthy: They are expropriating, that is what they are doing.


Robert René de Cotret: They have not even started expropriating. Not only do they not have the land, they have not started the expropriation process, and that will take quite a while. All I am suggesting is that we act reasonably, firmly, but with full legal advice. Given that this has happened over the last 12 hours, I think I should be given until the end of the day to get that legal advice before I move on it.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will know that one of the federal government's first responsibilities is to ensure that each province and each territory is treated fairly and equitably. Why in this particular instance is the Minister of the Environment allowing the Prime Minister to bail out his friend, Grant Devine, at the expense of the people of Manitoba? When will he ensure that everyone is treated equitably and fairly?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that everybody is being treated equally and equitably in each province, each territory throughout the country. Our policy is very clear. We want to do what is right for the environment, we want to do what is right for the economy. We believe that the environment and the economy can work hand in hand. We have policies designed to do that and we are implementing them.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. This decision by the Minister of the Environment appears to ignore the environmental assessment process and federal environmental policy. What is he prepared to do for the environment, aside from his million-dollar advertising campaigns? What does the minister intend to do to restore the confidence of Canadians in this government's commitment to the environment?
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, in the case we are talking about today, the government's position is that we want a complete environmental assessment of the project. That is what the courts ruled and that is the way I intend to go. The Government of Saskatchewan issued a press release last night, which said basically it was in favour of going ahead with the project before the assessment was done. I immediately pointed out that compensation payments to the Government of Saskatchewan for the requisite waiting period would be frozen until the committee's report was released. There will be no more payments. We will also try to talk to the parties concerned, including members of the project assessment committee and members of the Saskatchewan government, to try and reach a compromise. Etowever, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this project will undergo a complete assessment, as ruled by the courts.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this week has shown clearly that the finance minister has lost the confidence of the country. Major business groups attached his policies yesterday. Important think tanks say he is wrong. Provinces representing over half the population of this country are taking him to court to try to stop the GST.
I ask the finance minister what his government is going to do to change its policies to win some confidence from people and to stop this economic decline.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member has drawn that conclusion. It says here clearly: "Mr. Thibault says our message is not directed only to Mr. Wilson. It is a problem we have as a country on a federal, local and provincial level. We are not just talking here about the federal government or the provincial government. We are talking about Canada and the Canadian people."
October 12, 1990

What these people are pointing out is that we have a national problem. It needs a national response.
They have gone on to say: "Mr. Wilson's performance in the area of government spending has been better than all of the provinces."
We have a major problem and the rhetoric which the hon. member uses is not helpful in dealing with the problem. What would be helpful from the hon. member is how he feels we could get the deficit down, as is the objective of these business leaders, as was the objective of the Economic Council of Canada, as was the objective of most knowledgeable and intelligent observers of the political scene.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that the minister is very selectively quoting from business leaders who yesterday said things such as "bankruptcies among small and mid-size companies are soaring. Business confidence has dropped to levels not seen since the 1981-82 recession".
They talked about "the damage caused by Canada's dismal fiscal policy". I want to ask the finance minister about this. He has described this slowdown as a healthy thing for the economy. Is that his only answer to the thousands of people who are being thrown out of work across this country? Is that his only answer to governments that are facing vastly increased deficits at the provincial level? Is that his only answer or is his answer cartoons in newspapers to try to prop up the GST?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should reflect back to the number of statements I have made in this House on many occasions over the last six years as Minister of Finance. I have taken great pleasure in seeing business activity strong, people having good jobs and taking advantage of the opportunities that are there.
I recognized some two years ago that we had a problem that was derived directly from the inflationary pressures that were in the economy and if we did not get those inflationary pressures under control, we were going to get back to the type of recession we had in 1981-82. I would like to avoid that.
Oral Questions
I want to do everything I can to ensure that we get on a path of non-inflationary strong growth in the future. That requires us to go through this temporary period where we have a slowdown in the economy, so that we can get those inflationary pressures under control. As we get the inflationary pressures under control, we will be able to get interest rates down. The benefits of that will seep into every nook and cranny of the economy. That is the best thing we can do to get the economy moving again.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
I am speaking on behalf of thousands of Canadians who got their walking papers this week, in particular the 550 employees who were told last month that they were surplus to operational requirements of the Tridon Corporation in Burlington.
The minister will know that at the same time he is leading Canadian workers in a made-in-Canada recession, he is permitting the export of taxpayer-financed technology to the United States.
I would like to ask the minister a veiy specific question. Given that it was government financing that permitted the development of two new products that are going to be creating thousands of jobs in a cheaper labour market in the southern United States right now, is he prepared today to order his colleague, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, to put a lien on all Canadian technology and all equipment at the Tridon plant in Canada so that they cannot spirit more Canadian jobs south as a result of his fiscal, monetary and trade policies?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the situation at Tridon has been made clear to the hon. member for a number of
weeks.
The company has clear obligations to the Government of Canada which they will be kept to. They have to obtain our consent to transfer any kind of technical data, inventions, methods or processes resulting from the project financing that they received from the federal government.

October 12, 1990
Oral Questions
They also have to consult with us, if during the term of the agreement, they decide for sound business reasons not to proceed with the project or the subsequent production and marketing.
Officials of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology are meeting with them next week. This particular company knows its obligations and we will keep it to it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington said today that the company has met its obligations. Quite clearly the minister, in cahoots with his government's backbenches, is planning to allow Tridon to take those jobs to the southern United States. I am speaking on behalf of the workers in Oakville who have nobody to speak for them, as well as the workers in Burlington, Hamilton, and area.
Will the Minister put a lien on all technology so that none of the technology developed by Canadian taxpayers' money will contribute to making jobs in the southern United States at the loss of Canadian jobs?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, whether or not a lien should be put on these properties is a question for the minister to decide, but I would remind my hon. friend that she better be careful in the advice she gives. There has been a great transfer of jobs, of course, from the United States to Canada-


Some hon. members:: Where?


Thomas Hockin: -we do not want them putting liens on their operations.
The hon. member asked what has happened. There have been, for example, Ford Motor Company, a $500 million investment in the last year; CAMI, $500 million investment, 2,400 jobs; GM of Canada in St. Therese, $450 million; Ford Motor Company, $64 million; Goodyear, $200 million; Freight Liner, $30 million; and Defas-co in Cambridge just announced two days ago another $30 million.
There is a tremendous amount of industrial activity in Canada and the hon. member would like the Americans to put a lien on all of that to make sure that it could not move to Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it is very simple. Many individuals and families in northern Canada order their basic groceries directly from southern Canadian suppliers. These groceries are shipped to them by air or by sealift and, of course, there are freight charges.
Will these northern families have to pay the goods and services tax on the freight cost of their groceries?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no goods and services tax on the freight cost. That is credited out of the cost of all food in any part of the country. That is particularly important to people in northern Canada. There will be no goods and services tax in the price of food after January 1, 1991, whereas today, there is federal sales tax on the transportation costs and also on other costs of food that we consume. It amounts to some one to two percentage points.


Mr. Andre:: Northerners will be better off.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Of course, businesses get tax credits on the freight, but individuals do not.
I have a letter in my hand from a major Canadian air carrier that states: "The vast majority of shipments destined to northern communities usually contain a mix of various commodities, that would make it quite difficult for our front-line staff to manage should a tax waiver be implemented for specific types of cargo". They have not been instructed by the government to exempt food shipments from the goods and services tax, nor do they have the staff to isolate taxable and non-taxable commodities.
Will the minister now admit that certain Canadians, namely northern Canadians, will be taxed on their food?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in receiving the information that the hon. member has read out. It sounds to me from what is said in the document that he read from that there is a misunderstanding on how the tax on the food today will be changed as a result of the GST.
October 12, 1990

The simple fact is that all federal sales tax today, whether it is on transportation, packaging, computers, cash registers, or building materials to build stores, will be backed out of the system so that under the GST there will be no tax on the cost of food. As I indicated in my earlier response, that amounts to some one to two percentage points of the cost of food. This will ensure that all food that is consumed by northerners will be removed from tax and will be cheaper.
* *


BILL C-43
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. A survey of Canadian obstetricians and gynaecologists, the physicians who provide 95 per cent of the abortion services in Canada, showed that 59 per cent will discontinue this service if Bill C-43 becomes law.
The minister has said to the media, and in a letter to the Canadian Medical Association, that she would not proclaim the bill unless the doctors were ready. The doctors are not ready.
Will the minister keep her promise to the doctors of Canada, to the women of Canada, and will she guarantee today in the House not to proclaim this regressive, criminal legislation?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have been working very closely with the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada to deal with the concerns that its members have expressed. I am very hopeful that that consultation will be successful in alleviating many of the doctors' concerns.
In my discussions, both with the executive of the organization and with doctors across the country-and my consultations are ongoing-I find that their concerns are based on a misunderstanding of the legislation. It is a labour-intensive process to try to get that message across and to explain how the bill works. There is a lot of misunderstanding. As I have said before, doctors are not lawyers. I have committed myself to doing that because I think it is very, very important for the doctors' well being and for the well being of the women of Canada. I will
Oral Questions
keep to my commitment that the bill will not be proclaimed until that process is complete.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I hope that what the minister means is that she will not proclaim the bill as long as doctors are in opposition to the bill. The minister has been very patronizing, thinking that she can explain the bill to doctors and to women and that they will agree that there is not a devastating effect on access for women.
Tomorrow thousands of women will be on the streets of Canada demonstrating against this bill. Will the Minister commit herself to ensure these women and doctors that the bill will not be proclaimed?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that I say about the implications of Bill C-43 that is not supported by independent experts in criminal law. I certainly accept the right of people to protest on either side of the abortion issue, as they will do tomorrow, and as it happens every day on the other side of the issue outside this building.
I would like to caution the hon. member that, in the process of people arguing their political views on this particular issue, a distortion of the implications of Bill C-43 is not, in my view, a legitimate tactic. Much of the misinformation that doctors have about Bill C-43 and how it works does not come from the Department of Justice, does not come from the Government of Canada, and does not come from people who understand it. It comes from irresponsible statements made by people in pursuing their particular policy goals.
I would like to see from the hon. member a commitment to fight the battle on fair grounds, not to distort Bill C-43, and not to create fears that are unfounded. Doctors have nothing to fear from this legislation. To create these kinds of fears is to play very high stakes politics, which I think is unconscionable for anyone on this sensitive issue.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The World Climate Conference in Geneva at the end of this month will undoubtedly be setting demanding goals to control global warming and particularly to bring about reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. We are

