1992-03-12

[Stage Direction]
41 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 12, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


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


[Stage Direction]
10TH REPORT OF CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the 10th report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act (retroactive payments).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act on retroactive payments.
The intent of the bill is very simple. The bill intends to allow for retroactivity in the area of widows' pensions. The present legislation does not allow for any retroactive claims.
I have proposed that the legislation be modified so that it would be possible to apply for the widows' allowance and receive payments retroactively from the date the claim is filed, not exceeding the death of the veteran. Too often it is the case that, through no fault of their own, these people have not received a pension to which they are entitled. I know of one gentleman who at age 81 found out that he could have received a supplementary allowance, but it was only retroactive in that case 14 months. In this case there is no retroactivity.
I intend to bring forth other similar bills in the very near future. My basic principle is that if government can collect the money it is owed by Canadians-and I believe that should be so-in turn Canadians, the people, should be able to collect the money their government owes them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Duhamel moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour, duty and privilege to present to this House a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
It is signed by residents who live in and around the Hamilton area: Beamsville, Ancaster and Hamilton.

Routine Proceedings
These petitioners join a growing list of literally hundreds of thousands of petitioners. They request that Parliament recognizes that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society.
The petitioners ask that we amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present here today.
The first is from the communities of Semans and Carrot River in the extreme comers of my riding. The petitioners note that recent actions of the government have been a direct attack on rural communities.
They call upon Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life, particularly to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services, and to reject the Conservative agenda of cutbacks and closures.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, from the Choiceland, Melfort, Gronlid area, I have a petition noting that property taxes are escalating for health care, education, infrastructure replacement, social and leisure services as well as for protective services.
The petitioners call on the federal government to continue to bear at least a 30 per cent interest in maintaining the safety and security of Canadian citizens through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning. One is with respect to housing.
These petitioners point out that constitutional proposals transfer housing to the provinces certainly not necessarily with compensation, including the responsibility for non-profit co-op housing. They point out that co-op housing provides thousands of Canadians with quality, affordable shelter.
These petitioners also point out that certain provinces may be unable to support non-profit co-op housing. They are really quite concerned about that. They want housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility and they want the maintenance of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is with respect to indexed pensions. It comes from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They are the petitioners.
They point out-and I agree with them wholeheartedly-that indexed pensions are a need not just for a certain segment of the Canadian population but for all Canadians.
They also indicate-and again I am in agreement-that more and more Canadians will retire on fixed incomes unprotected in many instances against inflation. They believe as I do that linking benefits to the increases in the cost of living is really quite necessary.
They lament the fact that the government intends to restrict and remove full inflation protection for federal public servants. They believe, as I do and as I endorse, that the government should in fact be aiming to give everyone, all Canadians, pensions that are protected against the cost of inflation.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, under the provisions of Standing Order 36, to present a petition today. It is a continuing voice from Canadians, in particular from the Ontario area; Oshawa, Whitby and other communities, calling on the government to ensure that it brings in real tax reforms so that we can have a fair tax system in Canada.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and privilege to rise on behalf of thousands of constituents from my riding of Broadview-Greenwood. They continue to sign petitions asking me to request that the government reconsider its position on the GST and abolish it because the lack of consumer confidence in this country is probably the greatest contribution to the high unemployment and the number of lay-offs that have happened in our country in the last year.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, certified correct under Standing Order 36, signed by a number of residents in my riding which states that whereas the goods and services tax as applied to female sanitary products such as
March 12, 1992

tampons and pads and whereas these products are necessities for women between puberty and menopause and whereas the government has decided that the goods and service tax should not apply to certain foods because they are necessities, wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider removing the goods and service tax from women's sanitary products.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 100.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Starred Question No. 100.


Albert Glen Cooper: Due to the length of this response, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Langan: Since January 1, 1985, has the Prime Minister of Canada
reimbursed the Government of Canada for the purchase of food
consumed by himself, his family or guests and, if so, (a) on what dates
did he remit the cheques (b) in what amount?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: During the period from September 1, 1984 to April 30, 1991, the Prime Minister reimbursed a total amount of $55,115.00 for the purchase of food consumed by himself, his family or non-official guests at 24 Sussex.
Cheques covering this expense were remitted as follows:
Cheque Date	Amount	Period CoveredApril 15, 1985	4,000.00	Sep/84-Mar/85September 16, 1985	4,000.00	Apr / 85 - Sep / 85May 23, 1986	3,773.50	Oct /85-Mar/86November 27, 1986	3,204.00	Apr/86-Aug/86December 15, 1986	699.00	Apr / 86 - Aug / 86October 7, 1987	3,960.00	Sep /86-Aug/86November 13, 1987	4,182.00	Apr / 87 - Aug / 87June 17, 1988	4,138.00	Sep/87-Mar/85
Cheque Date
Supply
Amount Period Covered
October 20, 1988 August 2, 1989 May 31, 1990 May 31, 1990 November 1st, 1990 June 19, 1991
4,287.50	Apr / 88 - Sep / 85
4,949.00	Oct /88-Apr/85
4,398.00	May/ 89 -Oct/ 86
4,392.00	Nov/89-Apr/86
4,566.00	May/90-Oct/86
4,566.00	Nov / 90 -Apr/86
Based on Statistics Canada data for average family expenditures on food for families with five or more members. 1984 data used as baseline. Subsequent years reflect increases in the food components of the CPI.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to prevent further ecological disaster through the pillaging of transboundary fish stocks off Canada's east coast, and in order to save an essential national industry and valued way of life for many rural citizens, Canada should take immediate steps to extend its functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
He said: Mr. Speaker, good morning, good morning to my friends from the west. They seem to be up for this important debate. I am not surprised because the motion is crystal clear. It is very simple.
First of all, it states what the problem is, as you, Mr. Speaker, so well read it a moment ago, and then it gets directly to the solution.
I want to draw the attention of my friends on the government side in particular, and the New Democratic Party, to the wording of the motion because it is not

March 12, 1992
Supply
designed to raise any hackles whatsoever, not designed to invite a partisan shouting match, though we are reasonably good at that if it has to be done, if it can make a point, but it is not designed for those purposes. Rather it is designed to seek some consensus on an issue that has been begging for consensus for too long.
First of all, this debate is about the survival of a people, my people, the people who live on the south coast of Newfoundland in communities like Lord's Cove and Rencontre and on the southwest coast in Grand Bruit and Fox Roost, on the northeast coast in Hore-wood and Aliston, Codroy and Highlands on the west coast, New Ferole up in the northwest coast, Port Hope Simpson in Labrador and yes, in the rural communities of Nova Scotia.
These people, or more correctly, their forebears came to those shores five centuries ago. From the counties of southwest England they came, from Cornwall and from Dorset and from County Tipperary and Limerick and Cork in Ireland and from Scotland and from Wales and from the Channel Islands and from France.
Some of them fled religious persecution. Others fled starvation. They all came because they saw an opportunity to build something better, to build a better life. They did not come empty handed. They came with their tools. They brought with them a language, be it English, French, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. They came with a value system that encompassed a deep awe for human worth, a genuine love of life itself, an uncanny knack for taking advantage of scarce opportunities. They came with a healthy respect for the forces of nature and they came with a stubbornly strong work ethic.
They brought something else. They brought a brand of raw courage, steeped in fatalism and bordering on the foolhardy. There is a Newfoundland folk song that some will be familiar with. It is entitled: Let me fish off Cape St. Mary's. In it there are a couple of lines that capsules that trait of raw courage I have just mentioned. The author had the fisherman riding the waves in the very rough ocean while he pursues his living. The lines are these: "When my dory fails to make it, let me be a man and take it".
These were the people and these are the tools they brought with them. Yes, they built and they built well. They built a better life and they built a cherished way of
life which has served us well in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia, served all of Canada well and indeed served the entire world. Because that race of people, while isolated geographically, was never insular.
They sent their best to the four comers of the earth. They sent Captain Bob Bartlett to the north pole with the American explorer Robert Perry. Bob Bartlett is from Brigus in Newfoundland. They sent Georgina Stirling from Twillingate to the concert halls of New York and Paris and Vienna. They sent others to the mission fields of three continents and still others to the faculties of great universities and to the boardrooms of the corporate world.
I ask, is that the recipe for turning out welfare bums? Is there in anything I have said so far any inkling that what we have been up to down there all those years is some mad scheme to produce and to create a generation of pogey people or conniving UI cheque snatchers.
That brings me to what is clearly the soul of this debate. An entire people has been brought to its knees, not through its own greed or its foolhardiness or its laziness or its immorality, but by the despicable actions of others and by the equally despicable lack of action of yet others.
This is indeed about the survival of a people. No one is more painfully aware of that than those people. What is even more excruciatingly painful is to realize your peril but to be helpless to do anything about it.
That is what this debate is all about. We need your help. We need the help of men and women of good will from coast to coast in this country. We need the help of people and of governments around the world.
But first, let me be more specific on one or two points. What are those despicable actions of which I speak? And why do I call them despicable?
Yesterday, along with several of my colleagues, I had the opportunity of meeting with Richard Cashin and with members of the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union who were here from Newfoundland to meet with the Prime Minister and various caucuses.
We heard, as I hope the Prime Minister did as well, from Mr. Cashin and his group in the most graphic terms the terrible toll that foreign overfishing off Canada's east coast is taking on people, on communities, on a way of life.
March 12, 1992

Indeed, during the meeting Mr. Cashin produced a couple of graphs that show pretty clearly the dimensions of the slaughter which is being perpetrated by the Spanish and by the Portuguese off our coast. The first graph showed us how the Canadian fishing effort has just dropped over the last three or four years, and against that they showed us another graph which showed how the foreign fishing effort, illegal fishing effort, has skyrocketed. The two graphs, side by side, tell a story in themselves.
We the people of rural Newfoundland, we the people of rural Nova Scotia, we the people of conscience all over Canada, need your help. We need you in Williams Lake in British Columbia, in Dauphin, Manitoba, in Sachs Harbour up inside the Arctic Circle, in St. Jean-sur-Richelieu down near the American border, we need your help. It is not your pity we need, we are not looking for pity, that is not what we want to evoke; we want to trigger your common sense.
The wanton pillaging of a precious marine resource defies common sense. Our failure as a nation, as a country, to act against that piracy defies common sense. It is precisely for that reason that I turn to Canadians in every nook and cranny of this great country and I ask them to say to their politicians that they want their national government to call a halt now to the senseless slaughter of fish stocks. They want their national government now to do what has to be done to save an entire way of life and a people from sure oblivion.
This debate, this motion, is about many other things too. Yes, it is about the survival of a people. I have said that. Yes, it is about fish, and I have said that. But it also about environment and it is about ecology and it is about sustainable development. My friend and colleague from Montreal will talk about that.
It is about the snake alley of international relations and the art of the possible, and it is about having the guts to do what has to be done and the savvy to do it. My friend and colleague from Winnipeg will talk about that. Others will talk about that and about the environment. My friend from Davenport, my friend from Broadview-Greenwood, colleagues and friends from all over this country, including I hope in all three parties, will talk about various aspects of this important issue.
Supply
This debate is about the hurt, about the pain, about the desperation of the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children whose economic underpinning has been snatched away from them.
My colleagues from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in particular will talk to you about that, including my colleagues from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and from Gander-Grand Falls.
When the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted to give up their independence and entered this federation 43 years ago this month as a matter of fact, they brought with them a stubborn and strong work ethic. Newfoundland brought a bank balance for it was in the black when it joined Canada and it brought phenomenal natural wealth, not the least of which was the world's richest and largest fishing grounds.
Now 43 years later, take a look at us. The bank balance has long since gone. The fish are gone, at least for us, although it seems they are there for everybody else. They are there for the Spanish and the Portuguese but they are not there for us. And a strong work ethic is not unlike our appendix, it is still there but it is not of much use anymore. There is no place to practise it.
One of the colourful and descriptive words among many-and this one I believe is unique to the Newfoundland vocabulary-is a word that my good friend whom I am delighted to see here, the gentleman from St. John's West, the minister of fisheries, knows and uses often, I am sure. It is the word hangashore, stay ashore, as in do not go fishing.
A person who is a hangashore is a person who is considered to be lazy. It is the ultimate, the most insulting put-down that you can hurl at another Newfoundlander, to call him a hangashore. Because if he does not go fishing he is lazy, he is a hangashore. What a telling term.
In traditional Newfoundland to work was to fish. The flip side of that, the corollary of that is true today. If you cannot fish, by and large you cannot work in Newfoundland. You are a hangashore, but not deliberately so. You are a forced hangashore. Forced by the Spanish, the Portuguese and the lack of action by the national government.

Supply
Do we begin to even understand what this debate is all about? We want to be able to practise our work ethic again. We want first crack at the fish that brought us to these shores five centuries ago.
We are the only Canadians who came into this country by voting to come into it. I was not bom a Canadian. My father and mother were not bom Canadians. My brothers and sisters were not bom Canadians. We voted to embrace a nation. And we want now from that nation we embraced four decades ago, a bit of fairness because we have not been getting it on this issue.
We have become pawns in a larger game, a game that dictated for five whole years, from 1985 to 1990, a shameful silence on this issue. Nobody at the national level spoke up for this issue. Why? Because fish resources during that period were judged to be easy trade-offs for big ticket items with the European Community and an easy trade-off for inflated egos as well.
But now the chickens have come home to roost. The disaster is at our door. It is not just at the doors of the people who are having difficulty putting bread and butter on the table in mral Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, but it is at our door as a Parliament and at our door as a government.
If we fail to act on this one, we are not worth our salt. If we allow a people to be destroyed, if we allow one of our great national industries, equal in magnitude to the great auto industry of this country, to be decimated, if we allow our sovereignty to continue to be trampled, if we allow a great marine resource to be pillaged beyond retrieval, what are we doing here? The disaster is at our door, but so is the solution, the only solution.
I understand that my friend, the minister of fisheries, has tried other options. Knowing him I know he has pursued those options with great vigour, great enthusiasm and great commitment. For that I have commended him often both publicly and privately. But I believe in his heart of hearts, as he has indicated in some of his unguarded moments, he knows there is only one solution and it is contained in this resolution.
He knows and I know that solution will not be easy, but I have never seen this government back away from solutions that are not easy.
The government knew when it took on the free trade issue-and we were on different sides on that one but I use it as an example-that it was not an easy fight, but it was committed to it and saw it through.
I was not on the government's side on the GST, but I use it as an example of another fight that it took on because it, for whatever reason, believed in it and saw it through.
So do not give me the argument back that we cannot do it because it is not very easy to do. It is going to be painfully difficult to do, but it has to be done.
I see my time has run out so in conclusion, as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has just said, we are all in this together.
We have focused on this issue six ways to Sunday. No matter how good Canada's conservation, no matter how well it regulates its own fishery, no matter how good the compensation package for people who are deprived of incomes out there, and there has to be a good compensation package, no matter how well we regulate the inshore, no matter how fairly we apportion licences, all of that is going to be by the board if we do not come to grips with this central problem.
On this one I say to the minister and the Prime Minister, they have the goodwill of every member of this House and of all well-intentioned Canadians. I ask him to rise, support the motion and then let us begin the admittedly difficult task of putting the decision into effect for the good of those people to save that way of life and for the good of Canada.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the hon. member for Burin-St. George's took me and one of our senators throughout his riding which covers most of the south coast of Newfoundland.
We visited the Codroy region, Stephenville, but what will always be etched in my memory is our visits to four fishing areas: Ramea, Grey River, Gaultois, Baine Harbour. Two years ago these communities were closing down. The fish plants were either working at a very low capacity or no capacity at all.
The member for Burin-St. George's had us meet with many of these people. We asked the question: Can we retrain people? I was full of optimism that we might
March 12, 1992

be able to do this. But I came to the reluctant conclusion, after speaking with the people in so many of these areas who have fished and lived off the sea for so many decades, for centuries, that this was not possible.
To try to do that would be cruel. It would mean uprooting the people from the villages, from the areas, and taking them elsewhere, destroying a way of life. Why? Because of what the member from Burin-St. George's has lead the charge for in this House of Commons, preservation of the fish stock particularly in the face of foreign overfishing.
To me, it is a tragedy coming to be realized when we see these great human beings with their way of life taken from them. I urge members in this House from every part of the country-and I come from Toronto, North York, Willowdale. But to me, to see these Newfoundlanders deprived of their way of life through the shortsightedness of national policies and international overfishing, we must bear the blame.
It is not their fault. It was in our hands. We made the treaties and we enforced them. We are the ones who have been negligent. We owe it to them. We owe it to ourselves to ensure that we take the steps proposed by the member for Burin-St. George's.
In conclusion I ask him, if his resolution is passed, how long does he feel it will take before the fish stock can be restored to the level that Canada needs?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, let me come directly to the last part of the question first. Here I seek the camaraderie, the support of my friend from St. John's West because I think he has voiced some frustration with some of the findings he has had from scientists.
Certainly part of the problem has been some of the guessing. Do not forget that trying to measure how many fish are out there is a very inaccurate science at best. So the regeneration period, the restoration period before there is a healthy fish stock, the answer given will depend on the scientists talked to and often when it is that they are consulted.
Some say that we can do it in the short term. I will not get into numbers, but I will say that I have not heard anybody, not Dr. Harris in his report or Mr. Dunne, the director general in Newfoundland of DFO, in his report or any others, none of them have said, the minister has
Supply
never said that it is gone. Nobody has ever said: "The game is over".
Everybody has said: "If we do the right thing". Let us stop my talking in code. If we take control of the fish stock, because we have managed the stock inside the limit with reasonable good sense, although there have been some lapses of good sense. If we had been able to manage the stock that is now under threat, we would not be debating this resolution today.
I say to my friend that everybody who has scrutinized this problem believes there is a solution. It is surprising who is getting onside on this one. I just saw a newspaper in Windsor, Ontario. I see editorials across the country. I see people who have studied this industry for years. I see the heads of the great fish companies, National Sea and FPI now saying in the last few weeks that there is only one solution. That is to extend jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Everybody is saying that. The minister, in various forms and sometimes by allusion, has said the same thing. Nobody argues the validity of the solution. What the minister I am sure will say in a few minutes is that it is going to be difficult, and I understand that.
I have one further point in response to my friend. He mentioned having visited communities like Ramea, Grey River, Gaultois and so on. The cry out there is: "Create some jobs".
Does it not strike you, Mr. Speaker, does it not strike the minister that the jobs we want to create are not painting cemetery fences or putting people on buses to Cambridge, Ontario? The jobs we want are right under our noses, except they are being performed by Spanish and Portuguese. Let us give them back to the people who had them in the first place.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. In his powerful speech, the member for Burin-St. George's made reference to something that is of some significance. He spoke of the senseless slaughter of fish stock. Would he elaborate on that term so as to give us some elements as he sees them.