October 12, 1990
Oral Questions
told in the environment committee that one of the major areas for reducing these emissions will be alternative sources of energy and alternative fuels for the production of energy.
What initiatives for increasing and accelerating Canada's research into alternative energy sources are on the board presently, including nuclear power?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in the House, the Department of Energy is working with our colleagues with respect to the Green Plan and the insertion of alternate energy fuels as part of the reduction of CO2 and greenhouse gases.
The hon. member knows that a number of times in the House I have mentioned the research and co-operation of the government, whether with methanol as we had yesterday, for example, in front of this building, with a Clean Across Canada drive, or the work that has been done in ethanol, propane, and natural gas.
Specifically, in respect to nuclear energy, which the hon. member is probably interested in, the federal government has conveyed a proposal to the Government of New Brunswick and particularly to New Brunswick Power respecting Lepreau II and in reference to the reduction of CO2. The nuclear option obviously has a great advantage in the reduction of CO2.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Agriculture). Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade confirmed our worst fears when he said his government would have to play down its attempts to protect Canada's supply management of farm products at the GATT talks.
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why the government intends to sacrifice our quota system in this country and why it wants to sacrifice the jobs of our farmers. When is the minister going to stand up for Canadian farmers?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member can see, I am on my feet, and I will explain what we have done.
Last March, the Canadian government maintained its position that it would defend our marketing boards. However, I may remind the hon. member that during the past two or three years, people involved in the marketing board sector across the country have been consulted regularly in committee about their concerns. In fact, it is because of their concerns-they did not agree we could maintain the status quo-that we are going to submit proposals next Monday that will respond to the needs of Canadian farmers in both eastern and western Canada, so that Canadian farmers will be able to face the future with confidence. These proposals will reflect our respect for the agricultural industry in this country. I have no worries on that score.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the part-time Minister of Agriculture-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are three or four of them.
I remind the minister of his words in the House in November. He said:
-the position of the federal government taken by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade at the MTN negotiations is to strengthen-Article 11 -
Why then did the Minister for International Trade say last night that Canada might have to give in on supply management? Will the minister give a commitment in the House today that while in Geneva he will not sign any GATT agreement that weakens supply management and further puts Canadian farmers on the unemployment lines?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada has been clearly stated with respect to the strengthening and clarification of Article 11 and we stand by that.
October 12, 1990

Business of the House


REFUGEES
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, in Ontario alone there is presently a backlog of 44,220 English-speaking refugees waiting to be processed. The Toronto office alone is facing 22,000 such cases.
Under this minister's direction the Ontario offices are dealing with only English-speaking cases, and I quote: "The non-English cases are put on the back burner."
Why has the Minister engaged in this unfair and discriminatory practice?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to this House to think our system is racist. Agreed, we have a lot of catching up to do as far as the actual processing is concerned. The Minister responsible for Immigration is in touch and is working with all parties concerned. I cannot agree that racist attitudes and approaches are at work here. Our approach is humanitarian. It is a case-by-case approach, and it is professional. We are trying to do the best we can.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto office will be able to handle only 7,000 hearings over the next year. The Minister's officials are overworked. Many are forced to work overtime, weekends, and holidays.
What does the government intend to do to solve this inhumane and unacceptable situation?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the hon. member's question, and if it is appropriate to give the hon. member additional information, I will ask my colleague who is responsible for immigration for this information.


CANADA POST
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, this week we heard through the media of disturbing
goings-on at Canada Post.
First, we heard that customers' signatures had most probably been forged in order to keep up with the claims of fast delivery despite massive contracting out and downsizing.
Then we heard through the media that the independent audit puts Canada Post in a most favourable light and shows only part of the picture, because Canada Post can withhold what can make it look bad.
I can substantiate that with documents. My question very clearly and very simply is this. Will the minister responsible for Canada Post ensure that he will launch a special inquiry and ensure the immunity of reprisals to any person who would want to testify? Will he also ensure that all of the audit reports are made public so that Canadians can get a real picture of what is going on at Canada Post?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the hon. member would cast aspersions on this national and, indeed, international auditing firm.
The Auditor General is also an auditor of the Canada Post Corporation. If he has any complaints, he should take them to the Auditor General.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a point of order from the hon. leader of the government. There is also a question of privilege. I wonder if the member for Calgary West would stand down for just a moment while we deal with the point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate next Monday as an allotted day, and indicate that discussions are going on with the opposition parties with respect to Motion No. 16 having to do with the Iraq situation to see

October 12, 1990
Privilege
if appropriate accommodations could be made to pursue that motion at the earliest opportunity, hopefully on Tuesday.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of sadness really more than anything else that I rise in the House today.


Mr. Milliken:: Crocodile tears.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Somebody said crocodile tears. They are not crocodile tears.
I spent close to 11 years of my life in intense activity related to this Chamber. I respect the Chamber, and I think all Canadians should respect the Chamber. They should respect the nature of what it is that we do in this Chamber, in committees and in the other proceedings of this Chamber.
Today I rise, and I have given you notice, because I feel compelled on the basis of information available and given to me this morning for the most part as to what the House leader of the New Democratic Party as a special officer of this House is saying within his riding and to the national press about the operations and conclusions of a committee of this House which has been struggling with a veiy difficult problem for some time.
I find the behaviour of the NDP House leader on this occasion to be consistent with two or three other occasions in recent history, which I found very disturbing for the continued effectiveness of this place.


Mr. Marchi:: Touchy, aren't we?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Let's see.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member of whom the government Whip is talking clearly is not in the House today.
I think the member speaking knew that. It is not appropriate to cast those sorts of aspersions when the member who is being criticized is not here.
In any case, I think the member for Kamloops was well within his rights to inform Canadians about what was taking place. I know it is a difficult issue, but we are quite
clear on our position on it. We do not think MPs should be treated-


Mr. Speaker:: We are not into argument yet.
The hon. member has risen on behalf of the New Democratic Party, pointing out that the hon. member for Kamloops is not here today. I have to hear enough of this to find out the basis of the complaint. The hon. member for Calgary West might assist the Chair.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will, and I will tiy to be as brief as I can.
This is the first time in 11 years that I rose to complain or to suggest that a question of privilege was involved in the relationship to the behaviour of another member where I have not notified the member and where I have not asked the Speaker to delay until the member was present. I think that is the nature of the place.
For this particular member, no notice was given to the rest of us on any of the occasions which bother me. What the member has been doing the last 48 hours is talking to the media in his riding and other places about a committee report which has not yet been presented to the House, which has not yet been reprinted and for which the transcripts are not yet available. He says things that are simply not true.
There is a reference in one article and I have it in front of me. It is an article that came out of the paper yesterday about the government having a majority on the committee. The government does not.


An hon. member:: Shocking news.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Shocking news says the NDP. People who are not supporters of the government represent four votes on the committee and supporters of the government represent three.
In terms of the voting pattern which was evident in the committee on Wednesday, there are a great many things I would like to be in a position to tell the House, and I suggest people might want to read the transcript about the difficulty the committee has been having over a period of time.
In his riding, the New Democratic House leader said he was not surprised that the Bloc Quebecois voted with the Tories, noting most of the MPs currently under investigation by the R.CMP-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on a point of order.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly entering into debate on this question of a particular decision that was made by a committee. It is a matter which is very much on the public record.
I would ask that the Speaker urge the hon. member to come to his alleged point of order very quickly or engage in debate and try to defend this indefensible policy which he in his party, and one independent, a former Conservative member of Parliament, are attempting to foist on the Canadian people.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, surely it must be a principle on all members in this House but in particular, people who hold special responsibilities in this House, that they cannot say outside the Chamber things that they would not be allowed to say inside the Chamber. That is point number one. The member is shaking his head. He thinks outside the Chamber one should be able to cast aspersions on the conduct-


Mr. Speaker:: It may well be that it is going to be necessary for me to hear considerable debate on this. It probably will be necessary to hear further debate when the hon. member for Kamloops returns.
I wonder if the hon. member could put succinctly the point of privilege.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in this particular article today from The Kamloops Daily News, the member says things about the motivation of members who cast a ballot in committee of this House on Wednesday. It says: "Riis said he wasn't surprised that the Bloc Quebecois voted with the Tories, noting most of the MPs currently under investigation by the RCMP are from Quebec."
In terms of the Tory votes, he said: "Now the Tories want one law for MPs-"


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. This is a point of privilege.
The hon. member, who is a very experienced member, feels very strongly about this, and I can understand that. Nonetheless, I need some assistance from the hon. member as to what the point of privilege is. He may or may not have said all kinds of things. Where has the hon. member's ability to carry on his duties as a member of the House of Commons been infringed by anything that somebody else has done? That is what I need to know.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I direct you to Maingot, page 192. He says: "Any action by anybody" is the
Privilege
implication, "which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House and the discharge of his duty may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent."
The member for Kamloops is talking about a committee report. It is a special committee of this House formed to look at the Parliament of Canada Act to see whether or not the institution would be well served by a set of amendments. That committee reported in May of this year to this House with a unanimous report, New Democratic members included, with proposed amendments to the act.
In subsequent discussions, some of those were watered down and the bill was brought forward to the House for second reading and referred to committee. It was a decision of the Board of Internal Economy, subsequently approved by the House leaders, that the committee be formed. It was a decision to use officers of the House, the Whips of the three parties as members of that committee.
For the member for Kamloops to be out and about inpugning the motivation of the members of this committee, the officers of the House, is a dastardly deed. When you give an interview that leads to a headline "Riis outraged by despicable bill," that "it is outrageous, it is disgusting, it is despicable," when in fact that is a committee report of the House, Mr. Speaker, the conduct that is outrageous, despicable and disgusting is the conduct of the House leader of the New Democratic Party. It is not the seven members of the committee.
I am quite prepared to read other pieces of this member's press into the public record from the CFJC-CIFM news in Kamloops. He says: "This bill would set them apart from regular citizens, would require the RCMP to seek permission before an investigation of an MP could occur". That is absolute bloody nonsense. That is not what the piece of legislation is intended to do or does do. It does not restrict the RCMP in any way, shape or form from-