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend from Davenport. Yes, it is easy to elaborate on that. The figures are well known. There is an organization called the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, which has been together as an organization since 1977-78, which has had 12 signatories, 12 members, 11 countries in the European Community. Canada is a member of NAFO.

March 12, 1992
Supply
They have a group of scientists who look each year at what we should be catching without destroying the stock. Then they give quotas to their various countries. All the countries stay within that quota, except the European Community which beginning in 1985 began to transgress the quota.
Starting in 1985 or 1986 NAFO said there ought to be a moratorium, there ought to be no northern cod caught, and instructed its members to abide by that moratorium. Since 1986 when no cod were supposed to be caught, we have had the Spanish and Portuguese, through their membership in EC and NAFO, catching 400,000 tonnes that they were not supposed to catch. Last year alone they caught 47,000 tonnes that they were not supposed to catch. That is slaughter.
That is one example, but only one of many we could give, were there time.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a two-part question. The motion suggests that we should take immediate steps to extend something called functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
I have a chart here that shows the cod harvest in the northwest Atlantic from 1960 to 1991. In 1960 over 1.1 million tonnes of cod were taken. It keeps climbing up to 1968, 1.9 million tonnes, mostly by foreign fishermen. Then it starts to descend as the cod stocks were getting wiped out. In 1976, 1977, 1978 the total catch of everybody was down to about 400,000 tonnes, Canadian and foreign. In 1977 of course there was a 200-mile economic zone established when the nations of the world had reached a consensus that they would accept this and would recognize it if a country took over not jurisdiction, but extended an economic zone out 200 miles from its coast.
My question is this: If a country could simply just extend functional jurisdiction and solve the problem, why did the government of those days-and for most of the period it was a Liberal government-not simply extend functional jurisdiction from 12 miles, as it was, the jurisdiction that was accepted in those days, out to
200 or out to the nose and tail of the banks so that the whole problem would never have occurred of overfishing on the Grand Banks? We would not have had 1.9 million tonnes taken in 1968 and the like. That is one part of my question. If there is some easy solution, why did our predecessors not take this easy solution?
The other part of my question is this: What exactly is functional jurisdiction? Would the hon. gentleman tell us, is it likely that the other sovereign states of the world, particularly high seas fishing countries, industrial states like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, et cetera, would accept this as being a norm that they are prepared to accept all over the world, whatever this is, functional jurisdiction beyond 200 miles?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Questions and comments period is now over, but is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend from St. John's West and I thank the House for giving me unanimous consent, which I promise not to abuse. I will be brief and to the point.
The minister is absolutely right that of course up until especially around 1968 there was a real pillaging going on out there. In fairness, and not to play politics with him, but he and I had membership in the same party in those days. He and I were in relatively equal positions to advise the government of that particular day.
I would hope that some of the wisdom that he passed on, as I am confident of some of the wisdom that I have passed on, had the effect which was triggered in the 1970s, where men like the late Don Jamieson and the late Dan McDonald, Senator MacEachen and others like Romeo LeBIanc led the charge. They essentially did what is being advocated here. It is true they went out and attempted to do what the minister is attempting to do these days, to get as many allies out there as they could. Eventually, they bit the bullet. He is right, they might have been a little late in doing it. That is the charge we are making of this particular administration right now, if there is a charge.
March 12, 1992

He did something that I had hoped he would not do. He talked about there being an easy way. I said: "No, there is no easy way". Knowing him, I do not think he will wait for the way to get easy before he treads it. Let us not get locked into that little red herring. It is not going to be easy.
Functional jurisdiction? I do not believe that if the government accepts this resolution today and does what the resolution says tomorrow, that would solve the problem in one fell swoop. It would trigger a number of new problems. The minister has said that. He implied it a minute ago.
I submit, one, that in the absence of other alternatives, this is a solution which will begin the process of finding a solution. At the moment, Spain and Portugal know that all they can expect from Canada is a visit now and then from the minister. He will come over and lecture them with his admittedly colourful phrasing. He will go back home and they will go on willy-nilly fishing all they want. This is want they have done for the last several years.
The extension of jurisdiction will raise, as the minister alludes, a whole range of problems. What it will do on the positive side is force those people to begin talking about the problem. They do not even talk about it now. Most of them do not even admit there is a problem at the moment. It will begin the process of getting them to the table to begin the process of focusing their minds. If the minister wants to draw some lessons from what happened leading to the 1977 extension, I believe there is a reasonably good parallel how Canada bit the bullet because there were not too many choices other than to stand by and allow the resource to be pillaged. Men like Jamieson and others were not willing to do that. I do not believe men like the present minister are willing to do it much longer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on the tone of his speech if not on the total content of it.
The motion says to stop further ecological disaster through the pillaging of transboundary fish stocks off the east coast and so on, Canada should take immediate steps to extend its functional jurisdiction to the nose and
Supply
tail of the Grand Banks. That would be the area outside the present 200-mile fishing zone.
It is not clear what is meant by this term functional jurisdiction. Nor is it clear why the rest of the world would accept this attempt to extend jurisdiction out in that area. When I asked the question, I did not get an answer really to give me any specificity on that issue. What the motion suggests is action that is premature. It is a non-confidence motion. The government and I will be asking my colleagues to vote against it because it is premature and it is certainly inexplicit as to what Canada has been asked to do.
In starting my comments, let me just point out again that in 1960 there were patches of over 1,100,000 tonnes of cod in this area, going to 1.9 million over the years to 1968. Then it diminished as the pressure reduced the stocks in 1976 when the total catch, foreign and Canadian, was about 400,000 tonnes. During that whole period, Canada and other nations fought to establish the Law of the Sea convention that would give some recognition beyond the 12-mile limit to coastal states with respect to an exclusive fishing zone. That is how long it took when the stocks were really being pillaged, pillaged to heights that no one could even visualize today. It took a period of 10 or 12 years for the Law of the Sea convention to be established and accepted by other nations of the international community because, unless a large preponderance of other nations in the world accept your attempt to extend jurisdiction, of course, your extension of jurisdiction is useless. It will simply lead to confrontation and conflict.
The hon. member of Parliament mentioned something about sovereignty; that our sovereignty was being trammelled. Our sovereignty as a country is certainly recognized within our territorial boundaries and in the 200-mile fishing zone, it is recognized with reference to fisheries matters. The rest of the world recognizes it.
Our sovereignty is not being trammelled today. However, a fish stock or stocks is being trampled upon and in fact is being threatened with extinction because of totally unjustifiable overfishing by certain other nations in the world on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That is not a trammelling of our sovereignty, that is a trampling of our common sense. That is a trampling upon the principles of sustainable conservation that the world

March 12, 1992
Supply
community says it believes in, as enunciated by the Brundtland commission in 1987.
This is, I believe, one of the worst examples of ecological and environmental catastrophe that is present before the world today. People talk about the threat to the tropical forests. They concern themselves about the ozone layer and the like. There are a great number of people who are concerned about seals and seals are not a stock that is in danger at all. There is no threat. Seals as a separate species of animals are not threatened at all. In fact, their numbers have grown beyond all comprehension. They have doubled in the last seven or eight years. The harp and the hood seal were never threatened with extinction.
We notice that some people are apparently so concerned about them that they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on silly advertisements saying that seals do not eat cod. As the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland suggested the other day, what do they do? He has never seen them lined up waiting for Kentucky Fried Chicken. I have never seen them eat popsicles. They certainly eat something that is in the ocean. We know they eat capelin and they eat cod and they eat other fish species.
Although seals are not endangered as a species at all, some people go absolutely bonkers at the thought that there should be any killing of seals or any culling of seals. Now, it is a separate issue. What is threatened and what I am concerned about is not seals because they are not in danger. It is fish stocks that are in danger and specifically the northern cod stock, which is the reason why Newfoundland was settled in the first place hundreds of years ago and flatfish stocks, as I explained in New York on Tuesday when I was there.
The American plaice, the witch flounder, the yellow tail flounder, are three valuable flatfish stocks which the European communities of Spain and Portugal have so overfished by ignoring NAFO quotas in the last four or five years that the NAFO quotas have had to be reduced by 50 to 60 per cent. NAFO scientists have had to flatly say they can no longer estimate what the total allowable catches for those species should be because they simply do not have the information. They do not know how much has been discarded. We have the same people, the Spanish in particular, and the Portuguese catching juvenile flatfish, using mesh sizes not permitted by NAFO to
catch these small juvenile fish that they are catching in the nursery grounds outside the 200-mile limit.
That is what we should keep our eye on and not get diverted. As Mr. Diefenbaker once said when Richard Cashin interrupted a speech he was making in the House, "When the big game hunter is out after big game, he does not get diverted by rabbit tracks". We should not get diverted by seal tracks and advertisements by people who claim that they are environmentalists, such as the Fund for Animal Welfare that made a fortune a few years ago in wrecking the seal hunt, spending $100,000 on these silly newspaper advertisements this week.
What is endangered is not the seal. It is not any mammal, it is not any marine mammal. It is a species of fish, the flatfish that I mentioned and the northern cod in particular.
The hon. member said we failed to act on this. We have not failed to act on this. We have acted in dozens of ways, innumerable ways to try to prevent this overfishing taking place outside our 200-mile economic zone. Inside we have a tremendous system of surveillance and enforcement. We have observers on every trawler that fishes inside the 200-mile limit. On every foreign trawler and even on our own trawlers we have observers to make sure we know what is being caught, what is being discarded, what the species are and that the rules are observed.
Outside the 200-mile limit there is a very ineffective system of surveillance and management which we have been trying to get improved through NAFO. But as to failing to act on this one, since November or December of 1988, when we learned of the scientist's newly rejiggered estimates of what the state of the northern cod stock was, our efforts in this direction have been untiring in trying to overcome the foreign overfishing that is occurring on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
As Minister for International Trade, on every occasion when I met the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister of Trade for the European Community Mr. Frans Andriessen, I brought this matter up with him.
I have attended several meetings with Manuel Marin, Fisheries Commissioner of the European Community. I have been at meetings in Spain and Portugal pursuing these matters with the foreign ministers, ministers of fisheries and trade ministers of those countries. I have
March 12, 1992

spoken in a campaign in the U.K., Japan, and Paris. I met with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in Paris and the Minister of Agriculture in Bonn, who is responsible for fisheries as well. We have arranged parliamentary visits to the European Community and to European countries of both opposition and government members. We have had media campaigns, public relations campaigns. We have tried to get environmental groups, including Greenpeace and others, involved in this issue. To date they have been very reluctant to take any prominent role in it at all.
The only thing I can fathom is that the codfish or a fish is not some attractive little animal that you can get a TV audience really interested in from the point of view of it being warm-blooded or with big luminous eyes or cuddly looking, or whatever it is. The poor beast does not look like much. In fact I have to admit the codfish is a stupid looking animal and very difficult to cuddle.
It is not a fundraiser. It is not eye-catching, so we have had difficulty getting some of these groups involved as they should be, because this is the great ecological and environmental issue of this year and of the next several years, believe me, not just in the northwest Atlantic but everywhere in the world where pressure on the fish stocks is such that our fish stocks are in danger of not surviving.
We have taken action at NAFO. As a result of our efforts we have a special session of NAFO being held in May at which we are trying to get them to improve their surveillance and enforcement system.
We are always having trouble with the European Community. There have been some advances but their system is totally unsatisfactory. They do not know what is being caught out there by Spain and Portugal. The European Community relies on Spain and Portugal to report to them what is being landed in their countries. Spain and Portugal do not even have a sufficient number of inspectors to be present when their ships do arrive and land fish. When they report that skate is being caught or hake is being caught, they do not know whether that is really skate and hake or cod. We know that a great deal of what they report landed as skate and hake is really cod, and on and on it goes. A special meeting of NAFO will be held in May. We have addressed this issue in the UN. Ambassador Fortier made a very good speech on
Supply
the subject just a month or so ago. We convened conferences, starting in St. John's, to get the international community to deal with this issue. The conferences continued to San Diego. Sixteen nations, including our own, have a resolution before UNCED to deal with this issue, to establish what the rights of the coastal state should be with reference to the management of straddling fish stocks.
It is a resolution that is also supported by Iceland, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and by other concerned coastal countries. We are hoping to have many more signatories before the UNCED process ends in the great meeting in Rio de Janeiro in June.
Just this week I spent the day in New York meeting ambassadors from the United States, Japan, Argentina, Chile, Jamaica and other countries to try to get increased support for this resolution of the issue. I met with Mr. Maurice Strong, who is the Secretary-General of the UNCED conference and who agreed absolutely that this was an issue that must be front and centre at the final conference to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June. He said he would do all he could to assist in it being front and centre and being dealt with in an adequate manner.
We want a world conference of high seas fishing countries to be held that will adopt a resolution similar to ours to resolve this issue, so we are taking action on those fronts.
What we need to do now is to have people like Mr. Cashin, and other leaders of the industry in eastern Canada, perhaps the provincial governments, go to New York this month to make sure that the non-governmental organizations assembled there are brought up to date and made aware of this issue and get their support to see that the conference at Rio de Janeiro takes action on this issue.
It is not that there is no action being taken. A number of years ago we took action. We refused to allow European Community vessels to fish within our 200-mile limit for under-utilized stocks or stocks that we were not using because they would not observe proper conservation rules outside the 200-mile limit. That was action.
We took action to refuse to allow European Community countries to visit our ports. Their fishing vessels are no longer welcome in our ports unless they have an emergency or some reason of safety or to prevent a danger to life, health and safety that they might be

March 12, 1992
Supply
allowed in an emergency. Otherwise, they are not even allowed in our ports any longer. Portuguese vessels that used to fill our harbour at St. John's no longer are there. If you go to St. John's today, you will not see one. There have been many, many actions taken that are within our power to take.
Since I became minister of fisheries, I have advanced this cause all I could, just as I was doing before, since I represent the province of Newfoundland as a minister. I intend to visit Cuba, Russia, Poland and Panama over the next few weeks.
We have a problem with the non-NAFO countries. Panama's vessels are all Spanish or Portuguese owned. Panama and South Korea are out there taking 40,000 odd tonnes of cod and flatfish a year as well outside our 200-mile economic zone. We are hoping to make some progress with Panama on how this can be dealt with. The Koreans are now reducing their fishing effort in the northwest Atlantic.
It is not that action is not being taken. Bilaterally and multilaterally in international institutions we have got to make our case. We have got to be able to show the rest of the world if we are forced to take some unilateral actions in the future. We have to be able to show the rest of the world: "Look, we have made every possible effort bilaterally. We made every possible effort multilaterally in international organizations to resolve this question of overfishing of straddling stocks outside our 200-mile fishing zone, and despite these huge efforts and the reasonableness of our position, and recognition by impartial parties, environmentalists and the rest, that this is a threat to a fish stock that might vanish from the earth if this overfishing is not stopped, we cannot accomplish anything".
There is a consensus procedure in international organizations. You need to have the other parties agree. There has to be a consensus. There has been no consensus despite these tremendous efforts of ours and the reasonable steps we have taken.
This all having been done and nothing having been accomplished because of the obduracy, the obstinacy, the closing a blind eye to the imperviousness to the needs of
humanity of Spain and Portugal to the European Community, in the light of all of this and having had no results, we are now going to have to take certain unilateral actions.
We asked the international community to accept them and to back them up because if we try to extend our jurisdiction, functional or otherwise, outside the 200-mile limit, it will not matter a twit if other countries are not going to recognize it.
The opposition member suggesting this course of action had to answer the question: What is to happen if we say we are extending jurisdiction of fisheries matters to the nose and tail of the Banks, but the countries fishing out there say: "We have freedom of the high seas. International law backs us in this issue. Canada has no authority outside 200 miles. We do not recognize it. We are going to continue to fish". What then does Canada do?
It is useless to declare functional or any other kind of jurisdiction if you cannot back it up, if you cannot successfully establish it. It would come down to a question of confrontation. If they do not accept our jurisdiction, if they do not set the quotas we set or stop fishing if we say: "Stop fishing", how do we enforce it?
We have to ask ourselves: Are we prepared to follow up with some kind of armed force? How are we going to follow up if we do that? Before we get to that stage, surely, we should stop posturing. It is easy enough when you are not in a position of responsibility to play the war-like hero. I could pretend to be Sylvester Stallone. I certainly look just as good as he does.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: Better. I might not be quite as muscular. But that would not serve Canada well because the world is not going to be bullied by Sylvester Stallone unless Sylvester Stallone can show first that he has attempted to be Clark Kent and that he has done everything possible multilaterally and bilaterally to get other nations to do the proper thing in connection with these fish stocks.
That is why we cannot accept this motion at the present time to extend functional jurisdiction. We have to complete this process.
March 12, 1992

I think the Speaker is indicating that I have to come to an end. It is amazing how fast time goes. I did not even get to my notes here that were so carefully prepared for me. We are all agreed in this House on what the problem is, that our fish stocks are being endangered and so is the way of life.
I have not got the time now to go on with the economic steps we have taken or outline some of the things we have done, say, in Gaultois or wherever it might be, the Atlantic AFAP program, the PWAP program and how we are attempting to deal with the economic consequences. That will be for another day.
I thank the member who introduced the motion for his interest. I know of his concern. I ask him and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and eastern Canada to exhibit patience. If we are to be successful in this cause, we have to exhibit some patience, go at this, and I think the way we are going at it is the right way.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first on a serious note, I thank the minister for his speech. I found it disappointing in some respects, but I will come back to that in a moment.
On a less serious note, may I ask the man of a thousand faces a question? I was thinking when he was talking about being Sylvester Stallone that the chest is slightly lower.
The minister has done something again today that I have seen him do fairly often. Maybe today, since we just a few feet across the aisle from each other, we can sort this one out. I get confused about many things, I admit that, but this one, I think, is a matter that he might be able to clear up fairly quickly. He says in one mouthful -and this is not the first time he has done this either-"now this is foolhardy and this can't be done, and if you did it you would have the whole world on your door with their gunboats", and so on. Then, in the next mouthful, he says; "Now, by the way, if we have to do something down the road, we want to be able to demonstrate that we have taken all the preliminary steps".
Which is it? If it is foolhardy today, March 12, 1992, is there something I am missing that would make it less foolhardy if he has to do it later on? Either it is a plausible course of action or it is not a plausible course of action.
In the one mouthful he condemns it as being irresponsible, that only people not in a position to have to make
Supply
the decision would advocate. He might be sparring politically but he should bear in mind that one of his dearest friends on this earth, one Vic Young, advocates this position and I do not think he is running for any office. National Sea advocates the position, and many other people who do not have any political points to score are making this argument.
So I ask him: which is it; is it as foolhardy as he pretends, or is it something that maybe he has up his sleeve when the time comes? Because he has said both today, and I would submit to him that it really ought to be one or the other.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as is true so often in life, it is certainly true in international affairs, that it is usually not one or the other. I am not suggesting in this situation that it is one or the other.
I am suggesting this. If and when Canada has to take some kind of unilateral action in connection with this situation, such as the kind of unilateral action the hon. member is advocating in his resolution, that we have to be able to show the world, hopefully, at that stage we would want to have as many nations as we could supporting our actions and saying that, "Yes, this is sensible, you've been driven to it, your stocks obviously are endangered."
Environmental groups, ecological movements support the fact that our fish stocks are in danger. We have spent several years now trying to persuade the European Community, Spain, Portugal, South Korea, Panama to cease fishing and to observe the requirements of this international body NAFO.
We have had resolutions passed. The Prime Minister had a resolution passed at the economic summit last year by all the leaders of these countries which said that nations should observe the quotas established by regional international fisheries authorities. We have done all these kinds of things, we have brought this to the United Nations, we have brought it to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, we have put before them this resolution proposal on coastal stocks.
There are five major points here and I cannot refer to them all. But if it were accepted, the nations of the world would be agreeing that with respect to a stock occurring both within the exclusive economic zone of the coastal state and in an area of the high seas adjacent to it, the management regime applied to the stock must provide for consistency of the measures applied on the high seas

March 12, 1992
Supply
with those applied by the coastal state within its exclusive economic zone.
We have put forward a sensible solution to this problem. We have had it backed by X number of countries, but it was stopped because the European Community and other stubborn countries with a huge amount of clout and economic power now no longer want to be neighbours or neighbourly or worry about the rest of humanity, and who are now one of the largest economic power aggregations in the world. They are not concerned about what Canada might or might not like or what humanity thinks.
We have done all of this but we have been stopped by the people who are causing the problem. We think yes, obviously this is the only move left to take and we think a sensible nation should observe it.
We have to get the world community to that stage.


An hon. member:: How much time do we have?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think that we have to. I am satisfied myself that this problem could be resolved in four or five years, going as we are, but we do not have four or five years to resolve it. I am of the opinion that we have this year to try to get a resolution of these issues and that if they are not resolved by next year then surely any sensible congregation of people would say: "Well it is time for us in the world to change the rules out there." But we have got a much better chance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but other members want to raise questions with the minister. The hon. member for Davenport.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his interesting analysis of the problem which he put to us, also made reference to the interpretation of functional jurisdiction.
Our distinguished colleague from Winnipeg South will elaborate and offer the minister a very clear explanation as to what we mean in this motion by functional jurisdiction, drawing from the experience of Iceland in the 1970s. We hope that the intervention by our colleague from Winnipeg South will convince the minister that this is an approach that deserves his consideration and support.
My question has to do with a short commentary on the part of the minister on this motion which he said he would interpret as a non-confidence motion.
We do not deem this motion to be a non-confidence motion. Therefore we would like to ask the minister to reconsider his interpretation of the motion as being a non-confidence motion because it is not intended in such a manner. Also, it falls technically within a certain range of motions so that we can convince the minister that this motion deserves the unanimous support of this House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I have tried to explain, we cannot support the motion as it is at the moment because it calls for immediate steps to extend something called functional jurisdiction outside the present 200-mile exclusive fishing zone to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
In our view, this would be premature and in fact contrary to the interests of Canada for us to attempt to do this at this time. I am not going to say that the time is not going to come when possibly this might be an option that we have to consider, but I think the House has to recognize that what is being suggested is an extraordinary, highly unusual step which could only be taken or risks everything else having failed.
As I explained in my remarks or hope I have, we have a number of initiatives under way at the moment that we have got to hope will be successful. Yesterday, for example, Mr. Cashin and three or four members of his union met with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been and is now fully engaged in this matter. He is going to be taking it up intensively with the leaders of countries that make up the European Community, as he has in the past, but this will be at the top of the list for action. I think it is likely that he is going to attend the conference at Rio in June. I do not believe he was looking on that affirmatively until recently because he wants to make sure that this issue gets the proper attention at the conference.
The UNCED process, we have to hope, might be successful as well as the diplomatic steps that we are taking.
So we cannot accept the resolution as it stands for those reasons.
March 12, 1992

Supply
Another problem is that this is an opposition day motion, and I am no expert on the rules here, but these are traditionally understood to be and accepted as non-confidence motions. Now there has been one in recent history-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Time is running out. Resuming debate.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister has been so accommodating this morning, I wonder if we could get unanimous consent of the House to ask a few more short questions of the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As you know, the period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish of course to question your judgment and your ruling, but I am sure you will agree that the House is the master of its own fate and its own time; that the House can determine at any time under any rule, under any restriction, under any impediment imposed upon it by rule its own decisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member is right, but the hon. member must ask for unanimous consent.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I so do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the House on this.
I listened attentively to the minister when he went through a long list of all the actions that he has taken, from the international meetings, foreign ministers of fisheries, ministers of external affairs, media campaigns,
public relations campaigns, Greenpeace and environmental groups.
My question is a very simple one. What do all these people say to the minister when he presents the facts that our fish stocks are being raped or slaughtered? We have all these environmental organizations that are touting sustainable development day in and day out. Whenever they spot a little problem in whatever riding it is, they come with the banners and the placards and seem to raise quite a fuss.
What do all these people say when he pleads this cause of the fish stocks and the people of Newfoundland? I would be curious as to what they report.


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to environmental groups and the like, in our conversations with them they have exhibited sympathy and said: "Yes, this is certainly an example of violation of the rules of sustainable conservation and Brundtland".
But this is an issue on which they have to be careful or they do not seem to be able to mobilize themselves into enthusiastic support of the position, perhaps because it is a government that is concerned in taking the action. They seem to want to keep clear of governments, that somehow they are going to be suspect if they are on the same side as government.
Perhaps we are not using them effectively. As I mentioned in my remarks, Mr. Maurice Strong suggested that we should be giving them a briefing, that we should send a delegation to New York to make sure that the non-governmental organizations are properly seized with it.
Some of them, you see, have got old scores to settle with the Canadian government because of the seal hunt. The feelings between certain groups and us are not the friendliest because of the tactics they used to stop the seal hunt because the seal was never an endangered species and the problems that have resulted since. Perhaps that is a factor as well.
With respect to governments, we have acceptance from countries like the U.S.S.R., now Russia, Cuba. Japan observes all the NAFO rules, Norway and so on. There is a small group, and the small group basically is Spain and Portugal which is determined by the policy of the EC, South Korea; Panama is really Spain and Portugal again, who say: "There is the freedom of the high seas, that anything you do will derogate from freedom to fish on the high seas". They use all kinds of excuses. A couple of years ago it was: "Your scientists don't co-operate with our scientists, so why should we accept the views and recommendations of your scien-

March 12, 1992
Supply
lists?" Then we overcame that because we brought all the scientists together. The NAFO or the EC scientists do not disagree with our scientists. Then they have other objections. The Portuguese say: "We have fished there for hundreds of years and now you are not letting us fish there." The industry seems to take the attitude that: "Look, Canada has this huge zone out there. You are greedy-guts Canadians. You have this huge area of millions of square miles or kilometres or whatever you want to call it out there, and now you want to control the fishery of the whole northwest Atlantic and chase us out of there. We have been chased out of other parts of the world. Now are we no longer to be allowed to fish as we like? You are trying to save all the fish for yourselves."
So they are very suspicious of us and the Spaniards are the same. They get driven out of Namibia. Namibia extended a 200-mile limit down there and stopped them fishing there. The next thing we had six or seven boats formerly fishing Namibia now off the northwest Atlantic, 147 of them last year.
Our problem, by the way, and I want to appeal to the member for Gander-Grand Falls to straighten up his thinking on this, is not foreign fishing within the 200-mile limit because that is under absolute control. We know exactly what they are doing when they are in there. We have fees that we charge them so we know exactly what they are catching. It is outside.
These are the kinds of answers we have received from them. The latest rumour I heard that had been planted down in the UN was a suggestion by the EC that we were not listening to our scientists, that the problem was caused by our not listening to our own scientists. They are seizing on the Cabot Martin theory or whatever.
In other words, it is my fault, I should have eliminated the whole TAC for northern cod, but I am not doing that or I did not do what the scientists said we should do two or three years ago. So this whole crisis is our fault and not their fault for catching fish when they have no quota. It is ours for not listening to the scientists. So they have all kinds of excuses that they give.
Now maybe we need somebody with the flair of the hon. gentleman. In fact, we have to pursue more
involvement of the opposition, but somebody with the hon. gentleman's flair to take hold of this issue and propel it in non-governmental ranks for us.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was amusing the comparison of the minister with Sylvester Stallone. I think that one of the points in common is that neither one will ever be accused of overestimating the intelligence of their listeners.
Will the minister tell us why the government has not ratified the convention on the Law of the Sea? When he was going on about highly unusual two questions ago, does he not think the situation is highly unusual? Does he not think it deserves some special measures, some other than weak-wristed government? Does he not think that it deserves a bit of vigour in the backbone of the minister of fisheries of this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can say that in one particular case I have overestimated the intelligence of an hon. member, the hon. member who just spoke. What do these questions add to this discussion at all? The weak-wristed action of the government. Where is the weak-wristed action?
All kinds of actions have been taken by the government. Is the hon. member advocating some kind of war-like action or bellicosity of that nature?
Is it weak-wristed to try to use diplomacy in all its forms or the UN or UN conferences or non-governmental bodies to try to achieve our objectives? What a silly, jejune, imbecilic statement by the hon. crosser of the floor. I would not doubt that he would even double-cross the floor if he had a chance.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister, a couple of moments ago, referred to me and he said that I had to get my thinking straight, on these licences inside to foreign nations. I heard the minister on the speaker system in there a few moments ago as I was coming into the hall. The speaker system certainly does bring up the volume of the hon. gentleman's voice, but it certainly does not do anything for the idea behind what he is saying.
March 12, 1992

I heard him say that the foreigners inside the 200-mile zone, of course, are monitored. Now just imagine. Foreigners inside the 200-mile zone fishing in factory freezer trawlers, they are monitored. We are talking about people who do not have any fish in Canada. What are the foreigners doing with licences inside the 200-mile zone? The minister's department, in its backgrounders says: "Oh, we have an obligation under the Law of the Sea".
There is no such thing. We did not ratify the Law of the Sea. There is no Law of the Sea. There is a Law of the Sea by custom, but there is no Law of the Sea under section 63 that talks about utilization of the resource inside the 200-mile zone.
Let me ask the minister a question. Fishermen who are today in Ottawa, some of them had to go around this winter picking up rocks with money supplied by the Government of Canada to pick up enough for their unemployment insurance. They could not get enough fish. Foreigners are out there in their boats inside the 200-mile zone fishing the same fish, turbot. They call it Greenland halibut here, but it is turbot. They get their quotas.
The minister turned around by the same logic a couple of weeks ago and allocated tuna licences to Japan inside the 200-mile zone, five times our quota and unlimited quotas of yellow fin and big eye. So we want to ask him: Will the minister do the proper thing? Forget the yellow fin, open his big eye and kick them out.


John Carnell Crosbie: When I saw the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls rise to his feet I thought, will we see a miracle today? Will he speak some sense? Unfortunately, my hopes were crushed. So I am veiy, very disappointed that he is keeping on with the same old line.
Let us take his yellow fin line. The Japanese get a quota from ICCAT, the international association with respect to tuna and Canada gets a quota and the U.S. gets a quota to catch tuna. For a number of years we have been allowing the Japanese tuna vessels to come within our 200-mile area to catch a small proportion of that tuna which, of course, they can catch outside and inside. It is an international high seas fishery.
We do this for the Japanese because they have given us solid support as members of NAFO, the North Atlantic
Supply
Fisheries Organization. They have complied with its regulations and rules in every way. We have never caught them violating our conservation rules at all. We have an observer on their boats. They pay us fees for this privilege of coming inside to catch a quota given to them not by Canada, but by ICCAT.
So unless we are to alienate every other member of NAFO, there are 12 or 13 countries in NAFO including Japan. The U.S.S.R. was a member, now I think it is likely to be Russia. They complied as well with the rules. That is why we have done joint ventures and so on with them.
If we are prepared to have fish plants close all over Atlantic Canada, Canso would have to close, for example. Burgeo would have to close if we rule out any foreign vessels fishing within our 200-mile economic zone, even under agreements with Canadian plants where the fish has been landed at Canadian plants or it has been caught for Canadian owners.
If we want to eliminate every foreign vessel from fishing within our 200-mile zone where we can watch them and know exactly what they are doing and where they are doing it because it is in the Canadian national interest to help Canadian processing workers, we can do that. But we will add hundreds and hundreds more to the rolls of the unemployed in Atlantic Canada now.
Now for me to do that, if I could stand up in this House tomorrow and say that no foreign vessel is allowed to fish in our 200-mile economic zone, that might sound tremendous for a day or two to some hotheads, like the hon. gentleman or people who are deliberately heating up their heads like the hon. gentleman so they can ventilate more steam or excoriate the issue in a more ferocious manner. But that would result in the likely loss of thousands of jobs in eastern Canada if we do that. There is not one foreign vessel while I am Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that is going to get a permit to fish in the 200-mile limit that cannot show it is fishing here because of the national good and the national interests of Canada. And Greenland halibut, or turbot, is no longer an under-utilized species. No one is going to get Greenland halibut, or turbot, unless it is going to be a benefit to Canada and a certain amount is going to be processed here, et cetera.

March 12, 1992
Supply
While it sounds good to say that we are not going to allow one foreign vessel to fish, we would suffer badly if we did not have reasonable arrangements that are in the Canadian national interests. That is the answer to this foreign fishing vessel allegation within the 200-mile limit.


An hon. member:: A supplementary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I need some clarification because the question and comments period extension given earlier is not an eternal extension.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the minister respond to the member for Davenport in terms of extending the 200-mile limit.
The minister acknowledged that there may come the time when in fact he will do what we are asking him to do this morning. I am just wondering when that time will be, when in fact the time and the need could not have been greater than today and now to do exactly that in protection of those stocks and in the best interests of our own national interests.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is of course a matter of very, very great importance yet to be decided.
The timing would have to be when we have concluded that we have the best chance of taking such action successfully, because a very substantial proportion of the international community has been lead to the conclusion that this is the sensible and reasonable thing for Canada to do and that it should get support. That is when we should take further unilateral action, if the present methods that we are now pursuing are unsuccessful.
I cannot give any exact time, but that is the best answer that can be made. The time is not yet, but in my opinion we do not have an awful lot of time that we can wait further. I cannot quantify that.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a very interesting and informative morning and a very important discussion.
The courtesy and the co-operation shown by all members present in extending this question period, for example, shows that we can work together in our common interests and the common interests of Canadians when we are all convinced that is the correct way in which to handle the current situation.
It is commendable and I hope some people who are quick to criticize politicians will note that it is not always that way. While this will not be reported because it is not the sort of thing that will make headlines, at least we here know and those who happen to be watching at this time will know as well.
It is a pity the government could not accept this as anything other than a non-confidence motion. Certainly if there is any blame to be attached, then it is blame that should be attached to any party that was the government of Canada at any time in the last 12 years.
This is not a new situation that started the day before yesterday. It has been the situation since 1980 and the Elarris report showed that the foreigners have been overfishing their quota every year since 1980 except for one year.
So it is nothing new. There is nothing new about this particular situation that is described in this resolution. When the Liberals were in office, they could not or did not do anything about it. The Tories have been in office for eight years and they could not or have not done anything about it to date. So much for the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The New Democrats have not been in office, but at least in 1987 in a federal convention we passed a resolution urging the government to take all necessary action to extend our authority beyond the 200-mile zone with respect to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks so that we could manage that resource properly.
Since then, our leader in 1989, speaking in the House on behalf of the New Democrats, made the same argument. Again, during the emergency debate of about two weeks ago, she advanced that position on behalf of the New Democrats.
We have been consistent. In our case, the difference is that we have not had the opportunity yet as a government to implement what we believe and what everyone speaking here today has said must be done-to take control of that resource beyond the 200-mile limit when that is necessary to actually manage the resource.
The resolution lays all the blame on foreign overfishing. There has been some discussion already that there are some other factors. For example, the minister mentioned seals. I have mentioned them ever since I was in Newfoundland in 1990 and had listened to a lot of fishermen and fishing companies. I heard from a lot of people the problems of the diminishing cod stocks.
March 12, 1992

I have known personally from hearing from Newfoundlanders that it has been a problem for some time. Seals certainly were mentioned. The scientists now estimate that seals are consuming some 1.5 million tonnes of marine life annually.
It does not matter really whether they are eating cod, capelin, shrimp or a combination of all three. They are eating something that enters into the chain. Whether they are eating cod or what cod eat, they are affecting the cod population. It is so logical that I do not know how it can be questioned.
I saw a program last night on the news channel as I was waiting to take part in the debate in which one of the scientists seemed to write that off totally. He wanted to ignore completely the fact that the seal population has almost doubled in the last eight years. At that rate, the seals are going to be consuming more and more cod, capelin or shrimp or whatever the cod are eating; directly or indirectly, that will affecting the cod population.
We should be harvesting that under-utilized resource. It is done in some countries. I saw on the same program that Iceland harvests that resource. It harvests the seals without drawing any attention to itself. I am not sure how it manages it. Perhaps we should try to make a deal with Iceland so that we do harvest our seals and ship them to Iceland where they can be exported without causing any problems, or dealt with in some way.
I have been trying to find out since yesterday evening about nine or ten o'clock when I saw that. At 11.45 a.m. today I still have not been able to find out how the Icelanders manage to accomplish this without attracting a lot of undue attention.
It is also Canadian overfishing. The minister talked about the various excuses that the European Community gives for overfishing the quota. I thought he was not going to do it, but at the very end he did mention one more thing, that the European Community claims that we are also overfishing the quota.
I had an opportunity as a member of the fisheries committee to travel to Europe again in 1990. The
Supply
committee split in half. Some of us went to the Iberian Peninsula, Spain, Portugal, et cetera. Others went in the other direction. I am one of the ones who went in the other direction.
We all heard the same arguments. They all told us that Canadians were also overfishing their quotas, and indeed we were. They were not the quotas set by government necessarily, but the quotas recommended to us by our own scientists.
The minister said that we were not paying attention to our own scientists, and the scientists could not get together. The European Community was not setting the quotas. They were being set by NAFTA. Our scientists were really giving it the information. It was setting the quotas and the Europeans were supposed to accept the quotas that were set in the first stage, the first step, by our scientists. Each year we were setting quotas that were higher than were recommended to us by the scientists. We were not overfishing our quotas because we boosted them up too high.
I can recall the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans saying that he was not going to wreck the Newfoundland economy, that he was not going to put that kind of pressure on the economy in Newfoundland and lower the quota to the figure recommended by the scientists, by the Harris commission.
The previous minister of fisheries said much the same thing, as quoted in the Harris report, with respect to a recommendation on fishing. A further recommendation was rejected by Mr. Valcourt on March 30, 1990 because of the additional hardships it would produce in 1990 following total allowable catch reductions previously announced.
The Harris commission recommended further reductions. The minister said no because it was going to create additional hardships. The current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that if it is going to create hardships today, it does not matter what will happen tomorrow, he is not prepared to lower those quotas.