Mr. Speaker:: I am having difficulty with this. If the hon. member for Kamloops said these things or did not say them, how does it affect the hon. member's ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament? I accept

October 12, 1990
Privilege
the quote that the hon. member has given to me on the question of privilege. I accept it. I think it is good law. But I am having some difficulty in determining how what the hon. member has said is necessarily a contempt of the House or infringes on the privileges of the hon. member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to participate at a variety of levels in arranging the affairs of this House. One of the new responsibilities that came to me as a Whip, and has come successively to two different members of the Official Opposition during my time, is to sit on the Board of Internal Economy. I was asked, because of my role as a Whip, to serve this House on this special committee.
A fellow officer who sits on similar bodies is out there in public making comments like this about the motivation of the members, of the other officers of the House. I have watched the member for Kamloops. I have been present when we reached a collective decision about protests on Parliament Hill and that member immediately with the press abandoned the decision he was a part of-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair on a point of order.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, it must be clear that the member has not responded to your request for a clear statement of what his question of privilege is, nor is there any indication that he intends to respond to you, Sir. In order to continue the business of this House, I plead that this be brought to an end right now.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Right from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I have been an assiduous member of that special committee of the House. I would ask the Chair to defer the debate so as to allow the hon. member for Kamloops to return to the House and provide an explanation. Mr. Speaker, I too am a little mad at him because I was the one who first suggested that clause 52.8 be removed or eliminated from the bill. There were no comments made after that. I took that initiative aimed at doing away with clause 52.8 which the member for Kamloops does not like. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to debate the issue in the House
in a democratic manner, but I would want the hon. member for Kamloops to be present when we do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I am having difficulty with this. The hon. member for Calgary West has raised a matter and has considerable argument to give. He has already made some argument. It may or may not be, on the basis of what he has revealed to the House or what he has stated to the House and what he may state, that there is a question of privilege. I do not see it yet, but it may veiy well be there.
However, I am wondering if the hon. member for Calgary West would agree to adjourn this matter to Monday, when the hon. member for Kamloops returns. At that point I would be very pleased to let the hon. member for Calgary West continue with his point.
There is a very firm tradition in this House along that line. A question of privilege of course belongs to the member and I would have to ask his indulgence in this. I point out that on a number of occasions when similar situations have arisen, certainly when members of the opposition have been raising a question of privilege with respect to one of the ministers, I have always suggested that it be put over, after perhaps some introductory remarks, until the minister could be in the Chamber, and that has always met with the approval of the House. It is not a rule of the House, but it is a courtesy. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has expressed that point of view, as has the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West if it might not be appropriate-the hon. member has put certainly some of the basis of his concern to the House- to adjourn it until Monday, when we could continue.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, you said "Monday" but I would assume you mean until the member returns. That is what would make sense.


Mr. Speaker:: I stand corrected. I was assuming something perhaps I do not know.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with the notion that the matter cannot be adequately determined until the member is present in the House and has a chance to respond. I think that would have been my preference from the beginning. That is the way the place should operate. But the difficulty for us as House
October 12, 1990

officers charged with very difficult responsibilities from time to time is that when another House officer holds all of us in this kind of contempt, we cannot sit around-


Mr. Speaker:: I wish the hon. member would consider the point that I am making. I am trying very hard not to decide, perhaps too early in the game, whether or not there is a question of privilege, but I am being forced rapidly into making that decision.
There is something basically unfair about an attack on one member, no matter how appropriate within the rules that attack is, in this Chamber on a question of privilege when the other member is not here. It may be that the other member has done all kinds of terrible things, but it is fundamental to justice that the accused should be able to face the accuser.
The hon. member has certainly put enough forward so that there is a pretty good idea of what the complaint is. Whether or not it is a question of privilege, I do not want to be forced into deciding at this moment. I ask the hon. member for Calgary West, on the basis of our tradition in this place, would it not be appropriate to put this matter over until the hon. member for Kamloops returns? The hon. member has laid at least a base for his argument, but it does not seem to me fair to continue going after another member when the other member is not in the Chamber.
What the other member did outside the House may or may not be a contempt. The further outside the House it is, the harder it is to fit it within privilege.
I understand perfectly well that the hon. member for Calgary West has a grievance which may turn out to be a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. It seems to me that, given the issue, it would be proper to put this matter over until the hon. member for Kamloops can return.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, your logic as usual is impeccable. Your grace is impeccable. The principle is that we should be able to face our accuser. The difficulty is the accusations about the Quebec caucus, about myself, about members of the committee-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -have been made when we were not present. I go along with you, Mr. Speaker, 100 per cent, but I want the record to show that on behalf of my colleagues on the committee-and I believe even the
Privilege
New Democratic members, but I cannot speak for them-we deny completely the accusations made by the NDP House leader as to our motivation or the consequences of our actions.
We would appreciate it if as a senior officer of this Chamber he has accusations of that kind to make about the Quebec members, members of the Tory government, about officers of the House, about committee members, that he make-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a fundamental issue here. I have not heard all of the interventions in this, and I will not be able to hear them all until the hon. member for Kamloops returns.
Apart from what my concern may eventually be about what the hon. member for Kamloops did or did not do, my concern at the moment is that to have a debate like this going on when the person who is accused is not here just runs contrary to fundamental justice in our system.
I am asking the hon. member for Calgary West who complimented the Speaker on his immaculate logic, if he would agree with the Speaker to adjourn it until the hon. member for Kamloops comes back. The hon. member has certainly made a point, a sufficient point perhaps to last for several days, but it does not seem appropriate to continue in the absence of the person who is the subject matter of the complaint.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of information and interest, my office has been trying to get some copies of the articles which the member has been reading from The Kamloops Daily News. The reading room tells us we cannot get those.
I just wondered if he could make them available to some of us during the course of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope very much that another issue does not get in the way of the hon. member for Calgary West who I know has a very serious point. I am wondering if at this point the hon. member for Calgary West would agree to put the matter over.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to do that. To answer my colleague from across the way, I would be happy to give the pages copies of this and ask them to make them available to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to say to the acting House leader of the New Democratic Party that this is a serious matter that has been raised. I know that he will commu-

October 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings
nicate with the hon. member for Kamloops. I would like him to get back to me as soon as possible to give me some indication as to when this matter can be proceeded with.
I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary West. I know he feels very strongly about this, but I want to thank him for his courtesy.


An hon. member:: The logic was impeccable but certainly not dependable.


Mr. Speaker:: A very great friend of mine over there is being very rude to me.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I say to our distinguished guests that this may seem a little late in the day, but it takes nothing away from our sincerity.
I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the ladies' gallery of the Heads of Delegation to the Third Meeting of Commonwealth Ministers Responsible for Women's Affairs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerry Weiner (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-87, an act to amend the statute law in relation to war veterans.


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

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-333, an act to reduce automotive pollution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides the means to reduce automotive pollution by requiring that automotive gasoline contains at least 3.2 per cent oxygen.
This content will cause a dramatic reduction in carbon monoxide emissions and will also eliminate the use of the additive MMT which is currently replacing lead in gasoline. MMT is itself a pollutant that is not even allowed in the United States but is being used in Canada.
The 3.2 per cent oxygen content can be achieved through the use of 10 per cent ethanol added to the gasoline. This bill is not only environmentally friendly but will also provide a market for millions of tonnes of grain that are currently backed up on farms and elevators across this nation.


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

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an act to amend the Human Rights Act. Incorporated in it is a series of amendments recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 1989 annual report to Parliament.
The recommendations for change in the report have been embodied in statutory language as far as possible. There are two recommendations that are not in this bill that may be dealt with later. I thought the House might be interested in dealing expeditiously to incorporate the changes recommended by the Human Rights Commissioner in his report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
October 12, 1990

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Canadian Elections Act and other acts in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a little larger than usual. It is a 164-page bill and is a redraft of Bill C-79 which died on the Order Paper at the end of the last Parliament, with a few changes to try to make it more palatable to all hon. members.
I hope that this bill can be considered by the House on an expeditious basis so that we can effect changes to the Canada Elections Act before the next election comes around. I am aware that there is a royal commission investigating the Canada elections law. Because its report is not expected until September 1991, I am not optimistic that the changes it may recommend will be in effect before the next election.
I believe it is imperative that we change the law and make it effective before that time. Accordingly, I have prepared this bill. It is a substantial bill and I hope it will find favour with all members when it gets to committee where it could be amended to suit the wishes of all members of this House. I commit it to the House.


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

Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 80 Canadians who object to the intent of the government to increase minimum import levels of poultry and poultry products as now being discussed at GATT and any proposals of tarrification of a supply managed product.
These citizens avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy.
Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, these persons are from Brussels, Ontario, Drayton, Trenton, Paris, Middlesex County, Waterloo, and a lot of other communities. It shows the fear and trepidation that is being caused among the producers by government actions in GATT and particularly the statement by the Minister for International Trade yesterday, which was carried in the local newspaper.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of petitions involving people from across Canada, including the province of Manitoba, seeking the elimination of the goods and services tax on books and other reading materials.
The petitioners point out that there has never been a tax in this country on books and reading materials. They also accentuate the importance of reading and related activities as a cornerstone of democracy and of our economic, social and cultural development.
The petitioners ask that there be zero tax on books, and that perhaps the tax be eliminated totally.


Guy H. Arseneault: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present these petitions on the proposed goods and services tax.
Your petitioners strongly denounce this new tax on goods and services, for it is tantamount to an unprecedented assault against Canadian taxpayers. Not only will it force them to pay more taxes, but it will also confront them with rising inflation, interest rates and unemployment levels. They urge us to reject this new tax on goods and services.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions on behalf of many Canadians. They object to the proposed goods and services tax on reading material, books and magazines. This has not been done before.
The petitioners feel very strongly that this will be a penalty on those, whether young or old, who wish to increase their knowledge. It will cost them more to do so. We have not done it in the past, and I ask on behalf of these people that the government reconsider if it is still bound and bent to have this unfair tax anyway.