Supply
Had the government had the intestinal fortitude to do it in 1990-91, and going right back to 1980 when the figures showed that we were fishing too much, then we would not be in the serious situation we are in today.
The figures in the Harris report for the 2J3KL catch show that for every year since 1980, the European Community exceeded the quota allotted to it by us except in one year. That was in 1983.
As far as the Canadians are concerned, in those same years, 1980 to 1989, the last date in this report, the Canadians caught less than their quota, but not because our fishermen did not try. Not only did they try, they tried harder. They had better equipment for locating the cod. They had better equipment for making sure they caught every cod that was available. In spite of that, they caught less than the quota allotted to them because the biomass, the number of cod in the water, was decreasing. Population was declining. We knew that was going on. Professor Harris knew it and he did not keep it quiet. He did not keep it a secret, and yet we did little about it because it would mean hardship today. It will mean disaster tomorrow, the way we are going.
The president of Nat Sea in Newfoundland, a year and a half ago, made a presentation. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but as near as I can recall he said: "In five years we could be looking for the last cod fish off the shores of Newfoundland". He knew it was serious. The fishermen talking to me knew it was serious. More recently, I visited the south shore and saw four boats come in that had been out six hours. None of them had a marketable cod on board.
We have known how bad it is. The Liberals had some idea of it but they did not have as much information as we have had in the past few years. The Conservatives have known and they have not done anything because it would mean hardship today.
That was pretty short-term politics and did nothing at all to save the industry. The situation is serious. There is little question about that. This has to be done. There is no question about that as well. The fisheries council had a report done and there are ways to accomplish this, in spite of the minister's concern. In the 1970s Iceland took unilateral action. It mobilized world opinion on its side before and while it was doing it. World opinion did accept the idea that this was necessary for conservation and proper harvesting. Iceland had to have control of the fish in the waters off Iceland even beyond the 200-mile
limit. In the mid-1970s Iceland took action and got world support. There is nobody fishing there now except Icelanders.
According to a study prepared for the Fisheries Council of Canada on the problem of foreign overfishing, a declaration of unilateral jurisdiction should be seen as: "a positive step in the further development of international law. Not breaking law, making new law. International law is created by states. Only the acts of states can transform something which is a mere proposal into a binding legal rule".
It was indicated in the study that for Canada to generate international support it would be necessary for us to make it clear that the purpose of such unilateral action would not be for Canada to claim a sole right to harvest straddling stocks on the high seas, rather the purpose of such action is to preserve Canada's interests and the interests of the international community in the conservation of these stocks.
The evidence is there. Stocks are declining. We could be looking for that last cod in a relatively short time. We have developed equipment such as the deep sea trawlers, so good at finding the cod, so good at destroying their spawning beds and destroying this resource, that what should be a renewing and renewable resource could well be facing extinction. We have done this. Foreigners share the blame and the seals share the blame. We have to accept our share of the blame as well, and we have to take action, following Iceland's lead if necessary, although I hope it will not be necessary.
Nevertheless we must make it clear to the world that this is what we are going to do. In the interests of Canada and in the interest of saving what is an international resource, this is the action that must taken. It is not an action we are imposing on any nation or group of nations. We are prepared to live within the recommendations of the same scientists who have been setting the quotas for the European Community, quotas it has been ignoring, such as overfishing, and quotas that we have been ignoring when we set quotas for ourselves that are higher than what the scientists recommend.
We are not blameless. None of us are. Let us take our share of the blame, admit it to the world and let us get on with doing something about it, regardless of who did it or did not do it. Let us get on with proving to the world that we are prepared to take the actions necessary to preserve this resource.
March 12, 1992


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
My apologies to the hon. member for the interruption. With all due respect to the Chair, are we to break with the traditions of this place, that is to say that on this allocated day the mover of the motion, in this case the Official Opposition, would normally in the course of events by fourth intervener in this debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I understand the hon. member's question since he himself came to the Chair to talk about it with me, except that I checked afterwards with our advisors, with the Clerk.
This tradition exists, but there is also the tradition of alternating between one side of the House and the other. The Chair is still in an awkward position: Which of the two traditions should prevail? Under the circumstances, since I saw the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore right away, I thought that I would recognize him, since I make it a duty to recognize an opposition member right after a speech by a government member.
Once again, this is not an easy decision to make and I take good note of the comment by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate. Usually in the House the members from Newfoundland have spoken about this issue so much that whatever part of Canada we are from, we have heard of it and understand it to be a very serious issue. I have taken a personal interest in it myself.
I would like to begin by following on the point as to whether or not this is a non-confidence motion. I heard the minister say that he was treating it as a confidence motion and therefore wanted government members to vote against the motion. Others have spoken on the other side of that.
Supply
I would like to suggest that it is very important to make a distinction between the government and Parliament. We are gathered here in this Chamber as Canada's parliamentarians to debate a serious issue, and I would have thought it would be helpful to the government to have a clear and strong statement reflecting our views on this issue, which it could then use to its advantage in dealing with the international community in direct bilateral and multilateral relationships and discussions.
I think too often the mistake made here is to obscure the distinction between the government and the House of Commons. On this issue I certainly would express my view on the record that this need not be construed as a confidence vote. I certainly do not see it that way.
The issue has been raised by the member from Newfoundland who sponsors the resolution, particularly in human terms. He has talked about the suffering by fishermen in his home province, and it is certainly a serious issue right across Atlantic Canada. The numbers are evidence of that. In the last three years alone we have seen some 38 permanent plant closures with a net loss of jobs in the Atlantic Canada fishing industry of some 5,200. That is particularly severe in Newfoundland where there is already 20 per cent or so unemployment.
We have seen the current shortage of harvestable cod resulting in two major plant closures and 1,500 lay-offs, as well some 16 vessels tied up. Other members have spoken about the various statistics and the numbers are clear; this is a crisis in the north Atlantic cod fishery.
Putting it in some perspective, many histories have been written about the North Atlantic fishery, both scholarly and popular. One of the more popular treatments, drawing on the scientific information has been authored by Farley Mowatt. His book is entitled Sea of Slaughter. That book documents very well how through the past centuries the North Atlantic was a very plentiful, bountiful area for all forms of marine mammals and fish stocks. Indeed many species of whales are now extinct because of their harvesting, the whaling industry. We have seen a general decline in the North Atlantic fishery and the elimination and loss of many species, clearly due to direct human intervention through fishing.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Part of the debate already has focused on whether this is entirely offshore or to an extent also inshore. I can tell members that in my own visits to Isle-de-la-Madeleine, to Prince Edward Island, to Newfoundland, it has been very interesting to see in early morning some of the fishing boats coming in, their holds filled with fish, knowing that they have been able to use a lot of very scientific equipment in finding where the fish are and catching them, and the use of radars and sonars and so on.
There is no question here that this is a sport or a hunt. It is a very scientific based activity, to commercially harvest fish stocks and there is a whole economy that depends on that.
But it is a sobering thing to see the extent to which technology has been advanced in perfecting the methods of harvest. That has gone on and on, both inshore and further out, to an extent that we now face this crisis in the Atlantic fishery.
I listened to the minister expressing his views about the need to develop a consensus on the issue, the need to have co-operative multilateral approaches and so on. He listed a great many steps that have been taken.
Last week a new issue came to mind when I met with five members of the European Parliament who were in Canada looking at this question of our east coast fishery. One of the Tory members from the United Kingdom, Bryan Cassidy, asked me why Canada had never taken this issue to the World Court. I had no answer for that. I would like to raise that question in debate here, from one of our colleagues in the European Parliament to fellow parliamentarians here in Canada, to actually ask that question.
We know that the NAFO quotas have been carefully established. We secondarily know that beyond that several European countries, members of the European Community, have gone beyond those quotas. We heard the minister this morning refer to both Spain and Portugal not only catching well beyond the quotas but also using nets with a finer mesh than is legal for them to use and other evidence like this that has been documented.
The question therefore is when there is clear evidence of a violation of accepted international rules, a breach of legal agreements regarding net size and so forth, why has the Government of Canada not taken this issue to the World Court as part of its effort. I think that is an issue
that we have to examine more carefully here in Parliament.
I should also report to other parliamentarians here that in this discussion I had with the European parliamentarians several of them had been singularly unaware of lobbying efforts by the Government of Canada to raise this issue of overfishing. For example one of the members, Mr. Henry McCubbin from Scotland, a member of the European Parliament, a Labour Party member, sits on the fishing committee of the European Parliament. He indicated that he had not ever been approached by a representative of Canada with respect to this overfishing issue.
This is important information to put on the record in the Canadian House of Commons because it will cause us to reconsider what new efforts need to be made in bringing to the attention of Europeans the issue of overfishing, working officially and also through party relationships, indeed the need to redouble this effort at bringing the issue to bear. A number of them were thinking of returning to the European Parliament and introducing a resolution there dealing with the overfishing and the abuse by Spain and Portugal of the quota system. This is action coming as a result of concern and conscientious European parliamentarians getting the facts about the cod fishery. I think it is important to see that we in Canada are putting that information out effectively.
One of the issues that the minister referred to, and several others-the member from Saanich, British Columbia was mentioning the seals and their relationship with this depletion of the cod stocks. The minister said that it was important to keep our eyes on the issue and that the seal population and their consumption of fish was not directly relevant to this problem. I would agree with him.
I have here a copy of the Malouf report. This is yet one more in a long series of royal commissions in our country. They seem to be very expensive these days. We are hearing of royal commissions on election law and on reproductive technology in the $20 million to $25 million range. I understand the Malouf report which was completed in 1986 is in something like the $23 million range. What amazes me moreover is that this report on seals and sealing in Canada, a very substantial three volume report, is not well known in the country. It is not well known by many people who are dealing with this issue either in government or in Parliament.
March 12, 1992

I discussed this situation last Friday night with the premier of one of the maritime provinces. He was completely unaware of the results and recommendations of this $23 million, 1986 royal commission, a commission that in the course of its work had caused 550 seals to be opened up so the contents of their stomachs could be examined. In four of them they found cod so that, in fact, less than 1 per cent of these seals were consuming cod.
Certainly the harp seals in the northwest Atlantic eat a wide variety of marine organisms, including fish, shrimps, other crustaceans and squid. The member from British Columbia was saying that whatever they are eating, they are eating something that is part of the food chain and therefore they are part of the problem. He put it in terms of logic. The same logic could also be used to say that if it is true the seals are eating all of the cod and the cod-related fish in the food chain and the cod is gone, then also the seals must be going. At the same time he is saying the seal population is increasing. We would need a few years to see the trends on this, but if what he is saying is to be treated logically, then we can be witnessing a massive depletion of the seal population in the next couple of years, as they will be starving to death. It will not be the result of any government organized call.
The question about the population is an important one because the minister also mentioned it. My research and looking at these documents show that the Canadian government's own surveys indicate that the harp seal population has not exploded since the European import ban in 1983. There has been really no marked increase between 1978 and 1990 and claims that the number has gone from two million to I think recently the number that the Newfoundland Fishermen's Association has been using of 3.3 million animals since 1983, that kind of increase is based on the unfounded assumption that the population has been growing at a constant rate. I cannot find in any of these reports that I have looked at any data to support that assumption. Certainly Canada's royal commission on seals and sealing indicated that harp seals are migratory and only overlap with the northern cod stock for a few months of the year. More than half of
Supply
their annual diet is consumed beyond the limits of traditional Canadian fisheries in the northwest Atlantic.
To finish that point, I think that some of the recommendations that are made by this royal commission should be taken to heart by all of us, parliamentarians, government officials at the Canadian and the provincial levels because there is a wealth of good information here about the relationship and how it can be kept in balance.
I certainly believe that resource management is important. Where human intervention has upset the cycle it is important to see that a balance is maintained. On the correlation between the seal population and the fish stocks, there is a lot of information here in this royal commission report that indicates that it is too simple to say, as a number of members do and members of the public do, that the seals really are the culprit. That is using them as a scapegoat.
I just conclude on that point with this from yesterday's Halifax Chronicle Herald: "Canada should think long and hard before authorizing an expanded seal hunt which could trigger a ban on fish products in Europe". I think that is a serious and significant view from Atlantic Canada that should be taken to heart on this issue. I would agree with the main point that the minister of fisheries made, that this question about seals is important, but a separate issue from the core concern that is before the House of Commons right now, which is the depletion of the north Atlantic cod stock.
In conclusion, I come back to the point that we should, in addition to the other initiatives that the minister has mentioned, take this issue before the World Court. We must take new initiatives at lobbying with parliamentarians in Europe and elsewhere. Again, I do not see this as a non-confidence vote in the government.
I think that it would helpful to the Government of Canada to have from Canadian parliamentarians a very strong statement about our feeling that the issue is so serious we should take every measure possible and leave no option unexamined or unattended in our response to the crisis that is facing the people, the ecology of the north Atlantic and indeed, on a broader basis, the whole world. This is a global resource. I agree in a sense with the whole spirit of this resolution. We, as one of the

March 12, 1992
Supply
principle countries closest to it, have a role here as global custodians.


David Stupich: The
member questioned my comment on the growth in the seal population. I wonder if he has discussed this with the minister. It was the minister who, at a briefing, I believe on February 20, when hosting a breakfast for a group of MPs, told us that the population had gone from, and I am trying to recall the figures now, two million up to 3.6 million, which is almost a doubling in that period. I wonder if he has consulted the minister about the information he has with respect to the seal population. It seems to be at variance with what the minister has unless he is suggesting that the minister just picked this out of the air.
Also, he told us that out of 550 seals, three had identifiable cod in the stomachs. Can he tell us something about the contents of the others? Were some of them empty perhaps? The reputation that seals have is of eating the cod belly which is soft and easy to accommodate their stomachs rather than the head bone and the other bones.
I am wondering whether there were contents in the stomachs of some of these seals that just could not be identified as to just exactly what they were.


Patrick Boyer: Two questions. The number of 3.3 is the one being used by the Department of Fisheries. There is other information there as well in the Department of Fisheries, looking at projections. I think the numbers game here is always a difficult one. None of us can actually know definitively the numbers that are there. There are some numbers that I think are vastly exaggerated that are being put out as part of the effort to say that the real and only problem here is the seal population as a way of avoiding dealing with the problems of overfishing in the outer fishery, the over-licensing with respect to the inshore fishery, all of these other problems.
My point is simply to say that discussion with respect to the seals ought to be kept in balance in that context and not to make it a scapegoat. Yes, it depends on the season, of course, when one is looking at seals' stomachs to see what kind of food or amount is in there in the season, where they are and so on. I will list the species of fish and invertebrates that were found in the stomachs of those
seals. This is in alphabetical order; it is not in the order of quantity.
There is Arctic cod, which is not to be confused with Atlantic cod. There was Atlantic cod which includes the northern cod. There was barracudina, capelin, eelpout, flatfish, including witch and plaice, fourbeard rocklings, Greenland halibut, grenadiers, hake, herring, redfish, sandlance, sculpins and skate. As well, they found that the seals were eating invertebrates as follows: amphi-pods, crab, decapods, euphauslids, mysids, shrimp, squid and octopus.
The other number that is important to bear in mind when we are looking at this is the notion that the seal population is increasing without any human intervention. Canada in fact still has the largest annual seal hunt in the world. The current quota is some 186,000 harp seals per year and I think last year the number was around 50,000 seals that were killed. That is another number to be kept in bounds as to what is actually happening here.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a specific question of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
We always hear, especially those of us who live in larger urban areas like Toronto, from the environmental groups whenever there is an international crisis related to the environment. They are always knocking on our doors and telling us about the interdependency of the world that we live in. As members of Parliament, we are always very sensitive to react to the forces and the needs of the environmental groups that exist within our communities. Of course, many of these environmental groups have international linkages that are always educating the whole world on the ecosystem that we are all involved with and living with here.
Does the member not think that maybe it is time that all of us as parliamentarians should turn and challenge the environmental groups of this country and also of the rest of the world to pick up their placards and their systems of communication to put pressure on those countries that are not respecting the ecosystem here, the sustainable development formula and use the same kind of energy on this as they do on other issues?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. To elaborate, the minister himself said that with some NGOs and some environmental groups, his relationship or the
March 12, 1992

government's relationship may not be the happiest in the world because of the history relating to the seal hunt. He then invited members of the opposition to work with NGOs. In fact, I think it was the member from Newfoundland to whom he mentioned that.
As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood raises it, I would fully agree. All of us, as parliamentarians, ought to work with environmental groups that share this concern about the ecology in the north Atlantic to work with this concerted effort to focus on the real source of the problem.
One such organization, and I know it is not one that gets a lot of plaudits around here because of the history related to the seal hunt and so on, is the International Fund for Animal Welfare which has recently organized a fact-finding mission for some European parliamentarians so that they could then go back and work in Europe, not on the seal hunt, but on the underlying cause of the problem, which is the overfishing by Spain and Portugal. Why? Because the International Fund for Animal Welfare understands that the more this problem develops, the more the pressure will come. We are seeing it around here to find a scapegoat. And then it gets back to the whole thing going in reverse. It gets back into the seal hunt and then you get back into the boycott from Europeans and many others of Canadian seal products, of fish products and so on. It is kind of a domino in reverse.
There is one example of where an NGO has been trying to focus on the cause of that problem with some of the people who have something to do about it in Europe.
It may be a good example that we could all cite to other environmental organizations to help become part of the solution here. I think we are past the stage on this issue where we should be adversaries. We should be looking at a global resource and the ways in which it is being threatened. We should try to find the most effective way to have good information. That is important, using that information to work co-operatively and with some force. I go back to even using the World Court as part of the solution to that.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss the fall-out from environmental lunacy.
Supply
Overfishing, the lack of conservation in the north Atlantic, may inflict its initial damage deep within the marine ecosystem, but its eventual consequences are to be found in the devastation of hundreds of Atlantic Canadian communities and thousands of Atlantic Canadian families.
There can be no more vivid example of the absolute interlinking of the economy and the environment than the tragedy before us. While time limitations permit me only to address the environmental consequences of overfishing, it should be understood that the failure to adopt the principles of sustainable development is society's failure, and society must bear the cost.
That means that we have an absolute responsibility to support financially those who have been deprived of their livelihoods and the communities that depend on it.