October 12, 1990
Government Orders


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on amendments to the Fisheries Act, Bill C-74, and to join my colleagues from Burin-St. George's and Cape Breton-East Richmond in supporting the broad thrust of this legislation, which is to increase the fines and penalties for violations of the Fisheries Act and related offences.
In addition, we also have mentioned that we have certain reservations concerning the bill and with the policies of the government. Amendments need to be put in place to accompany the bill and I will speak to those a little later. Before I do, I would like to begin with a digression.
It would be remiss of me as the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, a riding that experienced in December of last year the loss of one of its major fish plants. I initiated an emergency debate to address the serious crisis in the Atlantic fishery which was manifested no less dramatically than by the situation facing the people of the town of Canso when their fish plant closed. I wish to acknowledge favourably the work that
has been done over the summer by the minister of fisheries and by the department of fisheries in seeking a solution to that very difficult situation facing the people of Canso and the people of Burgeo who are part of the solution worked out by the minister of fisheries in conjunction with participants from industry.
The plan known as the Seafreez deal which creates this new corporation operating out of Burgeo and Canso will involve a rather complicated arrangement of bartering and exchange of fish between Canada and the Soviet Union. The transfer of quota is a complicated and controversial arrangement and there has been some concern within the industry about various aspects of this deal.
I realize that the jury is still out as to whether or not the minister violated certain customary practices in arriving at this arrangement, and also whether or not he consulted widely enough before putting the deal together. We do not know whether in fact the arrangement is going to work. I certainly hope it does.
The promise has been made to secure the employment of some 500 plant workers in Canso for the indefinite future. It is essential that these be year-round jobs to ensure that the trawler fleet of Canso and Burgeo continues to fish. I cannot be blind to that effort and certainly want to support and encourage the successful resolution of that arrangement if it produces the promised results, which I hope it does.
This is an opportunity for me to say in this House that I am certainly supportive of the Seafreez deal, to the extent that it produces employment in a community that is vitally dependent on this industry. I will be participating in and evaluating very closely the broader policy aspects which are associated with the putting together of this deal. I am very familiar with the controversy that surrounds it and expect that the minister of fisheries will be sensitive to the broader industry implications of this deal. However, we will be able to debate that at some further point.
That is by means of a digression but I believe an important one, since I happen to represent the community of Canso which has been such a symbol of the crisis facing the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada over the last year.
October 12, 1990
[Stage Direction]
I will now return to the debate. As I said earlier, Bill C-74 stiffens the fines to fishing companies, fishermen, and other persons who violate various aspects of the Fisheries Act. It provides for a dramatic increase in fines for general fisheries offences, for overfishing, for discarding of fish at sea, for obstructing fisheries officers in the performance of their duties and for harassing them when they are trying to administer the Fisheries Act, and for other offences that are fisheries related.
We in the Liberal Party cannot but support those fines. The fines that were already in place in the Fisheries Act were laughable. They were no deterrents at all, particularly to the large companies that were really able to pay those fines, as the minister has said, as a cost of doing business. So clearly, the increase in fines was drastically overdue. I guess our main objection to this bill and to the measures which are in it is why has it not been introduced earlier?
We have other problems with the legislation. First of all, as was mentioned very eloquently by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond this morning, there is more to administering and to enforcing the Fisheries Act and preventing overfishing and pollution in our coastal waters than simply increasing the level of fines that fishing vessels, companies, and other interests, must pay. We have to increase the policing and surveillance of our coastal waters to ensure that those fines can actually be levied.
Unfortunately this has just not accompanied the legislation to a sufficient degree to enable, we believe, those much more realistic penalties to be enforced. And that is essential, if we are going to get under control the kinds of overfishing and discarding at sea which we have heard about over the last years. We have discussed this deepening fishing crisis and it has been reported to us through various task forces as being one of the fundamental problems underlying a severe resource crisis in many parts of Atlantic Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, we can increase the levels of fines, we can increase the protection provided fisheries officers but we have to put into place measures to increase surveillance, enforcement, and policing, so that the penalties will actually stick and so that they will actually be a deterrent to those who would commit fisheries
Government Orders
violations. That is the first point, and it has been made by others. I want to add to it by emphasizing that concern.
The other aspect of this legislation which I do not think has been mentioned, at least in the debate on second reading that I have read so far, is with respect to the particular concerns associated with the violations of fish habitat, pollution and destruction of the fish habitat.
The fines that have been imposed in this legislation for violations of fish habitat, and I will quote here from the information package which accompanies the bill, involve raising the fines from initially $5,000 on summary conviction to $300,000 on summary conviction, and from $10,000 for second and subsequent offences, to up to $1 million on indictment. There are court options of up to six months imprisonment or up to three years on indictment.
The same goes for pollution of fisheries habitat, the deposit of deleterious substances by individuals who pollute the fisheries habitat. Again, those fines have been dramatically increased. That, again, is overdue and very much necessary.
However, when the minister was describing this particular aspect of violations he was focusing on the problem of individuals or private companies for example who, in the process of building a bridge over a river or a brook, pollute that river or brook or the harbour near there. Another example would be the companies which build a facility close to a coastline or a river, thereby polluting that body of water and, in the process, destroying the fish resource. That practice has to be stopped. It requires stringent legislation to prevent that from occurring and also it should be backed up by strong enforcement mechanisms. It is also consistent with the new concern that we have for the environment, in particular our coastal waters and coastal environment.
However, there is something missing in this particular aspect of fisheries habitat control and management. It is the point that I would like to bring to this debate on Bill C-74. The Minister of Fisheries, when speaking on second reading in June, referred to the government's Green Plan proposals and told the House that this legislation fitted into the government's proposals with respect to the environment. He said it was a way of strengthening such laws as the coastal waters protection and the environmental protection legislation and a way
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
of increasing the enforcement of our environmental legislation and I agree that that needs to be done.
However, there are other aspects of the pollution of fisheries habitat which have been ignored in this legislation and I suggest are not readily dealt with by simply increasing the fines to polluters. I refer to a problem which is in my constituency and a problem which has lasted for a long time.
In the Bras d'Or Lakes in Cape Breton, which is in my constituency, we have an oyster resource located near the community of Whycocomagh. For many years, Why-cocomagh has not had a proper sewer and water system. It has not had the wherewithal to finance that sewer and water system because of the lack of a municipal tax base.
The persistent neglect of providing a mechanism for that community to install a sewer and water system, which would control and treat the sewage that now ends up in the Bras d'Or Lakes and in the bay near Whycocomagh, results in the contamination of the oyster population. Essentially, a local industry that could have employed many people in the surrounding areas at least for part of the year has been destroyed. That industry, in effect, has been decimated around the community of Whycocomagh. It has been one of the casualties of the lack of action, despite repeated requests by myself and others, to assist and support the creation of a municipal sewer and water system in that community.
There are other areas in my own constituency such as coastal waters, small harbours, and river mounts where communities are still polluting those enclosed bodies of water and adding to a pollution problem which they are powerless to control. They would not be able to stop what they are doing if they were fined $1 million or $500,000, short of packing up and leaving the community. That solution requires support and not punishment by the government.
In the months ahead the government is going to be introducing measures and legislation to deal with various problems concerning the environment. I suggest that support for municipal infrastructure is one area in which assistance by the federal government is urgently needed for environmental reasons and for the reasons I have just
mentioned. It is something that we in the Liberal Party have advocated for several years and we continue to advocate. We hope the government will see fit to adopt that as a way of dealing with one source of coastal pollution which is not readily addressed by simply imposing stricter fines, notwithstanding the fact that stricter fines are essential given the nominal levels of penalties which had existed in the Fisheries Act before.
I wanted to make that point related to the legislation. I admit that it will not necessarily find its way directly into the Fisheries Act. but the government should not pat itself on the back by saying: "Look, we have increased the fines for people polluting our coastal waters and we have increased the fines for people spoiling our fish habitat. We have done our job." It has not done its job. That is only one part of the solution.
Another part of the solution is to provide support so that municipal governments and local communities can have the wherewithal to clean up their own back yards. This will allow commercial and recreational fishermen to have a resource to exploit that has not been allowed to be contaminated by years of pollution and untreated sewage. That is only one dimension of that particular problem. I submit that it is a serious one. It is one that should not be overlooked. I believe it is related to the measures that are in the Fisheries Act amendments. It is a subject that needs to be given more serious weight by the government.
Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I probably will focus more on comments than on questions.
I want to address a couple of things that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond mentioned earlier and was not given an opportunity to respond to, despite his great admonitions that I should.
First, I refer to what my friend from Cape Breton- Highlands-Canso has said. The moving ahead of this legislation has come after considerable consultation with a great number of groups. I will just mention a few groups that DFO officials talked to: all provinces and territories, as well as a variety of advisory groups to the minister, including ARC, PARC and the Atlantic Council of Fisheries Ministers, in particular. They have supported that.
October 12, 1990

This legislation is being brought forward because of the determination of the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and of his predecessor, both of whom feel very strongly that one of the important ways to address some of the inequities, not only in the legislation, but in the application of the law, is to impose higher fines and to bring in new sources of information.
Both of my colleagues has asked: What is the point of having new legislation if it cannot be enforced? Under the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, there has been $52 million over five years in addition provided for surveillance and enforcement. Offshore patrols have been increased. Inshore patrols across the Atlantic will be increased. There will be more intensive use of DFO vessels for patrolling and enforcing the law. There is more money for increased armed boarding, a practice that I do not particularly like but sometimes is necessary, and increased funds for prosecution. Of course, I need not mention the agreement that we reached with the Americans that will hopefully ensure that people cannot come and go across borders unprotected.
Another thing that has been protected is the fact that there is no minimum fine. My colleague across the way referred to the level of fines. First, I should point out that the level of penalty is consistent. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the National Parks Act, the Railway Safety Act and the Canadian Agricultural Products Act all have no minimum fine. It allows leeway for the courts.
Do not forget, with triple, and in some cases five times, the amount of fine, a clear message is being sent to the judiciary that we are very serious and the the judiciary is forced to respond to that.
In terms of inshore versus offshore, very clearly this act allows penalties to be applied in all ways. There is a perception, and I understand it, that we are applying it purely to the inshore. I should point out, though, that as we increase the observer coverage on the offshore vessels, as we work more and more to avoid discards, culling and highgrading, we will see more and more charges laid in the offshore than ever in the inshore.
Government Orders
Then, the question comes: How is there corporate accountability and responsibility? This act ensures that it is not just the person aboard ship who ends up in court. Licence holders can be held liable for offences. Under the new act, officers and directors of corporations can be held accountable, which is a substantial change and an important change.
There is more to come, but I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the remarks of both my friends from Cape Breton. I appreciate their support. Sometimes I wonder if that support is consistently there. One member says that the opposition is all for it and that it is gung ho, and another seems to be a little less sure. I hope we can depend on the support of the Liberal Party of Canada for this legislation at this time.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend across the way that he can always depend on our support of legislation which we say we will support, just as he can always depend on our opposition to legislation which we oppose, sometimes quite vigorously.
To clarify what we said earlier, I might say that our support for this legislation is qualified. We, of course, advocate higher fines, stiffer penalties for fisheries violations. We have said that they have been long overdue. We are concerned that the means of enforcing those stiffer fines are not in place. We will be looking to see if the government is really committed to prosecuting and enforcing the higher fines and penalties that it has put in place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any further questions or comments? The hon. member for Cardigan on a question or comment.


Mr. MacAulay:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso. It is certainly obvious that he understands the problem in the fishing industry.
I think my problem with Bill C-74 is what it does not contain. We have problems in Gaspereaux, Georgetown and Savage Harbour. For example, in Savage Harbour we needed a small amount of funding for the black wall or the breakwater in that area and the funding did not come. It has now been two years. With ice and a couple of winters, it is just about destroyed. If we do not get

Government Orders
some funding for things like this, the sand will move in and we will need more dredging. Of course, dredging again is a major problem. Dredging needs to be on an ongoing basis. The bill just does not seem to answer the questions for the fishermen in the Cardigan riding.
With regard to lobster, which is one of our main fisheries, fishermen are asked to go out and fish for $1.25 a pound. Well, for a delicacy, it is impossible to survive at $1.25 a pound. The problem that we have is that Bill C-74 does not address the problems for our fishery in Cardigan and Prince Edward Island.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague how he feels the barter and the catches affect plant closures, and were the catches fairly allotted to the plants?


Mr. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: thank my hon. colleague for his question. I agree with him that there is much that has been excluded from this piece of legislation. We will be looking from the government for constructive action on small craft harbour improvements. He listed some needed improvements in his area. I have similar improvements that are required in my area as well, including dredging, breakwater and wharf repairs.
As far as the bartering of fish, this is a very complex area in which I would not want to get into with the small amount of time that is available.
With respect to the Seafreez deal, there are a lot of questions which need to be asked from a policy point of view as to the legitimacy of the actions of the government. It will have to be looked at over a period of time as to what are the underlying principles of bartering of fish and probably setting up some rules that are agreeable to everybody about whether or not this practice-whatever it is, because we are not sure exactly what is taking place-can be regulated or allowed to continue in a fair and equitable manner.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, it gives me an honour and a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-74. First of all, I was listening to my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and some of the questions and comments that were made at the end of his speech. I was also listening to the comments made by the member for St. John's East. He was sort of questioning whether the Liberal Party would be supporting Bill C-74.
I say to the hon. member that the Liberal Party has always had a habit of supporting bills that are good for Canadians in general, but more so for the common person, such as fishermen. Bill C-74 has my support and will have my support when it comes time for the vote. It does not solve all the problems in the fishery. We know, and you know, Mr. Speaker, that over the last year or so the fisheries have been in a state of crisis. The right hon. Prime Minister did not seem to realize that at one point in time. I think he has come back to reality and has finally realized that there are problems in the fisheries, not only in Atlantic Canada but also on the west coast. I was very surprised that we did not hear any mention today from our colleagues who sit a little farther down from me, but there are problems on the west coast as well, and some very serious problems. I was hoping to hear from them as well.
We know there are problems in Atlantic Canada. We have heard the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso many times in this House try to point out some of the problems that exist in Atlantic Canada. Let me tell you that he is doing a wonderful job for his riding and deserves a lot of credit.
The reason we support Bill C-74 in general is that it increases the penalties and fines for persons who break the Fisheries Act. I should clarify the position of our party, and I am sure the position of everyone in this House. Hon. members here feel that fishermen are basically honest and hard working individuals. There are a few out there with whom there are problems. No doubt about it. Some are foreigners. Some of them are our own. But there are a few, a very few. I would have to say 99.9 per cent of fishermen are honest, hard working people who are there to try and have gainful employment, to support their families, to support ultimately their country. Not being on the social assistance payroll is a benefit in itself to our country.
The bill tabled on June 6,1990, will bring about higher fines and penalties through the Fisheries Act. There will be higher fines and penalties for general offences, up to $100,000 on summary conviction and up to $500,000 on indictment. That same type of penalty will be for the obstruction of fisheries officers. We know that has been a problem previously.
We will also see increased fines and penalties in relation to the pollution of fish habitat. We know that has been a problem, not only the throwing overboard of
October 12, 1990

excess fish or dying fish, but oil leakage and things of that nature. That will also be included in the act. That is one of the reasons why we support such an act. It will penalize those who are not responsible enough to see what their actions are doing to the fisheries environment. It will also provide penalties and fines to anyone who fails to provide habitat information. It will require fishermen and processors to keep more detailed records.
This is an area where the bill could be improved. It might be a little difficult at this stage to judge the effect of this part of it on fishermen. It may become a little more complicated and a little too bureaucratic. Maybe that is something that should be looked at by the government.
I am glad to see that the government has looked at the Harris report and the Hache report. I am glad to see that those reports, in their wisdom, also suggested increased penalties and fines. In this case, we are glad to see that the government is listening, once and for all, to certain recommendations that will help the fisheries. We are very pleased with that.
No doubt, as an opposition member, there are always a few things that we are not pleased with. We always say the government does not go far enough. We feel that there are not enough resources put in to enforcing these new regulations and fines. I have some doubts as to how we are going to handle the Americans. I know there is a new agreement and it looks promising, but if we look at past actions of our government and foreigners fishing in what we claim to be our waters, we see that we tend to be very tough on foreign vessels, as long as they do not come from the United States. I am sure the government will treat all of these foreigners who are overfishing or breaking some of these regulations adequately and in the same way.
Also, it should be pointed out that many of the provisions and resources are going toward the inshore sector. I think there should be more effort put in the offshore sector as well. I am sure the government is aware of that. I am sure the government realizes it has problems financially. It has a major problem. It has created a Canadian recession, so to speak. We have seen examples of that this week by the experts. It is going to have to get its act together on its economic plan as soon as possible. Once that is in place, hopefully it will see fit
Government Orders
to provide more resources to the offshore sector as well and add to the inshore.
The hon. member for St. John's East mentioned the consultations that took place in the fishing industry. I am led to believe that there was not as much consultation with fishermen's associations. Yes, other groups were consulted, and I know some of the fishing associations were, but maybe there should be more consultation in regard to the final form of the legislation. I know it is not always possible, but I think it is important that the fishermen feel that this is their bill as well as the government's and that it will help the fishing industry.
Another aspect of the bill that should be questioned is the bookkeeping. I mentioned that earlier. Are we going to force fishermen to become bookkeepers and are we going to force fishermen to hire other people? As we know, with the situation as it exists in the fishing industry, a lot of them are family operations and it is very difficult for them to keep that type of information in some cases.
It was mentioned earlier that one of the other major problems, and I think it is a problem with Bill C-74, is what the bill does not contain. We have many problems in the fishing industry. One of them is a problem that is going to be addressed with this bill, we hope. We hope it will solve that problem, but there are other problems. The concern of many fishermen at this time is the absence of the government introducing a variable entrance requirement bill. I know when I mention this people get a little upset and some people who are very partisan tend to blame the Senate for holding back Bill C-21.
Yes, Bill C-21 is still in the Senate being analysed. Since 1977, the governments of the day, Conservative and Liberal, introduced a short bill every year for variable entrance requirements and it passed very quickly. That is what should have been done while Bill C-21 was being studied in the Senate, to prevent damage to workers who are unemployed, especially fishermen at this stage of the game. We know that the fishing industry has been hurt quite severely.
In defence of the Senate, I must say that- [Translation]
To give credit where credit is due, Mr. Speaker, the senators tried to remedy this situation and restore the variable entrance requirement when they sent Bill S-12 to the House of Commons on December 19, 1989. This year in June, Liberal members in this House tried once again to deal with the problems facing Canadian workers by tabling a motion from the Senate and the House of

October 12, 1990
Government Orders
Commons that would restore the variable entrance requirement. The motion was rejected by the government.