We are here, Mr. Speaker, to discuss cod overfishing, which is depleting an important natural resource of the Atlantic.
For some time, many of us have continually made the connection between the economy and the environment. There could be no better example than the one before us in this House today.
Overfishing in the Atlantic by France, Spain and Portugal is an act of economic and environmental aggression. It has resulted in the collapse of Atlantic cod stocks, the destruction of that region's economic base and the devastation of hundreds of Canadian communities.
With the problem of overfishing, we are only reaping what we have sown. This tragedy should teach us a lesson: never again can we separate the economy from the environment.

The broad issue is that the nations of the world are decimating the fish stocks of our oceans. The specific issue, the nations of the European Economic Community are decimating the cod stocks of the north Atlantic. Canada is bearing the brunt of their folly. The government does nothing. The purpose of this motion which I support wholeheartedly is that the time for action is now.

March 12, 1992
Supply
The good of the global community now demands that Canada take a bold act of responsibility, that Canada take forceful steps now to preserve the straddling cod stocks. We must not allow a modem day tragedy, the decimation of the global commons. If that means unilateral action, then let us not fear to take such action.
It is justified. It is justified morally and it is also justified within the evolution of international law, the development of the economic interdependence of nations, the moral interdependence of the entire ecosystem. A growing international awareness of sustainable development, ecosystem management, and the global economic and ecological interdependence, the interlinking, all point the way for the absolute need for international law to evolve.
Canada must lead the way in pushing for special measures to protect the resources of the Atlantic northwest. Let us be very clear. It is not that we would claim a sole right to harvest straddling stocks on the high seas. Rather, the purpose is to preserve the interests of the international community, including Canada in the conservation of these stocks. These are world resources which are being endangered.
Unfortunately, it has become manifestly clear the preservation of this international heritage will not be accomplished by relying solely on co-operative measures. It is all too clear that these have failed, time and time again over the last several years.
One does not have to look very far for a successful precedent for the kind of unilateral action which we are advocating. In 1970 the Liberal government of the day unilaterally passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Zone Act. This established functional jurisdiction over a 100-mile zone around the islands of the Canadian Arctic archipelago. Thank heavens we did this.
Today we judge that there are abundant grounds for taking such precautionary action. A basis exists in the Law of the Sea and in international law. International law is flexible and evolving. It is a mistake to think that it is static.
Under the Law of the Sea a coastal state may unilaterally extend fisheries management from its exclusive
economic zone to the adjacent high seas if international agreement on conservation measures is not attainable within a reasonable time period. It is essential that we do so to protect this coastal state's preferential right, and that is recognized in international law.
The history of the Law of the Sea illustrates changing notions about the status of the ocean, its resources and claims to jurisdiction over areas shared by sovereign states.
For instance, the freedom to fish in high seas unfettered by state control was once unquestioned. When such notions were prevalent, however, the patterns of fish migration were unknown. The size of world fish stocks was unknown. The subject matter of international law was envisaged only in static, rigid terms.
Today the law must evolve in response to our new awareness that marine resources are, in fact, exhaustible and fluid. Fish move freely and concepts of ownership and possession based on cartography are practically irrelevant in today's world. We must now understand that the ocean's living resources are shared, finite and transient. The unlimited freedom to fish in the high seas must be regarded as an antiquated and outdated concept.
Except where rules emerge from international conferences, someone in this world has to be the first to establish a new paradigm. Unilateralism is an integral part of the evolutionary process of international law. It is not the exception.
That is why Liberals seek extension of national enforcement authority outside of the 200-mile zone. The position that we advocate is well supported. It is well supported first by the objective territoriality or effects principle of international law. This is a recognized basis of jurisdiction, for instance, in the case of criminal conduct. It is an extension of the territorial principle that permits a state to apply its laws to acts committed elsewhere that cause an effect within the state's territory-
Second is the effective administration of justice principle. According to D.P. O'Connell, a Law of the Sea expert, and I quote:
If a state has the right in international law to make laws with
respect to fishery, it would seem to be a corollary of that right that it
has the competence to make those laws effective.
March 12, 1992

That is what we are saying. That is the gist of our resolution, justifications for taking strong action to protect the straddling stocks are evidently abundant.
The Conservative government has ignored these possibilities. It has offered us oceans of Crosbie-like rhetoric. But has it set a deadline by which it will abandon the diplomatic route if it proves ineffective? The answer sadly to say is no.
Has the government announced its plan of action if diplomatic action fails, as it did last year, the year before, and the year before that? The answer again is no. Can Canadians believe the government's stated commitment to resolving this crisis? Unfortunately, from what the minister said this morning, the answer is no.
The issue therefore is what should we do? First, legislation should be prepared to establish a provisional custodial management for the cod fishery outside of the 200-mile limit. This legislation would be defended on the grounds of expert scientific advice which has been received, the principle of sustainable development which is clear, and the legal regime established under the Law of the Sea convention.
Second, Canada should announce conservation measures with full enforcement now, including arrest and prosecution for vessels both within and outside of the 200-mile limit.
Some may well respond to this recommendation for strong unilateral action by saying that force to protect straddling stocks are not optimal courses of action. To that I would respond by saying that passivity, that doing nothing when an important, irreplaceable Canadian and global resource is being depleted is even less than the optimum.
There is only one other alternative to this form of action, retaliatory trade measures and everyone in this House knows that they themselves carry their own consequences. The government option of simply watching the world go by is one that is no longer acceptable.
Third, our intention to enforce fisheries conservation measures outside the 200-mile limit must be heavily publicized both within and outside the country.
Four, the Law of the Sea convention, as my colleague from Alberta so articulately said earlier, should be
Supply
immediately ratified. How can the world community take our complaints in Canada about ocean management seriously when we have not even ratified the very convention which establishes the ocean management regime? It is the product of nine years of international negotiation, the world's most ambitious and advanced environmental convention-


Mr. Caccia:: Which Canada pioneered.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: -which Canada pioneered, of which my colleague from Davenport was a member of the government which lead it forth. It is simply unacceptable given our current circumstances that Canada has not ratified the Law of the Sea convention.
Five, we should go to the World Court in The Hague to seek a ruling that supports our enforcement of conservation measures on straddling stocks based on our necessity and obligation to preserve these stocks within the 200-mile limit.
It is clear in international law that given the right to enforce conservation within the 200-mile limit we have the right to enforce conservation outside if it is necessary to affect our jurisdiction within.
Six, we should serve notice that we will introduce a proposal in the context of the GATT that countervail trade measures, sanctions, be applied to countries which defy internationally-accepted environmental conventions, including those respecting living marine resources.
Seven, an agreement on the conservation of marine living resources should be the highest priority for Canada at the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this morning said that that is his intention. We are tempted to applaud, but unfortunately, his words ring hollow.
The Prime Minister has yet to commit to attending the earth summit. If this government really places the highest priority on resolving the fisheries crisis, the Prime Minister should announce today in this House that he will be personally bringing this message to the other heads of state at UNCED.
Let us be very clear, he must achieve more than a mere reiteration of declaration of principles, principles which are already set out in declarations by the G-7 and other international bodies. There must be teeth arising out of the Rio convention.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Eight, the government should seek a commitment to a follow-up conference to UNCED specifically committed to overfishing.
Let me be very clear. Some of the recommendations that I have made are for provisional and limited extension of functional jurisdiction until an appropriate arrangement is developed. Others are more permanent. One thing is clear. We can delay no longer.
Let me quote from the Brundtland commission.
Traditional forms of national sovereignty are increasingly challenged by the realities of ecological and economic interdependence. Nowhere is this more true than in shared ecosystems and in the global commons-those parts of a planet that fall outside of national jurisdictions-the commission is convinced that sustainable development, if not survival itself, depends on significant advances in the management of the oceans. The underlying unity of the oceans requires effective global management regimes. An international ecosystem approach is required for the management of these resources for sustained use.
These words ring painfully true today to the people of the Atlantic provinces. That is why we recommend unilateral action now. That is why we have brought forth this resolution today. It is the first step on the road to a global solution.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit between one and two o'clock this day, for the purpose of consideration of the motion now before the House moved by my hon. colleague for Burin-St. George's.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Fewer than 15 members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard about the so-called steps to be taken for this functional jurisdiction, whatever functional jurisdiction really means.
The member has heard what the minister said earlier today about what is taking place in the international marketplace and the various things we are already doing.
The minister was in New York this week. Also, a strong representation is being made to the conference which will take place later on this year in Rio.
I am wondering what action the hon. member feels the government is not already taking with regard to the possible outcome of this additional jurisdiction.
He will know that it took years in order to finally get agreement among the countries on the 200-mile limit. There has been a real success about the 200-mile limit. But I am certainly not aware of any precedent of additional jurisdiction outside of the 200-mile limit. How would he propose that we get that support? You cannot do it by yourself in an international marketplace.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. parliamentary secretary's question.
I believe the minister answered it by the contradiction in response to some of the questions of the member for Burin-St. George's in saying that what he was trying to do was to sort of build up enough support around the world for taking the very kinds of actions that we are recommending that he take today. If he thinks he can take those actions in three to six months, why in heaven's name can he not take them now? The damage has been done and these stocks are being winnowed away so quickly that we must take action now. In international law we have the authority.
The member asks what we can do. First of all, let us ratify the Law of the Sea convention. It is the strongest body of international law that we have with us. Article 63 of the convention talks about stocks occurring within the exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal states. Article 63 talks about straddling stocks, it talks about the right of a state to protect for ecological and for economic reasons its own coastal interests. The Law of the Sea convention gives us the authority.
For heaven's sake, why will the government not ratify it?
It is a clearly established convention of international law. The Oceans Institute at Dalhousie has written extensively on it. It says that where you have the authority to preserve a stock within a 200-mile limit, you have the right to go beyond the 200-mile limit if that is
March 12, 1992

the only way you can preserve the stock that exists within it. It is clear in international law and we should be going to the World Court.
If you take a look at the evolution of international law, it has happened consistently as a result of either international conferences, which according to the minister are failing, or because of unilateral action taken by individual states. Canada has done it, the United States has done it. It is one of the fundamental tools, because the world is changing.
The problem is that the current government is so rooted in an archaic view of inter-dependence, it is so rooted in an archaic view of sustainable development, which the rest of the world is now supporting, that it fails to understand the tools it has at its disposal.
In summary, very clearly: (1) ratify the Law of the Sea; (2) exercise your full rights under international law; (3) take an action in front of the World Court; (4) the government must examine the alternative between trade retaliation or enforcement and prosecution on the high seas. Other states have done it. The time has now come for Canada to stand up for its own rights and for the rights of the global commons. We are not simply talking about Canada, we are talking about a global resource and we have a responsibility as a developed nation to protect it.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what has become clear in the course of this debate so far is a problem the government has with functional jurisdiction, as put on paper in our motion.
We have already dealt with that briefly earlier in this debate and I am sure that my distinguished colleague, the member for Winnipeg South, in his intervention will explain to the government benches the potential and the history of functional jurisdiction.
What we are saying in essence with this motion is that we can draw from the model, the experience and the history established in the 1970s when Iceland took an initiative that we are proposing here today.
As recently as two or three weeks ago, this initiative was recalled by Judith Swan, the executive director of the Oceans Institute of Canada, when she said on CBC Radio: "Canada could extend its fisheries jurisdiction to
Supply
the outer limits of the Grand Banks and enforce its regulations on all fishing vessels in the area.
Retaliation by foreign fishing countries is a clear risk. They could attempt to ignore the new jurisdiction or take the case to the International Court of Justice. Canada could stand its ground in such a case that this country would show a scientific basis for its action and point to the danger of permanent depletion of the stocks. The empty results of years of attempting to halt foreign overfishing would then become an argument in our favour."
This is what was said by a scientist who spoke from the Atlantic coast on the CBC.
Obviously an initiative like this is not common and would be particularly looked upon with disdain by bureaucrats in the Department of External Affairs. That is nothing new, however. The issue has reached a point in its development which requires political action.
My colleague from LaSalle-Emard has very clearly put forward a many-pronged political initiative in his intervention earlier. As he also pointed out, the credibility of the Government of Canada is impaired so long as it refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea for the very clear reasons that my colleague made when he pointed to section 63. It is all in there.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister have a clear understanding of the potential offered in the concept of section 63.
How can we go to the international community and say that we want to have international action to protect the stocks if we do not ratify an international piece of legislation which has been ratified by 43 nations but which requires 60 nations' ratification in order to become operative? That is where the problem lies.
Very recently, Brazil, another coastal nation, has ratified it. Canada's ratification would send a very important signal to the world community if it were to do the same. The time has come for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the government to bite the bullet and to move in that direction, considering the fact, as the member for LaSalle-Emard said earlier, that

March 12, 1992
Supply
Canada was a pioneer in the phase leading to the signature of this document.
This document requires two steps: a signature and the ratification. Where we are wanting is on the ratification side.
This example of the fisheries is the first tangible, dramatic, social, economic example of unsustainable development. We have reached that point with the fisheries. We are beginning to understand it. We can see the social consequences on the population affected.
Do not forget that 20 or 30 years ago the people living along the coast of Scotland depended on the fishing of herring. Those stocks have disappeared and those communities have suffered considerably. We do not want to see that problem repeated in our communities, in our coastal regions. We should learn from that experience in order to prevent this from happening in Canada.
Unsustainable development is one side of the coin. We have to learn ways therefore, to make this development sustainable for future generations. The problem has been accelerated and compounded by the innovation of the trawler ships fishing the Grand Banks by many nations, including Canada. That has had a large impact on the fish stocks, much larger than anticipated.
Two years ago, Dr. Leslie Harris reported to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the state of the northern cod stocks.
For instance, the report pointed out that to ensure the survival of the cod stocks, measures needed to be taken and still need to be taken. I quote an observation that Dr. Harris made: "A very determined effort to restrict or eliminate the actual catch of cod by foreign vessels operating under Canadian licence within the 200-mile zone and the determined Government of Canada initiative either to bring the entire Canadian shelf under Canadian management or to reach an effective international agreement that will curb the irresponsible and destructive activities of certain countries fishing the nose and tail of the bank is required."
Among the report's recommendations, Dr. Harris said: "That the Department of Fisheries and Oceans review its management structures and approaches with the end of establishing a more focused and co-ordinated approach." That is an internal, perhaps structural matter.
He went on to say that: "The Government of Canada must be convinced of the imperative necessity of regulating, through agreement or otherwise, foreign fishing pressures upon northern cod".
It was two years ago that Dr. Harris recommended taking specific action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I apologize to the hon. member, but I did not receive any indication of whether he is speaking for a maximum of 20 minutes or whether he is splitting his time with other members. I would appreciate if he would give some indication to the Chair.