As I was saying, we tried to introduce those motions to lower the entrance requirements, especially in the rural areas. In my area of Restigouche-Chaleur the unemployment rate hovers around 17 per cent. The entrance requirements for unemployment insurance are now at 14 per cent, the same as Toronto, Vancouver, and all over Canada. If the Conservative government had passed the variable entrance requirement law as every other government had done since 1977, the variable entrance requirement to get unemployment insurance in my riding would have been at 10 per cent. It is not necessarily the senators' fault, because every other government has passed that.
There are other problems. This government has many problems. When we look at the government's monetary policy, we find that it has affected the fishing communities in Atlantic Canada and not only the fishing communities because the fishing communities have a spin-off effect. They supply the rest of the economy. The city of Halifax has concern about the fishing problems as well, because where do fishermen buy their supplies, where do they go shopping? Obviously that is going to have an effect.
I spoke the other day about the monetary policy of this government. I talked about the high interest rates, the high dollar, the cuts in regional development, the GST and the effect it will have on Atlantic Canada and on rural Canada. Actually the economy is in a mess. This government has lost credibility because this was the government that was supposed to solve the economic problems of Canada. As we have seen this week, many associations, many groups, and economic think-tanks have suggested that it is out of control. We know who to blame for that.
In conclusion, I would like to come back to the bill at hand. I am sorry that I digressed a bit, but I could not help it. We have to get a little partisan now and then. I could not help it. To come back to the bill at hand, Bill C-74, I must say that the government is moving in the right direction. It remains to be seen, though, whether
this is the right solution for the problem. We do not know whether it is going to work. We will see if there are enough resources committed to enforce the regulations. I hope there are.
The hon. member for St. John's East seems to imply that there will be resources there. I am glad to hear that. I would like to say that we are moving in the right direction and hopefully some of these problems will be solved in the very near future.
I am very surprised that this government took so long to react. We have had problems over the last year or so in Atlantic Canada. I am surprised that the government did not react quicker. I am disappointed that there is no plan in place for some of these other problems. I would urge the minister responsible, who happens to be from my home province, to get on with the job. We want action, less talk and more action.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a comment. I take quite well a couple of the suggestions which have been made by my friend, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, particularly as they involve the information systems and the gathering of information.
There is a recognition that while Dr. Harris has told us that we need more information, particularly information from the inshore-not that we do not from the offshore-it is important that the way we go about it is consistent with fishermen and the needs of fishermen. There is a program that is very effective in New Brunswick which involves the use of information gathered by fishermen, where the fishermen work with fisheries officers to put the information together. It is something that is an honour to participate in and it is something that has worked extremely well.
I think he knows as well as I that there cannot be an efficient program if the co-operation is not there. In my own province, where I think in the past it would be fair to say that there has not been the level of co-operation that has been essential, we are beginning to see that now with fishermen and scientists getting together.
With regard to the lack of resources, I think my friend knows that one of the criticisms of the $584 million Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program as the response to the crisis that we face, is that there is too much money
October 12, 1990

in there for bureaucrats and not enough for programming.
It is like the rock and the hard place. On the one hand we get criticized because we are not putting enough programming in place and, on the other, because we do not have the resources to enforce the laws and the regulations. We are trying to find the balance between the scientists and the enforcement officers. We need money going into programming so that we can develop other species with, test new gear and that sort of thing, but an important point has been made.
As for not being tough enough on Americans, I think my friend recognizes that it is an easier place to run away to than perhaps Portugal or Spain. I think it is fair to say that we have made great progress with colleagues of my friend opposite in reducing the European overfishing which started in 1972. In the last year we have seen less overfishing than we have seen perhaps in the last eight or nine years. I think there is progress because there has been a multi-faceted approach or a multi-targeted approach in dealing with some of the problems.
One will find that more of the efforts are going offshore in terms of implementation and enforcing regulations as we move to more observers, as we change the observers' status, as we do more gear testing, as we collect more information, and as we get more co-operation between the scientists and the large companies.
My hon. friend has a weakness that we all have; he freely admitted that he diverged a bit. I think it important that we put a couple of facts on the floor of this House.
Since 1977 the governments have moved a variable entrance requirement bill year by year. In 1989 this government, in recognition of the critical importance of the variable entrance requirement, instituted variable entrance requirements as part of the law. It did not need temporary implementation every year. It was institutionalized in the law. The majority of the members of this House and I voted for that legislation in November of last year. It has been sitting down the hall since then. In 1981, when the government opposite changed the regulations on unemployment insurance by moving from
Government Orders
eight to ten weeks, it did not get stuck down there two seconds.
I do not want to hear any more piety from my friends across the way about variable entrance requirements or anything else. They should tell the people in my constituency who want to get trained about the Senate and the variable entrance requirements. I voted for it and I expect the people down the way who are not elected or accountable to vote for it as well.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. John's East had a few comments to make. I would like to reply to some of them.
The bill that he is referring to, Bill C-21, has not become law. In the meantime, if he was thinking of the good of his constituents and the rest of Canadians, he would have asked his government to pass the variable entrance requirements. There are some problems with Bill C-21. Maybe the hon. member is becoming too partisan. When $2.7 billion is removed from the unemployment insurance fund by this government, who is it going to hurt? Employers and employees are going to have to pay the shot from here on in.
Let us talk about training. All the training in the world does not necessarily produce jobs. Where are the jobs? Training for what? It is fine and dandy to say there is training money there. We are not going to stoop to passing a bill just for the sake of getting some training money. There is no guarantee that that training money is going to be there long term. There is no guarantee that after that training money comes into place we are going to have jobs.
The unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces is in the high teens and in some places in the twenties. Training is not going to guarantee that there are jobs. They are cutting back regional development grants. They are cutting back CAP. They are cutting back left and right. That is all they do is cut, cut, cut, and the money that they get is transferred from one to another. They talk about an access centre for youth-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Boyer:: Have faith in the people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.

October 12, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for a while I thought we were debating Bill C-21, even though the issue is one that deals with fish and deals with an act to protect the fishing stock.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mac Harb: I hear the parliamentary secretary shouting from the other side. For a while I thought he might have some sort of difficulty breathing. Living in a democracy, however, I think it is only fair that when one member on one side of the House is speaking the other member on the other side of the House sits and listens. When he or she has a question, he or she will have the time to ask it.
First let me congratulate the parliamentary secretary as well as his minister on this wonderful initiative to move forward with legislation that will protect ultimately the fishing stock in Atlantic Canada. The people of Atlantic Canada can become the beneficiaries as a result of that.
Having said this, there are certain aspects of the bill that I think the parliamentary secretary as well as the minister responsible should take note of. One of them is the issue of enforcement. Any law that we put in place will not work unless it is properly enforced. Enforcement has to apply to those who are in big industry and those who are in small industry. It has to apply to the big, small and medium sized industry.
Unfortunately, as it is right now there is fear in the industry that the small fisherman might be fined and, if he has to pay a fine, that it might mean the end of that particular fisherman, whereas a big corporation that is fishing illegally or is intruding in the industry might be in a position to pay the bill and move on and do it again. That is one of the concerns of members of the community in Atlantic Canada vis-a-vis the present bill.
Another concern which I think is fairly important to take note of is the bookkeeping requirement. Unfortunately, according to Bill C-74, section 61(2) states that fishermen and processors may be required to keep records of the number, sex, size, weight, species, product form or other particulars of any fish caught. These requirements might put a tremendous amount of pressure on a small businessman or a small fisherman in the industry. I for one do not know whether a fish is a male or female. I do not know whether any of my colleagues on this side of the House would know how to identify a
female fish from a male fish. There are some who have indicated that they probably would know. This kind of requirement might put some pressure on the small businessman. It might increase the cost involved. Other concerns are the resources and personnel needed to enforce the present act, which I have already indicated, and that is yet to be seen.
More important than anything is the minister's own admission that the new act will be a part of the solution to many of the fishery's present problems. He then concedes that more must be done for the conservation of stocks. He clearly indicated that surveillance is a step in the right direction but that it is not the answer to all of the problems in the fishery today. I agree with the minister. I think it is a very sensible statement on his part. I think we have to do more for the fishing industry.
But I think what has to be done in Atlantic Canada is that the economy has to be diversified. We have to start providing alternatives to the fishermen, alternatives to the people of Atlantic Canada. The people of Atlantic Canada are not interested in handouts. The people of Atlantic Canada are interested in jobs, job creation and opportunities. They want to be considered as equals to the rest of Canada.
To that extent, my colleague from New Brunswick a little earlier made a statement about the need of infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. I want to reiterate that there is a definite need for infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. There is no point in talking about preserving the fishing stock because as you know, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing there that will stay forever. If the fishing stocks are not depleted today, tomorrow or the day after, they might be. What needs to be done is to provide alternatives.
Infrastructure is one of those options that is available to the government in order to move in and provide the services required. Then we will stop seeing raw sewage being dumped right in the ocean.
For instance, in Newfoundland there are 40,000 homes that do not even have proper pipelines for water, proper water, proper water treatment facilities and so on. Those are the kinds of things that the government can do today at a time when we are facing a difficult economic

October 12, 1990

situation. It can provide alternatives to the people of Atlantic Canada.
I am shifting away from the main topic a little bit but I just could not help it. I have visited many parts of Atlantic Canada. I came to the conclusion that the only way we can deal with the difficult economic situations in Atlantic Canada is through diversification of the economy, through proper job creation by providing the tools to the people so that they can deal with the issues effectively-
Those tools are the infrastructure. The infrastructre is missing there. Until such time as we deal with the heart of the problem, which is to provide them with the proper infrastructure required, they are going to be handicapped in the area of employment.
I want to conclude on a quick note by saying that those are the kinds of initiatives we would like to see taking place. I would like to commend my colleagues from Atlantic Canada who came in full force to speak in support of the bill. That is what it is all about. When something good is being done by the government, tell the government it is good and give them the credit for it. I was very happy to see my colleagues doing just that. There is much more that needs to be done. This is not the answer to an ongoing problem. This is the beginning of the solution.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make two very quick comments. First of all, I am delighted to see my member of Parliament stand up and speak about the Atlantic fishery.


Lawrence MacAulay: You're lucky to have such a good member.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: You are very right.


Roger Simmons: You're lucky to have such a good constituent.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I am sorry La Pointe is not in his riding, but I am very pleased that our central Canadian members are prepared to stand and speak on this issue.
We all recognize that it is not an Atlantic issue. The fishery is a national issue. If we have been able to accomplish anything over the last couple of years in terms of overfishing or in terms of the crisis we face, is that we have allowed all Canadians to see this Atlantic
Government Orders
issue as a national issue. The fact that the member for Ottawa Centre and others stand and speak is important.
I want to comment very briefly on the question of tools. He is right when he talks about the Atlantic future being in the diversification of the economy, partly based on what we have now and what is there.
What Newfoundlanders want are opportunities. They are asking us to provide them with the opportunities and the tools. One of the most important tools we can provide to anyone in the world is an education, training and technical capability because without it there can be nothing. Without something to build on, there can be nothing. If there is anything that Bill C-21 does, it provides Atlantic Canadians with that tool. One of the most adventuresome projects that the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador share is one called the youth strategy. My friend from Burin-St. George's is familiar with it. One of the unusual things the government did was that it did not go into this program with preconceived notions. It had a mass consultation and talked to 600 groups that serve young people. It held consultations with young people across the province.
One of the things that came out of those six meetings, and I participated in one in Goose Bay, was that the young people said: "We know that you can't necessarily provide us with a job. It's not the job we want from you, it is the opportunity and the tools, because we will either find the job or we will create the job". Bill C-21 does exactly that. I thank my friend for mentioning that and giving me the opportunity to point out how important that piece of legislation is for the future of the Newfoundland economy and fishery.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, most of the hon. member's comments are well put, and I see my colleague from Newfoundland pointing across the floor. There is a lot of enthusiasm on both sides of the issue, but there is one point which I think is extremely important.
The parliamentary secretary has stated the need for education, especially in Atlantic Canada. Forty per cent of the youth do not finish high school.
That moves me to the second statement, that there is a need for an overhaul of the education system. I would like to enlist the support of the parliamentary secretary later this fall when I introduce a private members' bill in the House which will ask for a national standard for education so children in Newfoundland will have the same kind of education that children in British Columbia

Government Orders
receive. In that way we will have equality in education, so our school system will provide the tools for our youth, and older people who wish to go back to school.
There is no doubt in my mind that the only way we can deal with the issue of full employment is through a proper education system going back to the grass roots level, the source of the problem, and teach the youth from age five and provide them with the proper tools.
I am very happy to see many of my colleagues on all sides of the House speak a little more about the issue of education. I think it is important and timely, especially when we talk about 1990 being the international year of illiteracy. I know the minister of multiculturalism has done quite a bit in that field, and I am sure he will do more next week and the week after.
It is extremely important for us as a nation to be able to compete internationally. As we head into the 21st century, we must prepare our kids and provide them with the tools they need. We must prepare a proper national strategy that deals with education and provide a national standard for education.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Ottawa Centre for taking an interest in a very valuable Canadian resource such as the fishery.
The variable entrance requirements have been passed in this House since 1977, and if they had been enacted people in Atlantic Canada would not have suffered as much as they have.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


Lawrence MacAulay: Whatever House it is in, people are suffering.
With this new bill, we will have fishermen keeping
books on the size, weight, sex of fish. All of that information will cause the fishermen a lot more problems.


Jim Karygiannis: Do you think they can tell them apart?


Roger Simmons: Good question.


Lawrence MacAulay: Well, it is questionable if they can tell them apart or not.
We also have a problem in the fishery, as the government indicates, and it will crack down on the fishermen.


Jim Karygiannis: Are you going to hit them over the head with a hammer?


Lawrence MacAulay: When the American scallop draggers come into our waters, we have a destroyer there. All that happens is that the scallop dragger rams our Canadian destroyer and runs back home. Is this what we call taking care of our resource? I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he believes there is enough enforcement in the fishery to take care of our waters and our valuable resource?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. He comes from the wonderful island of Prince Edward Island. I do not know about the amount of fish that exists around the island.
One of the concerns I mentioned a little earlier was that the enforcement mechanism had to be put in place. We can talk about all the laws and all the rules we want, but unless we have a proper enforcement mechanism those laws will remain on the books. I totally agree that there is a need for a proper enforcement mechanism. The government should and I am sure will take note of that.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all I congratulate my friend and colleague from Ottawa Centre for his depth of understanding of the fisheries issues which he so clearly demonstrated.
Also, on my own behalf and I believe on behalf of my good friend from St. John's East I want to express tongue in cheek a little horror at his earlier statement about the fact that there will be a national standard for education. Does this mean that we in Newfoundland are going to be delimited by the standards that they have in Ontario on this matter? Is that what he is saying?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: No, no. Does that mean we have to talk like them?


Roger Simmons: There are some things that Newfoundlanders will never accept, I say to him.


An hon. member:: You are not going to let him get away with that.


Roger Simmons: I believe the Ontario caucus has awakened.


John V. Nunziata: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will accept the point of order from the hon. member for York South- Weston since it is Friday afternoon.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether you have been following what my good friend and colleague has been suggesting, but he has suggested in the last few moments that those members who represent Ontario ridings and who were educated in Ontario somehow are less intelligent than other members in this House, or their level of education might be suspect.
I would ask the hon. member to indicate clearly to Canadians generally that he in no way intended to insult and offend people educated in Ontario.


Roger Simmons: Could I speak to the point of order, sir?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think it is a point of order, but I will allow the hon. member to finish his comment and question to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South-Weston misunderstood. I was not pointing to a problem. I was offering a solution, that is to adopt the Newfoundland standard as the national standard.
On the matter of variable entrance requirements which continues-


An hon. member:: You are giving us a higher standard.


Roger Simmons: Is it not self-evident that it is a higher standard?
On the matter of variable entrance requirements which seems to be sneaking into every aspect of this debate, I have to say to my friend from St. John's East that he can say as often as he wants to: "I voted for." The record shows that he voted agin. In December 1989 there was an amendment in this House and he stood and voted against it. I sat here and watched him vote against the VER, I say to him eyeball to eyeball. In June 1990,1 say to him eyeball to eyeball, he voted against it.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member should refer to the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and not the other member. It was not his debate; it was the debate of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
It is Friday afternoon, but I would hope that hon. members would stick to the rules a little.


Roger Simmons: It is a challenge, Mr. Speaker, but we will try to be equal to it. I apologize. I should be speaking to the gentleman from Ottawa Centre, who is the member of Parliament for the gentleman from St. John's East.
I want to say to him that his constituent, who also sits in this Chamber, has been misrepresenting unwittingly, I say to him, a situation. He has been alleging that he, the constituent of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, has been going around and saying that he voted for the VER. I can testify and I can get about 84 affidavits to back me up when I say that he actually voted twice against putting an end to the misery of thousands of people in my riding who would like to be able to draw their benefits after 10 weeks.
Finally, Sir, on this mini sentence, his constituent is equally right that we have finally achieved national recognition for an important national issue called the fishery. Only one thing remains, and I wonder if he agrees with this. The only attention we have yet to get is the attention of the Prime Minister on this national fisheries issue.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it is quite encouraging. I might add I am also the member of Parliament for my colleagues from Newfoundland on this side of the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, every member of the House actually works in my riding and at times I wonder whether I want some of those members to be working in my riding. Unfortunately, living in a democracy we have to hear all the opinions.
I want to congratulate the hon. member on his hard work on behalf of his constituents. I would also like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on having a big heart and being able and willing to take the criticism and the question from the hon. member on this side.
I will not be in a position to answer the question, since it was not put to me per se. It was really put through me

Government Orders
to the hon. member on the other side of the House. I hope that at the next possible opportunity that hon. member will answer the question so we can straighten up the issue on both sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the ability of being a very good speaker. One day, he will become the Speaker of the House of Commons-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: -the way he handled that question.
On that basis questions and comments are now terminated. Debate, the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that your boots will be very difficult to fill, given the immense amount of experience that you have in the House and your ability to be fair to all members on both sides of the House.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-74 and note that it is 13 or 14 minutes before two o'clock and unfortunately I will not be able to conclude my remarks today. I look forward to concluding them next time that the government calls Bill C-74.
You are probably wondering, Mr. Speaker, why a member of Parliament from Toronto is standing to speak to Bill C-74, which is entitled an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof. My constituents in the riding of York South-Weston who are watching this afternoon are probably asking themselves what does our member of Parliament know about fish and the fishery.


Roger Simmons: A lot.


John V. Nunziata: Well, my friend from Burin-St. George's says a lot, but I would never ever know as much as he does about the fishery and the problems of Atlantic fishermen.
The western boundary of my riding is the Humber River and I know-


An hon. member:: It's full of fish.


An hon. member:: It's polluted.


John V. Nunziata: It's polluted. It is polluted because of the actions of a previous Conservative government in the
province of Ontario and because of the neglect and incompetence of that particular government. I do not want to see the waters off the coast of our Atlantic provinces end up like the Humber River that bounds the riding of York South-Weston.
The parliamentary secretary did indicate, seriously speaking, that he was pleased that other members are standing to speak to this important piece of legislation because he believes, as I believe, the fishery is a national issue. All too often members in the House defer to members from Atlantic Canada or from British Columbia on issues involving the fishery. Whether they represent urban ridings or rural ridings, or ridings that have a significant number of fishermen as constituents, the time has come for all members to participate and involve themselves in what is happening in the Canadian fishery. It is a significant part of the economy of a number of provinces, the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, and other provinces of course. The economies of other provinces are affected by the fishery.
The Liberal Party is in general support of this particular bill, Bill C-74. The former member for Beausejour, Fernand Robichaud, spoke on this bill on June 19, 1990. Mr. Robichaud has since vacated his seat-in order to permit Jean Chretien to have the opportunity to run, to be elected, and to represent the Liberal Party here in the House of Commons-but he gave an excellent speech. I certainly commend it to all members who are concerned about this particular issue and members who might want to read about the concerns of a former member who has worked extremely hard to deal with the problems associated with the fishery.
The government introduced this bill on June 6, 1990 and it was given first reading on that date. It is now October 12 and second reading is still not complete. One of the concerns expressed by Mr. Robichaud and others in the Liberal Party is in respect of the delay in processing this particular piece of legislation.
After we conclude second reading, this bill will be sent to a legislative committee which will consider the provisions in this piece of proposed legislation. The legislative committee will have the opportunity to call forward witnesses. It will have the opportunity to ask questions of the minister. It will have the opportunity to review this bill clause by clause to ensure that, in fact, it is a perfect
October 12, 1990

piece of legislation. The bill, in its present form, is imperfect in respect of some of its provisions.


Patrick Boyer: How so?


John V. Nunziata: My friend and colleague, across the way, asks, how so. I simply ask him to be patient. I know that one of the boundaries of his riding is the Humber River-


Patrick Boyer: I'm on the west bank.