Charles L. Caccia: I am splitting my time and I will be glad to yield to my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Mr. Mifflin:: I was going to ask a question of the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: A five-minute question or comments period. I ask your collaboration, the hon. member for Davenport has two minutes left.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will stay within the limit you have indicated and I appreciate your kindness.
To compress it and to conclude and also to go back to the statement made earlier by the minister, it seems to me that at this stage in developing a strategy for Canada the government, when planning our position for UNCED at the conference in Rio next June, instead of promising to raise the issue and moving along with a certain resolution, should instead use that forum to defend the unilateral extension of Canada's fisheries jurisdiction. It should defend it as a practical and indispensable step to ensure the sustainability of that resource.
I am quite sure we would have the weight of the majority of world opinion on our side. We would send a signal to the world community that conservation of global resources is a priority for Canada, that we recognize the global significance of this resource, as my colleague from LaSalle-Emard stressed at the conclusion of his remarks.
In other words, we have to take an initiative that will move and shake up the world community in the wake of the recognition that we can no longer effectively manage a biological resource according to artificial political
March 12, 1992

boundary lines. That point has been reached, and as the member for Burin-St. George's told us earlier, the chickens have come home to roost and we have to draw our conclusion.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to make both a comment and ask a question of my hon. colleague from Davenport.
I watched with interest his reaction to the thought that it would be out of the question, it would be bizarre, it would be improper international behaviour, to consider such an act as is being proposed by this very sensible motion, and specifically the part of the motion which says: "to extend functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks".
I would say that the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard made probably one of the best and the clearest statements about how this is possible in international law and I was delighted to hear it and I have indicated that to him. It is a precedent in international law that when your livelihood is being threatened or if there is a good reason, then this is a step that can be taken and, indeed, has often been taken. You have heard me speak, almost like a broken record, on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted for him to hear it from other colleagues.
From the ecological viewpoint, I have the greatest respect for my colleague from Davenport. I think he has added that dimension to this tragic situation that we see ourselves in.
Everyone has his own opinion on how this can be done. The hon. member relates it to what has been done in the past, but I wonder if the member would share with us, from his considerable experience in things international like this, what his interpretation is of the way this action can take place?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for his intervention.
On the question of functional jurisdiction that we are proposing, which is a technical term but which in essence means that Canada has jurisdiction on the management of a resource that affects its economy because it is in proximity of our coastal lines and because of historical
Supply
reasons. The position of the government, it seems to me, is weak.
I detect from the speech of the minister of fisheries a certain hesitancy, a certain fear and also a lack of historical knowledge from which he actually could draw, not only inspiration but also the necessary determination.
The most recent example was given by Iceland less than 20 years ago. It is a small nation which decided one day that it had to defend its economic survival by asserting its jurisdiction over its fish resources. It is clear in the memory of the international community.
This then leads me to answer the question by my colleague, to the effect that if one were to attempt to give an interpretation as to what might be the reaction of the international community, I would be inclined to suggest that world opinion would be on our side. It would be on our side for the very simple reason that the thinking of the public which has been educated, which we all have been in recent years by the report of the Brundtland commission, Our Common Future, the understanding of the management of common resources globally, would be such that it would applaud Canada for having taken such an initiative.
All that is needed at this point is the political will to act, to take certain risks, but to take a strong stand and give leadership in the international community. This is what we are expecting the government to do.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and honoured to rise on this motion today, a motion to extend, among other things, the functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
I say, in all sincerity, that this is probably the most important day that I have spent in this House of Commons. This is a parliamentary debate on a subject that is very important to all of us here. It is particularly important to me because I represent so many people involved in the fishing industry. With 57 plants in my riding and the livelihood of a large part of those who are involved and those for whom I am responsible that rely on the fishing industry, it is so germane and pertinent to the points that are being made here today.

March 12, 1992
Supply
As I reflect on what I have heard here today, both from sitting in the House and watching on the monitor in my office, there are five points that strike me and I would like to share them with you.
The first point is related to the facts, not interpretation, not political rhetoric, not speeches, not political will, but the state of affairs as it exists today.
The second point I am struck with is the response of the hon. minister of fisheries. His response on what could be done, what should be done, what might be done, and in particular why he did not feel that he could vote for this motion. I will comment on that in a few moments.
The third aspect that I was struck with is the talk that is going on, and I have related to what has happened, what has been the result of all this.
The fourth aspect is the tone of the presentations in the House itself.
The final thing is, where are we after all is said and done?
Let me start with the veiy brief facts, Mr. Speaker. Before I do that I want to make some definitions clear. I am talking about foreign overfishing outside the 200-mile economic zone of Canada. I am talking about not just northern cod. I am talking mostly about cod, but I am talking about groundfish as well that are processed in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. I am talking about the nose and tail of the bank, which are those two parts outside our economic zone.
The nose, which is like a segment of a circle, is about 60 miles long and the furthest part of the circle comes out to about 40 miles; the tail is about 100 miles long and the segment goes out to a maximum of about 60 miles. It is not a very large part of the ocean, not a very large part of the continental shelf. But large enough, that in the spring of this year it holds 10 per cent of the biomass of cod in that area. In previous years on record it was 5 per cent, and in one year it doubled.
Whatever is happening there, a lot of fish are hanging out there. And it is very important that we zero in on this. This is what we are doing today.
The fact of the matter is that plants are closing, trawlers are being tied up, inshore fishermen have their nets empty and people are without work. The fact of the matter is that foreigners are illegally catching more and
Atlantic Canadians are legally catching less. The fact of the matter is that if we had the 380 million pounds of fish that was caught by foreigners last year we would be able to open all the fish plants that were closed in Atlantic Canada.
The fact of the matter is that the fishing industry is on the verge of decimation. The fact of the matter is that people are being alarmed, there is a human face on this. Those are the facts. I think most of that was put on the record by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's who spoke very eloquently on the subject.
The second point that I was impressed with today was the response of the hon. minister of fisheries. I thought he gave a fairly good statesmanlike presentation, but certain parts of it had what I would call "statesmanlike weasel-wording". The minister acknowledged, in my mind-this is my interpretation of what he had to say-that something could be done about this. But he seemed to believe that the timing of it was more important than the principle. He gave us a litany of what has been done. He also said that while he seemed to like the motion, that because it was a non-confidence motion he believed that he would not be able to vote for it, or would not be able to advise his colleagues to vote for it. The minister of fisheries has been around this place longer than I have been and he knows that with the stroke of a pen or an amendment this can change. So I do not buy that, quite frankly.
I am saying that this is a motion which will allow his government to put in place action to stop this problem and put an end to all that is going on, not next year, not in six month's time, but now. Now is when we need the action. The minister has said he believes it can be done. He believes in the principle but he does not believe the time is right.
The third point I want to mention is, what has happened with all this talk, all the litany of things that the minister has spoken about? Nothing. In fact, the more we speak, the more the foreigners overfish illegally. There is a direct proportion to the diplomatic action and the overfishing. This year, 47,000 tonnes of northern cod alone were caught illegally, 40 per cent of what all Canadians caught legally. That is what is happening with the diplomatic talk.
March 12, 1992

Portugal says: "I do not see that they have a problem". Spain says: "Canadians are catching too much anyway". They are throwing it back in our face. We are the laughing stock of the European Community because we are not doing the things we should be doing. So that is where we stand.
The fourth aspect of this is the tone of the debate today. The minister of fisheries says this is not a national sovereignty issue. Well, I beg to differ. There are 8,000 people being affected by this in Newfoundland alone. There are 32,000 people in the industry, so that makes 25 per cent, 25 per cent of the automobile industry in a province, 25 per cent of farmers, 25 per cent of textiles. If that is not a national sovereignty issue, what in the name of God is? It is national. Look who got up and spoke today. We have had speakers from British Columbia to Newfoundland. We have had my hon. colleagues from the prairies, from Ontario, from Quebec. And we will have speakers from every one of the Atlantic provinces. If this is not a national sovereignty issue and if this is not something that preoccupies this House as a national subject, given the range of speakers and where they come from, I do not know what is.
Where are we left? Where are we with all this? With the speeches, with the talks and with the litany of action that the minister has promised, with the United Nations conferences and the speeches that are being prepared for ministers who will speak here today, where are we?
A picture is worth a thousand words. In the first two minutes of the speech of the hon. member from Burin-St. George's today he mentioned two graphs, one with foreign fishing going up with time and one with national, legal fishing going down. That is what is happening.
So what we are left with is a motion that both sides of the House agree is doable. It is recognized. There is precedent for it. We do not disagree on the principle. We are disagreeing on the timing. We have the evidence. We have the agreement on the principle, so now we are down to one little itsy-bitsy thing, the timing.
The solution is there, we are waiting for the time. When is the time going to be right? If you come to a brick wall and it is in the way of your goal, you butt your head. If that does not work you use a hammer. If that does not work you use an axe. If that does not work you use a sledge-hammer. If that does not work you might have to get a bulldozer. You may have to pay for it. You
Supply
may have to pay a man to work on the bulldozer. That is the price you have to pay.
We may have to pay a price for doing what I am suggesting and what has been suggested by this motion that we do. I have no doubt that we will, but the price will be worth it because national sovereignty, the face of this country, the livelihood of people are at stake.
What are we waiting for? How many more anxious faces do we need to see? How many more fish plants and processing plants do we have to see close? How many locks on gates do we have to see? How many more mayors of communities have to come to my office here in Ottawa and my office in Bonavista? There is one sitting there right now. I would suggest, no more, no more time, we must do it now.
I am saying this government should have the political will to act now to extend the functional jurisdiction so that we can put an end to this difficulty that will, if we do not do something, cause the end of the fishing industry and the dignity and the livelihood of those people involved.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has a history of involvement with the fishery that perhaps no other member of this Chamber has.
We have witnessed in the last month one of the largest fish plants I suppose in Atlantic Canada close its gates just a short distance from where the hon. member grew up and who is so intimately involved with the fishery. If there is one person who knows the industry as an industry, that is as a business, it is the hon. member who just spoke, and his family too.
I want to ask him to elaborate on this fact that right within a gunshot, as we would say, from his home where he grew up, the only employer either just shut its doors or is about to shut its doors. Could the hon. member tell us how many people are involved?


Fred J. Mifflin: I thank my hon. colleague from Gander-Grand Falls for giving me the opportunity to get into this kind of detail because a 10-minute presentation does not allow it. The hon. member is right and I do thank him for his comment.
The processing plant on the border of Catalina and Port Union is the largest and the most up-to-date processing plant in Canada. It is owned by FPI and it was built not that long ago. FPI and in fact all of Atlantic Canada boasted that it was probably the most modem in

March 12, 1992
Supply
the world. The maximum depends on the season, but the plant can employ up to 1,200 workers.
Now 1,200 workers on the Bonavista peninsula, and I represent 250 communities, that plant services about 75 communities, some more than others, some less than others. But the hub of the area if you like, the towns of Bonavista, Catalina, Port Union, Melrose, Elliston, Newmans Cove, Kings Cove, Trinity, Port Rexton and I could go on, up the peninsula every community is affected by it. Not just the worker, the fishermen, the trawlermen, the plant worker, the family of the plant worker, the corner store.
To put another end on this, I spoke with a businessman in St. John's, Newfoundland, who was a director of an organization called Atlantic Building Materials. It is a hardware building store. He said: "We can tell you how good or bad the fishery is by looking at our volume of sales." So it is not just the corner store, the Foodliner, Foodland or Sobey's store that is affected. It is the big stores, the hardware stores that sell building materials, the gas stations, the provisioners. The main provisioner in my riding in Carbonear is affected by this. I speak to them, I know.
So you can imagine and you can perhaps forgive my somewhat unusual-not antagonism, but frustration if you like, which I share with hon. members on this side of the House and I think, to a certain extent, on that side of the House, when your brother and sisters and brothers-in-law and cousins and friends, today, as I stand here, do not have jobs. They are not sure when they are going to have jobs, how long they are going to have jobs this year and God knows what is going to happen next year.
This is the human face. This is what is involved and this is what we have to put an end to.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to address the issue of the 200-mile limit and the pillaging of resources in that area.
Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, and I might speak for just a bit more than 10 minutes.
I would like to acknowledge the depth of concern expressed by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's in his motion concerning the pillaging of transboundary fish stocks off Canada's east coast and the possibility of extending Canada's functional jurisdiction in an effort to combat the problem.
His sincerity in raising the issue is beyond question. However, sincerity alone will not cany the day. The government must deal in facts. As you know, the February 1992 report of the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee on the state of the northern cod stock revised downward the estimates for the over-all biomass and for the age seven years and older biomass. The over-all biomass level is thus estimated to be at approximately the same level as in 1980 and the spawning stock biomass level to be slightly below that in 1979.
In each of those years the TAC was set at 180,000 tonnes. The CAFSAC report went on to state that 1992 catches for the first half of the year should be restricted to the lowest level possible. CAFSAC will provide advice in July for the remainder of the 1992 fishery.
In recognition of the current state of the northern cod fishery, the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean introduced, on February 24, a conservation ceiling for managing the resource. The ceiling of 120,000 tonnes for 1992 represented a 65,000 tonnes reduction in the total allowable catch for northern cod and was announced as part of a six-point program.
The first point concerns management of the fishery. CAFSAC recommended that the catch during the first six months of 1992 be reduced to 25,000 tonnes, about half the level for the same period of 1991. This measure was adopted, effectively ending the winter fishery by offshore trawlers in Divison 3L. Other measures to conserve the stock will be worked out in consultation with industry representatives as events unfold.
In view of the reduced state of capelin stocks, upon which northern cod feed, the offshore capelin fishery in the Canadian zone in 1992 has been closed. Harvesting of cod by offshore trawlers during peak spawning periods has been banned. Fisheries, where cod is a by-catch, can be undertaken during the first half of 1992, provided this by-catch remains within acceptable limits.
March 12, 1992

The traditional inshore fishery will continue to operate without limits on catches, and this is important, Mr. Speaker. Larger inshore vessels operating in offshore areas will have catches restricted. In September, further limits will be placed on the fall offshore fishery, as necessary, to ensure that Canadian catches do not exceed 120,000 tonnes. These measures do not reflect traditional management patterns for the northern cod fishery. However, they fit the exceptional circumstances confronting us at the moment.
The second point has to do with protection of individuals and communities. The immediate effect of the problems with 2J3KL cod will be lay-offs of offshore plant workers and trawler fishermen. With very few exceptions, these individuals will be eligible for unemployment insurance. This will provide reduced but ongoing incomes for them until the time when a fall fishery would be prosecuted, if they are not engaged in other harvesting or processing activities in the interim.
Fisheries and Oceans has begun work, in conjuction with other departments, to identify measures to meet the needs of those affected this year. They will soon be in contact with fishing companies, unions and provincial governments in this regard. However, the nature and extent of assistance needed will depend in large measure on the results of the fishery for the remainder of this year.
What can be stated now is that assistance will be extended to affected individuals and communities where this is needed. This could consist of an extension of measures under the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program and the Quebec Federal Fisheries Development Program. We must not forget that the problems we encounter in Atlantic fisheries also exist in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and, of course, the St. Lawrence itself.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program was introduced in May 1990 to help ensure a viable fishery for Atlantic Canadians. AFAP takes the form of a package of policy and program initiatives aimed at rebuilding fish stocks while helping fishermen, fish plant workers, and communities in Atlantic Canada adjust to the impact of reduced fishing quotas. These reductions have caused disruptions in
Supply
employment and income stability. AFAP initiatives are intended to help bridge the gap to sustained levels of employment and higher incomes as stocks rebuild. The range of operational activity required to successfully implement such a comprehensive program has been extensive.
In addition to this program, Mr. Speaker, the government launched in the summer of 1990, the Quebec Federal Fisheries Development Program following a series of consultations with fishermen, processors and other interest groups. The over-all goal of this program is to ensure the long-term viability of the fishing industry, while providing help to workers and communities in fishing regions. The Quebec Federal Fisheries Development Program has four operational components: marketing, processing, harvesting, and research and infrastructure.
While much remains to be done, there have been significant achievements since the inceptions of these programs. These include: new inputs to the stock assessment of nothern cod; major extension of our surveillance and enforcement activities, resulting in increased compliance with all aspects of fisheries regulations by both domestic and foreign fleets; direct payments to fishermen and plant workers affected by catch failures and plant closures; financial assistance to individuals and companies for diversification initiatives both within and outside the fishery.
The minister will soon announce members and terms of reference for a task force on the income and adjustment problems facing individuals dependent on the Atlantic fishery. This task force, to be composed of industry and union representatives, will be appointed in the coming weeks, Mr. Speaker. It will have a broad mandate and the full support of federal departments and agencies in its work. It can play an important role in charting the course ahead after 1993.
Mr. Speaker, the third point is foreign overfishing. The Prime Minister recognizes the gravity of the problem and will be pressing European leaders to take measures without further delay to abide by decisions of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, including the moratorium on catches of cod in 3L outside the 200-mile zone.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Representatives of the European Commission and member countries of NAFO were recently briefed on the Canadian position on foreign overfishing. This government, Mr. Speaker, is placing high priority on the issue of foreign overfishing. Just this week, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans went to New York City to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to stress the importance Canada places on conservation of marine resources.
We hope to place it on the agenda at the earth summit conference of world leaders in Rio de Janeiro in June. Canada will call for a follow-up conference to deal specifically with the high seas fisheries. At Canada's request a special NAFO session will be held in May to focus on effective control measures outside the 200-mile zone to ensure that catches do not exceed NAFO decisions.
In the next two months, the minister will be travelling to Cuba, Norway, Russia, Poland and other NAFO contracting parties to reinforce this position.
Concerning non-NAFO fleets, Mr. Speaker, there have been encouraging signs very recently that the problem of Panamanian and Korean fleets may be approaching an end, including commitments by the Korean government regarding their vessels now operating outside the 200-mile zone. While we are making progress, this government recognizes and shares the frustration of those in the Atlantic fishery that see these and other activities undertaken against foreign overfishing, but with little in the way of concrete results. This cannot go on.
There are those who say Canada should take immediate steps to extend its functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. But, as the minister said recently in London and Tokyo, all avenues available to us must be explored if we are to achieve tangible progress toward ending foreign overfishing.
Other measures, including unilateral measures, will be contemplated only after all other options are exhausted.
The fourth point concerns Canadianization of underutilized species fishery. To alleviate harvesting pressure on northern cod and other traditional species, the
government is encouraging the development of new fisheries.
While foreign allocations will not be eliminated, they will be reduced to a minimum.
Soon, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be announcing the approval of industry proposals to harvest underutilized fish stocks. This will increase employment in fish plants and will diversify and add value to Canadian seafood products.
In addition, we will soon be establishing an advisory board on the use of foreign vessels and foreign allocations within the Canadian zone. This board will be composed of persons from outside government who are knowledgeable with respect to the Canadian fishing industry. The board will operate in a manner open to the public and will have a mandate to provide advice as to what is in the interest of Canada.
The fifth point deals with scientific research. There is a need to restore confidence in the reliability of fisheries resource assessments. To do this, we need to integrate into the process the experience of fisherman, inshore and offshore. Scientists analyze the inshore catch-and-effort data and collaborate with inshore fishermen in studying ocean conditions. At the same time, scientists invite fishermen on research cruises and accompany them on commercial trips.
Industry has proposed that special scouting charters be undertaken to identify concentrations of northern cod, and to provide further information on catch rates and stock availability, particularly in divisions 3K and 3L inside and outside the 200-mile zone. The minister has asked the department to make the necessary arrangements for these scouting charters.
Fisheries and Oceans is committed to a further major increase in research on cod inside and outside the 200-mile zone. Important initiatives will focus on oceanographic factors-such as water temperatures, salinity and currents-which influence the migration of cod and capelin, and may also contribute to the mortality rate.
The sixth and last point, concerns control of the seal population. The population of harp seals off the east coast is estimated at 3.5 million. This is a substantial increase from the estimate of two million made by the Royal Commission on Sealing in 1985.
March 12, 1992