John V. Nunziata: -the west bank of the Humber River and also Lake Ontario, as I understand it. He, too, is much chagrined by the policies of the previous Conservative government in Ontario and how the policies affected the cleanliness of that particular body of water. I know the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore will be speaking to this bill when it is called again, presumably some time next week.
In any event to get back to Bill C-74, the legislative committee will have the opportunity to examine, very closely, this particular bill which we support in principle. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Liberal Party does, in fact, support Bill C-74 in principle. But we would like to see the bill improved.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for significantly stiffer fines and penalties for fisheries violations and damage to fish habitat under the Fisheries Act. The government states that such higher fines and penalties will bring the Fisheries Act in line with the deterrents contained in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The new proposed schedule of fines provide for significant penalties. There is no question about that. We are looking at summary conviction offences that could result in fines of up to $100,000 upon conviction and $500,000 for prosecutions that proceed by way of indictment. The prosecution would have the alternative, under this legislation, to proceed either by way of summary conviction or, the more serious route, by indictment. Presumably, when dealing with individuals, the prosecutors will proceed by way of summary conviction and when dealing with persistent offenders and when dealing with corporations that wilfully, consistently, and persistently breach the provisions of this act, the prosecutors will proceed by way of indictment. That could result, in certain cases, in fines of up to $500,000.
Government Orders
I would very much like to know whether the government considered minimum fines. There are no minimum fines provided for under Bill C-74. There are other offences in the Criminal Code of Canada and other federal legislation that provide for minimum penalties. If the government is serious in terms of the sanctions, and it appears to be serious given that, for example, for the obstruction of a fisheries officer there is the possibility of a maximum fine of $1 million if the prosecutors proceed by way of indictment.
Presumably the government is serious about the sanctions that appear here. These are the maximum penalties that the court can hand out. It can also hand out prison sentences. If the government is serious about telling Canadians and the foreign pirates who have been pirating our fish stocks that we are serious about this particular legislation, then the government will consider and implement minimum fines so that upon conviction, there will be a minimum fine.
Under the bill now, a discharge, whether it be an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge, could be the result of an infraction under the act. That is not acceptable. When we talk about some of the offences that could result under this act, whether it be general fisheries offences, obstruction of a fishery officer, or pollution of fish habitat, we want to ensure that the proper messages are sent out and that this law acts as a deterrent for those who pollute the fish habitat. The Government of Canada will not tolerate the deliberate pollution of the fish habitat. I would ask that the parliamentary secretary consult with his minister and consider minimum fines when this bill is sent to committee.
The Liberal Party has articulated a number of concerns that we have with respect to this bill. The parliamentary secretary is well aware of the four specific concerns that the Liberal opposition has articulated. I have but two minutes to briefly talk about those four points. I will expand on those four points when given the opportunity when the bill is brought forward again.
First, we are concerned about the present surveillance efforts that appear to be concentrated on the inshore sector. In effect, the inshore fishermen, Canadian fishermen, would be targeted under this legislation. We are concerned about those foreign fishermen, as I indicated earlier, who are pirating unlawfully and deliberately depleting our fish stocks.

October 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
The second I want to make is with respect to the fishermen's associations. We know that the industry has generally supported tougher legislation. The fishermen's associations were not consulted on the final form of this legislation. I hope the parliamentary secretary takes note. Of course, he will ensure that they are invited to make submissions at the legislative committee. The associations are concerned and agree that tougher penalties are necessary, but they are asking if the proposed legislation will accomplish what it is intended to do.
The third point is with respect to the lack of a comprehensive strategy to apprehend the foreign violators, particularly the American fishermen on the Canadian side of the Georges Bank.
The fourth concern is with respect to the record keeping requirements under Bill C-74. They are extremely onerous. Under section 61.2, fishermen and purchasers will be required to keep records of the number, sex, size, weight, species, product, form and other particulars of any fish caught. Can you imagine, every fish caught in every boat by every fishermen will have to be counted-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When this bill is brought forth again, the hon. member will have seven minutes, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock, the Elouse will now proceed to consideration of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Boyer that Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities,
be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to speak in support of the principle expressed in Bill C-258, an act to establish the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contribution to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities.
As one of the few members, if not the only member of this House, who has had the opportunity to serve as a provincial minister of social services, I have had the opportunity to work with many disabled people in their organizations over a four-year period. Whatever gains were made by my department during those four years were made with the support and assistance of disabled persons, sometimes their very sharp assistance.
Prince Edward Island recognized the work of disabled persons by proclaiming last week, October 1 to 7, Canadian Paraplegic Association Week. The week was set aside to generate a greater awareness of the needs of disabled persons while reflecting upon their achievements. The association has made significant accomplishments in advocating on behalf of individuals with needs for better accessibility, counselling and other services.
As a former minister of social services, I have personal knowledge of the many difficulties that disabled people experience in their efforts to take part fully in the life of their community. I have met with them individually and in groups. What was most striking about that experience was the fact that no matter how great were the discouragements they had to face, they seldom appeared to get discouraged.
I am aware that for almost a decade the disabled people of Canada tried to get the attention of Parliament and were finally successful 10 years ago with the excellent barriers report of the parliamentary committee on the disabled.
The strength of this present proposal is that it once again brings before Parliament the continuing need of disabled persons for encouragement and support and permits this form of debate in the House. However, even as I support the principle of this bill, there are several issues that require more attention. I wish to call them to the attention of the House in case there may be an agreement on the need to amend the present bill.
October 12, 1990

The amount is only $1,000 per year. It would be unreasonable to expect it to do a whole lot for disabled persons in Canada. For this reason, we should not overload the project by asking for any form of report to Parliament on the issue cited. Any possible competition among disabled persons in organizations in Canada for a $1,000 award could make the cost of the selection process far greater than the eventual benefits. For that reason, I believe that we should eliminate the competitive process.
The bill proposes a stand-alone award and not a supplement for funds available elsewhere for a specific project.
However, I would think that the award could be a supplement to existing scholarships, most of which could stand enrichment. For example, I think that eligibility for the award could be restricted to graduating students from senior high school grades for disabled and who have made a significant contribution to public life during their school years. This contribution could be demonstrated through receiving a scholarship award for such contribution upon high school graduation.
The Disabled Persons Participation Program of the Secretary of State already provides substantial grants to organizations of the disabled which dwarf the small amount to be awarded from the Centennial Flame.
It is important that the House not trivialize issues of concern to disabled Canadians by an inappropriate gesture on our part, no matter how well intended.
I am pleased to endorse the principle that the Flame funds be used for further participation in public life of the disabled persons in Canada. But in recognition of the limited amount of money available, I would urge that the bill be referred to a legislative committee to receive suggestions on improvements.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise' this afternoon to speak briefly on this particular bill. I wanted to point out to my colleagues that the member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain, who would have liked to have been here to take part in these proceedings, at least observe what was being said, was away at a national aboriginal network conference on disabilities. Consequently, she is on her way back and unable to be here. The hon. member is sorry about that.
Private Members' Business
She did point out to me, however, some of the concerns that she had that I shall share briefly with the House. My colleague has already mentioned some of them, so I shall do so rapidly.
The first one, of course, is the whole notion of helping those who have some need for special assistance. This is one that we can endorse. It is an important principle and we have no difficulty at all supporting it totally and completely.
We are concerned, however, because the amounts are really quite small-we are talking about roughly $1,000-for what I am told are approximately 3.3 million disabled Canadians. That is perhaps a conservative figure in the sense that it does not include a number of other categories that might be involved. It is simply not a large amount.
What can we get done in terms of research, or what have you, for $1,000 today? Our great fear is that while the principle is a sound one and the intentions are very noble, the amounts of money may be communicating a contradictory message. So, I would ask that we consider that very seriously.
As well, there is a reference to an award being made to a person. We wonder whether or not that should not be expanded to groups of persons because, there again, it limits.
We ask whether or not the committee should be expanded to include the Speaker of the Senate because the fountain is on the precincts of Parliament. While I can understand that there may be some reluctance on the part of some hon. members to include anyone from the Senate nowadays, I would hope that we could keep those two issues separate and consider that as a real possibility.
I want to point out as well that the amount set is part of the bill. There is some concern there. What if the amount set is not met? What if it is lower or higher? Are there ways of circumventing that and responding to it appropriately?

Briefly, we support this bill in principle. There is no problem. It is an important gesture. However, we are afraid the gesture will be symbolic rather than concrete, and since this award will be limited to a maximum of about $1,000-it is said 3.3 million Canadians are in this group-we wonder whether this restriction will be criticized. Are we perhaps sending the wrong message?

October 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
As I said before, we also want to consider the option of giving the award to more than one person, so that a team would be able to apply for the award. We also think perhaps the Speaker of the Senate should also be included, since the site is part of Parliament. Finally, I have some questions, and I suppose the hon. member opposite will have some answers. When we are talking about dollars and cents, is there a problem when the amount is not sufficient, if we have less or more than the prescribed amount? Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to join my colleagues in working on this bill so that this proposal can be implemented.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary' to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for a brief moment to point out that Bill C-258 submitted to the House by the member of Parliament for Etobicoke- Lakeshore is very simple and straightforward. All it is suggesting and requiring is that the coins thrown into the Centennial Flame be concentrated into one point. It now goes to the Secretary of State and is spread out, gosh knows where, but to worthy organizations. The bill seeks to concentrate this to a very worthy cause whereby any disabled person could apply from year to year for the receipts of the coins tossed into the flame.
I resent a little the kind of criticism that seems to be directed at this bill. Maybe my friends from the opposite side are not reading the bill, or maybe they have a copy of the old bill. I would refer them to paragraph 6 which
says very clearly that funds for the awards shall consist of all money collected from the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill in Ottawa during the fiscal year preceding the granting of the award. It is very simple, very straightforward.
To publicize this, a plaque could be put at the Centennial Flame there telling people who visit the Centennial Flame exactly where the money is going to go. The amounts collected have been anywhere from $750 to $3,500. It is very worth while. I think we should get on with it and make sure that it does happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Are there any more speakers? Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read for second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Do I have unanimous consent to call it three o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being three o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 1 p.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 15, 1990