As you know, Mr. Speaker, until now, measures to control seal populations have been constrained by concerns regarding possible effects on markets for fish products arising from anti-sealing groups. However, representatives of the fishing industry have been unanimous in their advice that, notwithstanding the concerns with respect to markets, measures should now be taken to start bringing the seal population under control.
The Government of Canada is committed to the rational management of all marine resources based on the principles of conservation and sustainable development.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the establishment of a conservation ceiling of Canadian catches for 1992 of 120,000 tonnes, in effect a TAC reduction of 65,000 tonnes, is a severe mesasure. It goes beyond the 25,000-tonne reduction suggested by CAF-SAC because, in light of the circumstances, more stringent measures to protect fisheries resources are needed.
The management arrangements for 1992 that I have described are of an interim nature. Other measures to improve our understanding of the resource, especially predator-prey relationships and oceanographic factors, will be pursued urgently. Many details have to be worked out. This will be done in co-operation with the fishing industry, unions and provincial governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. TVemblay (Quebec-Est)):: understand that the hon. member for Gaspe is sharing his time with his colleague, the hon. member for Bona-venture-iles-de-la-Madeleine. But before that, I will give the floor to the hon. member for Malpeque for questions and comments.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. member. I have a question for him but before posing the question I would like to make a couple of comments.
I am very pleased today to support this motion before us because foreign overfishing is costing Atlantic Canadians thousands of jobs. In the Atlantic provinces the fisheries employ over 100,000 people. That is a lot of jobs. On top of that, they employ roughly 8,000 in coastal Quebec.
Supply
Foreign overfishing is a very serious problem and it is one that the federal government has to address now. The fact is that while Newfoundlanders and other Atlantic Canadians are losing their jobs, foreigners are fishing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish off our east coast far in excess of the quotas that have been set for them.
This government's lack of action in this area is hard to understand. It simply ignores the needs of Atlantic fishermen.
Another example of ignoring the needs of fishermen is in a recent proposal to change the boat safety regulations. This is a proposal which is causing a great deal of concern to fishermen in my area, Prince Edward Island, because these new regulations call for fishermen to equip their boats with life rafts, with survival suits for each fisherman and with a second set of running lights.
I know that all fishermen would agree safety is the primary concern. There is no question about that. Most fishermen are happy to abide by sensible safety regulations. I underline the word sensible because this proposal does not make sense in a lot of situations. Why would an oyster fisherman be required to carry a life raft in a boat that is too small to hold it in the first place?
I use that as an example to illustrate how out of touch this government has become with the needs of fishermen.
Would the member agree with me that government's lack of action now in dealing with the whole issue of foreign overfishing simply demonstrates the government's lack of concern for fishermen in Atlantic Canada?


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Charles-Eugène Marin: Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration and the conflicts which can arise in fishing communities where resources are increasingly scarce. It will be hard for me to agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the government, whatever it is, for inaction.
I would take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank my colleague who asked the question. She is getting up to leave the House before I have answered her.

March 12, 1992
Supply
It is very important to realize that what is happening now in the fisheries is not the government's fault. It is the fault of a system which for years has been very poorly supervised. When we talk about overfishing by foreign boats inside or outside the 200-mile limit, we must not forget that Canadians also overfished in those areas. We must not forget that when we wanted to restrain the increase in the number of seals, these same people who are telling us that it is the government's fault were there telling us to do nothing.
I believe it is a biological phenomenon which is very hard to control and honestly I cannot believe that it is my government's fault if the resource within the 200-mile limit or the Gulf of St. Lawrence is at such a low level.
In any case, I would ask the hon. member who asked me the question to read the notes, since she left the House before I finished my statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. I am quite prepared to recognize the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, but I would point out to him that five minutes remain of the 20 allocated to his party. The hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Made-leine):: I do not know if five minutes will be enough, Mr. Speaker. I would prefer to have 10 minutes, as someone who has chosen to live in the Magdalen Islands. In any case, I will try to make my point as briefly as possible.

I had the privilege a few minutes ago to meet with Mr. Cashin and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Without speaking on behalf of the minister or on behalf of Mr. Cashin, one thing that we did agree on is that problem of the northern cod should not be a partisan political area. We should work together on it.
I am sure I will get agreement from the other side of the House that there are three problems. First, there is the problem of northern cod on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. That is, the problem with external affairs in the foreign fishing. Second, there is the problem of our overfishing in our own waters, which has been addressed to the satisfaction of some fishermen but
not to others. Third, there is the problem of our seal herd.
I get very touchy when we talk about seals. I am an old seal hunter. I believe that with the herd of seals we have in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off Newfoundland, off the Madeleine Islands, after having met with Mr. Cashin and the minister of fisheries, we have to go through, like it or lump it, our external diplomacy, international etiquette, call it whatever you wish. It is frustrating for the fishermen, but we have to do that. We cannot run out with the gunboats.
Even from a Madeleine Islander's point of view, I would hope that Newfoundlanders would not go out with their fishing boats and lose their lives to try to make an example of a Portuguese or a Spaniard who is over there fishing. I would hope that we could have a little bit of patience and see what will happen.
I am assured that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with the good advice of Mr. Cashin and other Newfoundlanders, will take appropriate action if we do not get action from the foreign side.
Regarding the restraint that has been asked of the fishermen with the reduction in the quotas, the government side has had to be responsible for the loss of revenue of the people involved. If it is not good enough it should be improved. Again, I would ask the opposite side and my colleagues in the government that we make it the least painful as possible for the fishermen.
In the four minutes that I have left I wish to talk about seals.

When I was elected on September 4, 1984,1 met with my friends, the Magdalen Islanders, who told me that under the former government-and I am not getting into partisan politics here, Mr. Speaker-they said to me, "How come those damn Greenpeacers are shocked, which means that we will lose money because we can no longer hunt seals?"
I took a stand in 1984 and I have not changed my position since. I fully agree with the seal hunt. We should never forget that hunting seals, just like hunting deer or moose in Newfoundland or Labrador, or hunting partridge or whatever is an important activity. It is very
March 12, 1992

important income for people both in the Magdalen Islands and in Newfoundland. What is even more important for us in the Magdalen Islands, is that we have a system whereby every ounce of liver and of seal meat can be used. We can take every ounce of oil and process it and it will all go on the market.

I am a former farmer. I did slaughtering on my bam floor. You go to a slaughterhouse for pork or chicken, nobody worries about it. They hang the pigs up, cut their throats and they bleed to death.
They have a reasonable harvest of the seal herd. There is no problem, and I would hope for the environmentalists and for the Greenpeace people and the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls from the other side of the floor will support me in this, to do a reasonable harvest of the seals, we will bring more money to Newfoundlanders, more money for the Magdalen Islands, have a good economy and we will not hurt the environment because the seals are hurting our northern cod stocks.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's intervention here this afternoon.
Can the member help me out here a little bit? Given that there has been a charitable action by the minister of fisheries with the stroke of a pen to issue licences to other countries to enter our waters, to fish in our waters, to rob the livelihood of those who depend on the fishery, given that kind of charity, I ask first whether the member could tell me: would he not agree with me that charity should begin at home?
The second question is: Can the hon. member opposite tell me what other country on this entire planet allows foreigners to jump on their vessels and go into the waters of other countries and to fish in those waters? Can he give me that figure?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thought one of my principal points when I was making my statement was that we would try to keep this non-partisan.
I guess my hon. colleague does not want to keep it that way. I will say one thing. Having been in the House of Commons for seven and one-half years and regardless of political stripe, the thing that angers and ires me the most is to hear downtown metro people talking about
Supply
seals from Newfoundland or the Magdalen Islands when they do not know what in the hell they are talking about. I do not like it.
If they want to be partisan, I will give an answer. When talking about overfishing, I do not set the rules, you do not set the rules. International law and international trade are things that have been established, but when it is said that we are giving licences to foreigners to the detriment of our own people, there is not a Conservative government, there is not a Liberal government, there is no other government that does not look after the rights of Canadians.
We may differ how we look after them, but the insinuation that the hon. member makes that we are looking after the foreigners and not looking after Canadians gives dishonour, not only to the hon. member, but also to his party.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the hon. member for Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine. I have been in his riding, both in winter and summer, to watch the seals and visit the Magdalen islands with their typical island economy. I would like to ask a very short question about the role played by seals in the islands' economy, since he said this was very important. I agree with what he said, but one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada-

In the report of the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada recommendation 39 states: "The non-consumptive use of seals such as the viewing of seal herds should be encouraged subject to appropriate regulatory measures to protect the animals and their habitat".
I would like the hon. member to comment on ecotourism, a new dimension of his riding's economy, because I am sure it is a very important factor.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who has already been to the Magdalen Islands two or three times.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Although he did not go on a seal hunt, he saw first hand what happens to the seals on the ice in the gulf.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are getting a lot of tourists and a lot of development in the Magdalen Islands because people are coming from the United States, Italy and other European countries, in fact from all over the world. We are experiencing a boom in the tourism industry, unlike anything we have seen in the past 10 or 15 years. This is very important, Mr. Speaker.
However, as far as culling X number of seals from the herds is concerned, this will not harm tourism and it is certainly not a threat to the continued existence of the seal herds. In fact, what we call the "harvesting of the herd" benefits everyone.

It is very important not to shock the environmentalists. We can do a reasonable harvest. We can use every ounce of meat, every ounce of oil and we will sell it on the market. CIDA buys all kinds of mackerel in cans. We can sell seal meat too. We will keep our herds. We will have the seal hunters and they will have their jobs.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record a question that the minister of fisheries will undoubtedly have to answer tomorrow at the University of New Brunswick law school.
The minister of fisheries is speaking at the law school on Friday, I think at 1.30 in the afternoon, and the general public is invited to attend together with the media and, of course, with law school students who will be questioning the minister of fisheries on the subject of fisheries management as it pertains to the Law of the Sea and what the minister of fisheries and the Government of Canada intend to do under the law to protect our fisheries.
I will try to present the question in the seven minutes I have. The question is this: According to the department's own information sheets, in 1990 it gave 195,000 tonnes of fish as foreign allocations within our 200-mile zone and it issued 117 foreign licences, foreign allocations within Canada's 200-mile zone, enough to keep 19 fish plants going in Canada. That is the department's own background material. This is Fisheries and Oceans
Canada. At least, I don't know, 10,000 jobs in 20 fish plants.
The rationale, as given by the minister and the department, for giving out these foreign allocations inside the 200-mile zone is that Canada has an obligation under the Law of the Sea. This is the information package or backgrounder of Fisheries and Oceans. The Law of the Sea requires coastal states, and it goes on and on and on.
The question is if the Law of the Sea required Canada to give 119 foreign licences last year and 195,000 tonnes of fish to foreigners, then why can we not extend our jurisdiction over straddling stocks that is also required under the Law of the Sea?
The government says that it cannot extend it for transborder stocks because we did not ratify the Law of the Sea. There is no Law of the Sea. There is a Law of the Sea by custom which was signed by 119 nations at the United Nations in 1983. But then it required 60 to ratify it in their own countries and to date, only 43 have done so.
So there is no Law of the Sea. But the Law of the Sea is used to give foreigners allocations of fish within our 200-mile zone. The minister of fisheries stood in this House a few moments ago and said: "Oh, but fish that Canadians do not want are given to the foreigners". I am sorry but I have them in my riding as other members do.
Why Canadians cannot get licences to catch squid unless they are a certain group of Canadians. A man on welfare cannot get a licence to catch squid; a woman on welfare cannot get one. I cannot get one. Nobody can get one unless he or she qualifies as a full-time fisherman and has certain other qualifications. But the Cubans can get one. Oh yes, 12 miles off the coast, there is the Cuban flag. Japanese can get one. Russians can get one.
If you go out and you catch a fish that a foreigner is catching under a Canadian licence you are thrown in jail. Then you spend your time in jail. A great many Canadians have spent their time in jail, because they cannot get a licence.
Last year, Fisheries and Oceans said they gave 117 foreign vessels licences 195,000 tonnes-that is their publication-to vessels that are over 400 feet long. Why, you could drop the biggest Canadian vessel in the hold of
March 12, 1992

one of those foreign vessels and you would need search and rescue to find it.
If the Law of the Sea forces Canada to give licences to foreign nations and allocations as the minister said it does in this House today, how can he turn around in response to this motion and say: "but the Law of the Sea is not law".
Under section 62 of the Law of the Sea, it says that you must give allocations that are in excess of Canada's needs, or a coastal state's needs, to a foreign nation if you are not using it. Then the next section says that in the case of transborder stocks you have the right under international law to enforce their conservation.
So the Government of Canada uses one section of the Law of the Sea and says: "We have to give to 11 foreign nations quotas because of the Law of the Sea". Then it turns around and says: "Well, we cannot stop the foreigners from overfishing outside the 200-mile zone because there is no Law of the Sea".
It is going to be interesting. Tomorrow we will have our lawyers, our law school students and perhaps law professors, perhaps a judge or two, ask the minister of fisheries on the spot in Fredericton at the University of New Brunswick law school. I wish I were there to listen to the sort of logic the minister of fisheries is going to come out with when he talks about the Law of the Sea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock p.m., I must interrupt the debate.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0. 31
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when the free trade agreement was signed neither the United States nor Canada could agree on fair trade rules. So it was decided that they would be negotiated over the next five to seven years.
Three and a half years later we still have not started to negotiate the fair trade rules. As a result, when the Canadian softwood lumber industry or Canadian manufacturers such as Stelco or Honda increased their exports to the United States by being price competitive, the U.S. uses or threatens to use its anti-dumping and
anti-subsidy countervail laws to eliminate this increased competition.
Apparently Canada has decided to defer fair trade rule negotiations until after the current GATT negotiations are completed. Meanwhile, the lack of fair trade rules is destroying the truly open North American market contemplated by supporters of the free trade agreement and is threatening Canadian jobs.
We can compete but we need fair trade rules now. We need a level playing field, but once again we appear to be one of our own worst enemies.


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

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 15, the 1992 Arctic Winter Games in Whitehorse will begin and will run until March 22. Over 1,400 cultural and sports participants will be at these games. They come from Greenland, Russia, Alaska, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and northern Alberta. Sixteen different sports are featured, traditional and contemporary.
The traditional sports include Dene and Inuit games like the snow snake, the knuckle hop and the one-leg high kick, et cetera. Contemporary sports include hockey, cross-country skiing, dog mushing, silhouette shooting, snow shoeing, volleyball and wrestling.
Unique to these games is the focus on culture: Arctic arts, crafts, dance, drama, story telling and music are highlighted along with the sports.
For an absolutely unforgettable northern experience, I urge all members of this House to come to Whitehorse next week.
Good luck to all the northern athletes and good luck to all the NWT athletes. Any member wishing to know more about how countries can get together, this is the perfect opportunity.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE ORCHESTRA
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, but if I were I would immediately press to establish a new policy for the National Arts Centre orchestra.

March 12, 1992
When the National Arts Centre orchestra is on tour in Canada it should open the performance with our national anthem. The strong melody and and patriotic words of O Canada should resound loud and strong in every community and concert hall in which our national orchestra plays.
What if some communities do not want our national anthem played? Then the National Arts Centre orchestra should refuse to play there.
Canadians must unite in their opposition to the divisive forces that threaten our existence as a strong nation. The National Arts Centre orchestra must not be the patsy to any divisive forces.
"O Canada, our true north strong, united and free".


HOUSING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg is really the home of co-op housing. The first major project in Canada began in that area, and since then over 3,000 families have enjoyed the benefits of that major program. On behalf of them I want to speak out against the disgraceful cut in the co-op housing project that was in the last budget.
Let me read, if I may, a comment made by residents of Carpathia Co-op which provides a good mixture of housing for low and middle income, single parent families:
The federal government has a responsibility to the people of Canada to ensure that we all have access to secure, modest, affordable housing.
There is a contradiction. In January the former minister of housing said clearly that the co-op housing program was an ideal program to provide a mix to stop the ghettoization of social housing across the province. Then, in the House of Commons yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that co-op housing was not useful for providing that kind of support for mixed housing.
When is the government going to get its act straight? I think it is time we understood that this government has a commitment to the people of Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have never heard of the experimental lakes area, the ELA, in northwestern Ontario; nor have they heard of the internationally decisive work done there.
It was the ELA program that first proved it was phosphates that caused the explosive growth of algae in fresh water. It was the ELA program that proved it was industrially generated acid rain that was killing Canadian lakes. And the ELA program is continuing to do ground breaking scientific research such as gathering the longterm information that will allow us to gauge the real effects of global warming.
But, astonishingly, the program does not yet know how much money it will get from this government next year. At very least the current paltry and inadequate allocation of $155,000 must be recommitted. Ideally the funding should be increased.
For a mere $450,000 a year plus a one-shot $10 million investment in site development, Canada can retain and enhance one of the most crucial and internationally lauded scientific projects on the planet.


RED CROSS MONTH
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that the month of March is Red Cross Month.
Last year, 2.5 million Canadians gave their time as volunteers or donated blood to the society because they can see the positive results of the work it is doing.
In Fredericton alone over 600 volunteers are involved with the Red Cross Society, offering such vital services as transportation aid, an accompaniment to citizens needing help for doctors' appointments, often staying with
March 12, 1992

them for personal support. Another program offered by the Red Cross across Canada and appreciated in my community is the house fire relief service extending financial support and assistance to families that have lost their homes and personal belongings due to fire.
The Canadian Red Cross Society influences the lives of people daily in communities right across this country, including financial assistance in providing supplies to help victims of war, famine and natural disasters abroad. In Canada the Red Cross organizes many home programs including support for veterans and seniors, and more than a quarter of a million people have benefited from its services.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, human rights groups in Canada want to know the real reasons for the scrapping of the Court Challenges Program.
The government says there is enough federal jurisprudence but legal experts say that simply is not true. The government says it is part of the deficit reduction, but all evidence contradicts the suggestion that the justice department could perform this function more cheaply. This would also be a conflict of interest for the department which must defend any court challenges.
Could it just be a coincidence that Preston Manning has called for this program to be scrapped? Considering the support that the Prime Minister has given the program in the past, surely there is no one in this government who is not committed to protecting the human rights of every Canadian.
We all hope this program will be reinstated.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of a constituent from Calgary Southeast who contacted me expressing concern about a statement made yesterday with regard to veterans affairs.
I have spoken to the minister and I am pleased to report that there are absolutely no plans, as the hon.
member for Hillsborough yesterday suggested, "to shuffle veterans affairs positions around the country".
I was advised that the department may relocate some jobs to streamline operations, but it would do so only to improve efficiency while maintaining service to our veterans, with every possible consideration of employees who may be affected.
The member also mentioned the winding down of the veterans lands administration. The government is looking at ways of improving the efficiency of the agency. We are looking at investigating privatization of the administration of VLA's activities and at other ways of ensuring continued cost effectiveness.
We will wind it up, but in an orderly way and with every consideration for employees who may be affected and at the same time ensuring that service to our veterans is maintained.


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, at a general meeting of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities on March 6, 1992, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds was asked about the use of the port of Churchill.
The minister said that the port of Churchill had many problems that are not incurred at other ports. He included the example of a Brazilian ship last September or October running into an iceberg and puncturing its hull. The minister then stated that welders had to be flown to Churchill. The minister also stated that the Brazilians were not going to be going to Churchill any more.
I have a document from the Canadian Coast Guard. It has reviewed its casualty records for 1989, 1990 and 1991 and has stated that there was no recorded incident of the form of damage described.
It also checked the records of the Transportation Safety Board. It had some incidents recorded where Brazilian ships had ice damage. However, these were on ships that were in transit to or from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They say: "None were to ships"-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

March 12, 1992


HIGH SPEED TRAIN
Mr. Marcel R. Tfemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, as member for Quebec-Est, I am happy that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport tabled yesterday dealing with high speed trains acknowledges the economic spin-offs of such a project.
I must stress the fact that the final feasibility study now under way deals with the complete corridor from Quebec city to Windsor, Ontario and not only the Montreal-To-ronto section.
Like the other members of this House, I am eager to see the conclusions of that study since, if that great pan-Canadian project becomes reality, it could mean not only job maintenance or job creation in the area of passenger train operations and rolling equipment manufacturing, but also the acquisition of new, up-to-date technologies, the interlacing of foreign and Canadian companies and the creation of strategic alliances. Eventually it could also mean a new direction for production and research and development activities in the aerospace and aeronautics industries.
By taking the necessary steps for this project to succeed, Canada could improve its position within the export market and better place itself among the five major countries in the area of railway stock production.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce an unfair action by Canada Post.
In several parts of the country, including Saint-Frederic-de-Beauce, Canada Post allows postal outlets to sell stamp booklets at a discount price. Often these outlets are very close to post offices, even as close as across the street. This practice is unacceptable.
Canada Post allows its own competitors to play with the price of stamps. On the other hand, the post office never cuts its prices. So it will become an easy target for postal officials who are more than willing to close post offices in rural areas.
The people of Saint-Frederic-de-Beauce see through this scheme, Mr. Speaker. They see through it so clearly that they formed a surveillance committee. The government is dismantling the Canadian postal system with so-called streamlining operations and questionable business practices. The selling of postage stamps at a discount price should be banned, because it means the closure of post offices in Canada.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, last night CBC television aired an interview with the Prime Minister and his wife.
In that interview the Prime Minister used language which some would say is not politically correct. He said he would do serious damage to anybody who threatens to injure his family. If anyone wants to criticize Brian Mulroney for saying that, they had better think first about this: He is a father and a husband before he is a prime minister and when Frank magazine attacked his daughter he reacted.
There are 26 million people out there expecting the man to be some kind of an emotionless, non-human public servant, set on earth just to look after their needs. He is human, he speaks his mind, he supports and defends his family in any way possible.
For those who may call for an apology, I can only say that many of us are still waiting for an apology from the magazine that discredited itself in the first place.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of extremely serious issues on the environmental front in Alberta that cry out for action from the federal government.
Regrettably the ministers responsible seem paranoid to the point of inaction, something that is not going unnoticed by Canadians who care. Why is it the Minister of the Environment has refused to come to Parliament to halt logging in Canada's largest national park, Wood Buffalo? This House would send a strong message to Canfor and Daishowa that there will be no more blackmail for cash.
March 12, 1992

Why is it that the Minister of Transport continues to do nothing for about the illegal Oldman dam despite a clear direction from the Supreme Court of Canada for him to do his duty pursuant to the Navigable Waters Act. That reservoir should be ordered drained by the minister, and he knows it and yet he does nothing. Why is the Minister of Agriculture doing nothing about the risk of disease transfers from game farms to wildlife? Does he really support shooting wild elk to protect them from catching diseases from game farmed elk.
Something stinks about the inaction on environmental issues in Alberta and the smell seems to be political.


MORDECAI RICHLER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Mordecai Richler has struck yet another blow at Quebecers. According to this author, the people of Quebec form a tribe whose elite is but a self-destructing force, we are suffering from collective paranoia and owe our emancipation to English Canada.
As a Quebecer, I cannot condone racist comments and a bunch of lies such as these. It is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that such an individual should call himself a Canadian. Mordecai Richler must be exposed and I hope that leaders in English Canada and in the Jewish community will join in denouncing this consummate racist with a totally decayed mind.
Mr. Richler is a racist of the worst kind who smears Quebec's reputation abroad by peddling one lie after another. If a Quebec nationalist were to write something like that about another nation or minority, I bet it would cause an uproar in Canada. Canadians must speak out. They either denounce his action or they are his accomplices.


JEWISH STUDENTS' NETWORK
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, 60 young men and women from the Jewish Students' Network are with us in the House today. They have come from
Oral Questions
Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, London, Waterloo, Guelph, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and Israel. They have come to protest the plight of Syrian Jews who are denied basic rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Syria's own Constitution. They cannot emigrate, vote, work for the government and are subjected to harassment, police surveillance, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
All parliamentarians applaud you, the dedicated students from Network, in your fight for human rights. We join with you in protesting these callous abuses by Syria and in calling on President Assad to end them. This Saturday as the Jewish community throughout the world observes Shabbat Zachor, the Sabbath for remembrance of oppressed Jews, we will remember with you, for oppression is not a Jewish issue, it is an issue for all mankind. We will not forget.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
The government has announced that it is rushing ahead with plans to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport, an airport that makes a $100 million profit every year. The airline, the province, the regional governments say: "We do not need it".
I want to know from the minister why he is going ahead with this when everyone says that it is not needed. Why does he want to give $100 million of profit to the private sector at the expense of the government?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 and 1989, Pearson airport was so congested that everybody suffered unacceptable consequences. The indications concerning the traffic at Pearson over the next few years tell us that we will again experience a similar situation in 1997-98 unless changes are made. So we are preparing for the future. We have confidence in

March 12, 1992
Oral Questions
Canada's future and we believe that this is the most appropriate time to do this planning and at the same time create 3,200 jobs over the next five years in the Toronto region.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, how is it that the minister tells us today that he must proceed with this when studies on the needs at this airport are not yet completed and when the minister himself said that he did not want to consult anybody, that he was not interested in talking with anybody involved, except his contractor friends who could make money?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unbelievable that the Leader of the Opposition, of a supposedly serious party, would talk like that here in the House. We have consulted all interested parties. Last Monday evening, we even had a meeting in Toronto with two Ontario government ministers and four mayors from the region. During that meeting we explained very clearly to these concerned that there was no problem with the process. They simply wanted to propose a delay in order to set up a new local authority that meets none of the criteria of privatization through a local authority that were established four years ago by this government. Only on Monday did all those people realize that there should be another local authority in which the three levels of government would be involved.
Among the people who were there, the mayors of the two largest communities in the Toronto region systematically opposed the creation of such an authority.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Two
years ago, Mr. Speaker, questions were asked in this House about privatization of airports and the government said at that time that it was not the policy of the government. It was said here in this House.
The minister has now said that developers will have 90 days to come up with proposals for taking over these terminals. Canadians should know that one company, Paxport, has a major head start. It even had a scale model of a proposed new terminal airport on display at the Rideau Club for members of Parliament two years ago. A principal in that company is Don Matthews, a
former chairman of the PC Party and fund raiser for the Prime Minister in his leadership bid.
We all know that the Prime Minister likes to roll the dice. Can the minister assure us that in this case he is not loading the dice for his friends?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we should perhaps recall that when submissions to build terminal 3 were requested, the person that the Leader of the Opposition just referred to was one of the bidders, but he did not get the contract. Instead, the contract was awarded to friends of the Liberal Party.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport.
I have gone through the proposal, the press release, everything that he released yesterday very carefully and the numbers frankly do not make any sense. Using the minister's own growth projections with respect to passengers, Pearson airport does not reach its 28 million person capacity until well past the year 2000, not 1997 as the minister stated yesterday. Likewise, his figures on job creation are totally hypothetical.
This announcement simply does not make sense at the present time. Will the minister therefore withdraw his request for proposals, go back to the drawing board and come forward later when he can prove to Canadians that what he is going to do is in the best interest of Canadian travellers and Canadian taxpayers?


Jean Corbeil: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. We are proceeding because we believe that this is what is needed in order to have the proper capacity at this airport in 1997-98. The time to do it is now because this is the time that we are going to get the best prices.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that he can refurbish as many airport terminals as he wants and that is not going to help with the problems of capacity at Pearson airport. If the minister is actually trying to tell people that runway expansion at Pearson is a certainty, why does he not come out and say that clearly so that people understand what is going on here? If that is what he is saying, why
March 12, 1992

does he not tell us how he is going to pay for runway expansion?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read all the documents that we put out yesterday, he would have noticed that we clearly stated that the request for proposals is considering no runway expansion and, as an option, three additional runways, so we are covering all aspects.
I do not understand why the hon. member from the other side is so much against the creation of 3,200 jobs in the Toronto area at this period of time.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport knows full well the dangerous state of the Canadian airline industry in Canada. We do not know if we are going to have one or two carriers by the end of this year or next. Yet he has embarked on a plan to turn over the most profitable airport in our total aviation system to the private sector at a time when we have seen a drop in air traffic by about 12 per cent with no real indication that it is going to turn around any more than the economy is going to turn around. I want to ask the minister if he can justify to this House and, more important, to the Canadian people who will have to pay the bills how we can do this kind of mathematical wizardry to suggest that the private sector, at a large cost to the people of Canada, can do better?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, again I remind the hon. member that the forecast of Transport Canada on the number of passengers who are likely to go through Pearson airport in the coming years has been deposited with the EARP panel that is studying the additional runways. These figures have been accepted as accurate by this panel.
The traffic at Pearson over the past 10 to 12 years has increased by 4.5 per cent annually. We are basing our forecast on a 3 per cent increase per year for the next 10 to 12 years. This indicates to us that by 1997-98 we are going to run into a capacity problem at the airport. We are not doing this for tomorrow, we are doing this for the future because of the time that it takes to put the renovation and upgrading together.
Oral Questions
We figure that when we have completed this process we will be right on time to meet the proper capacity so again we will not find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves in 1989. I am surprised that a representative of the NDP is against the-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should go on to the next question.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Minister of Transport relies on the same advice that the Minister of Finance relies on when he says that we are already out of the recession.
We know that the recession is not over. It is not even close to being over. We know that because of the decline in use of the aviation industry by Canadians that there will not be a 3 per cent increase. We would like to get back to that point, but we know it is not going to happen for quite some time. We also do not know if we are going to have one or two air carriers in this country. If we end up having one, you are not going to need any of that space whether it is at terminal 1 or terminal 2.
I ask the minister again: Will he reconsider this decision, put it on hold until such time as the aviation industry has turned around and we know what the long-term future of our carriers will be?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the number of passengers going through an airport is not related to the number of airline carriers. It is related to the number of people who are travelling by air. We are not going to reverse our stand.
I find it rather peculiar that the same people who a few weeks ago and even a few days ago were asking the federal government to borrow money to do infrastructure work that belonged to other areas of government are now wondering why the federal government is getting into a project that will create 3,200 jobs without borrowing money and at no cost to the taxpayers.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the minister should also remember that Pearson airport contributes $100 million of profit a year to the aviation system. That is the cost to the taxpayer that this government is prepared to give over to its private sector buddies which means, in the long term, it will be the

March 12, 1992
Oral Questions
taxpayers and the users of the aircraft who will have to pay the price.
I want to ask the minister once again: Will he reconsider this decision given that the province of Ontario does not like it, the municipalities do not like it and the industry, that is going to have to pay the piper, does not want it at all?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because Pearson is such an important component of our airline industry in Canada that we do not want it to suffer the same type of congestion that it did in 1988-89 and caused so much disruption in the system.
We believe that this is the best time to preserve the integrity and the profitability of Pearson because we are not going to lose money in that. By having the private sector doing it, we are going to save some money in the operation and we are going to use the business sense of the people in the industry to make Pearson even more profitable.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
To this day the entire privatization deal of terminal 3 involving the financial figures, the text of the agreement and the rationale for contract awarding remains a state secret which this government does not want to open up or divulge to Canadians.
Why is the government once again prepared to proceed in the very same manner? Why this rushed 90-day period? Could it be that Gordon Sinclair, president of the Air Transport Association, was correct when he suggested that this deal has more to do with rewarding the efforts of developers that have found a mark in this government?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat. This exercise is predicated on the fact that we must meet the capacity requirements of one of the most important airports in Canada.
We have to plan ahead. We have the figures on what are going to be the capacity needs starting in 1997-98. We are preparing now and at the same time we are helping the economy of that area of the country.
I am very surprised that a member from the Toronto area would be against the creation of 3,200 jobs.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the motivating force of this very massive and costly project should be need and not greed. That is something this government does not understand.
Given that all taxpayers of Canada have invested heavily in the nation's premier airport, and since the selling price of both terminals will be considerably lower given the economically depressed state of the air industry, why is the minister prepared to risk at this time the holdings of those 26 million Canadian shareholders?
What happened to good business sense which meant buying low and selling high?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely one of the components that has been part of our decision.
In the depressed state of the economy the cost of the renovations and upgrading that will be necessary are of course going to be lower at this stage than at any time in the future.
The end result, again I repeat, is the creation of 3,200 jobs for five years in an area of the country that is very much depressed.
I do not understand why members on the opposition side, especially those from the area, are so much against it.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, this government pursues its policies regardless of the hardship it brings to Canadians.
Today interest rates have been again increasing. Real interest rates are at a level which will further discourage economic recovery.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister: How much more pain does this government wish to inflict on Canadians and why?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the hon. member.
This government is doing everything it can to help the situation along. I hope she is not suggesting that we
March 12, 1992

borrow more money. I hope she is not suggesting that we go the Liberal way, that we borrow more money and get higher interest rates.
Interest rates of course are the result of a very volatile situation, but we have done our share as a government and will continue to do it. The rate that went up by 11 basis points today is already much lower, three times lower than it was during the Liberal period.
We have done our share and we will continue to do it. I am convinced that with our policy interest rates will continue their decline as they have over the last 14 months.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, with help like that, it is no wonder we are in trouble.

Mr. Speaker, the one and only time that Canada had no inflation was during the Great Depression of the 1930s. I therefore ask the minister: Now that the inflation rate is almost zero, can he give us a good reason for today's rise in interest rates?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that we must be clear when we talk about increases in the interest rate. Eleven basis points is quite normal, because when interest rates go down, there are ceilings and plateaus. This is quite normal and I prefer our plateaus to the deep hole that was dug when the Liberals were in power and interest rates were sometimes over 20 per cent.
As a government, we have done and will continue to do everything to ensure that these rates go down without borrowing money that Canadians do not have and without increasing taxes, so that the economy can recover.
We are doing our part and we are sure that the economy will respond.


FISHERIES
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Oral Questions
In his 1990 report, Professor Harris stated that it was difficult to contemplate a capelin, a crab or a shrimp fishery that would not impact on the cod resource.
Assuming the minister agrees with this, does he not also agree that we must examine the licences for all vessels licensed to operate within the 200-mile limit to see to what degree, if any, they are interfering with the endangered cod stocks or the cod food?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member might be getting confused by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls who often gets mixed up on this question.
At the present time I am reviewing very carefully the use of foreign fishing vessels within the 200-mile zone. No foreign vessels are allowed to fish within the Canadian 200-mile economic zone unless it is in the national interest of Canada and there is a request from our fishing industry or the fishermen's union for them to do so. They are only allowed to fish for species, otherwise, that we do not catch ourselves or use ourselves. Every foreign vessel that fishes within the 200-mile limit has a Canadian observer on board. So we know exactly what they are doing, what species they are catching, what they are discarding, what their actions are, and we make sure they observe our rules and regulations.
Our problem is not caused by foreign vessels fishing within the 200-mile limit. It is caused by foreign vessels fishing in an unrestrained manner outside the Canadian 200-mile economic zone where international law does not permit us to exercise authority.
As the debate today shows, our patience may not last forever.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, what the minister said may be the truth but not the whole truth.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Stupich: No, it isn't. It is not just one factor that is endangering the cod stocks. It is a whole host of them.
One of them is that the quota for this year was set, tl believe, at 120,000 tonnes; it was reduced from a higher figure of 185,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes according to a fairly recent press release. Professor Harris recommended some four years ago, in view of his state of alarm about the depleting cod resource, that it should have

March 12, 1992
Oral Questions
been reduced then to 90,000 tonnes. We are still one-third higher after four years.
When is the minister going to take these reports seriously and get the quotas down to where Professor Harris said they should be?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let us have some accuracy in this matter. Dr. Harris' report was presented to the government in 1990 which I calculate to be two years ago.
Nowhere in his report did he say that the TAC should be reduced to 90,000 tonnes. He suggested that the management tool we use of F0.1, which allows one to take 16 to 20 per cent of the biomass of some particular stock each year, was the correct way to proceed. In the present circumstances we should try to keep the catch at a rate of 0.30 because we could not operate at 0.1. Since then he has said that we should be very cautious and he has recommended that TACs be reduced more than we have reduced them. But we have set the TACs in accordance with the advice of Canadian scientists, CAF-SAC advice, and at no time have we set quotas any higher than was recommended by our own scientists.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The softwood lumber industry, because of the 14.5 per cent surtax, today is really in shambles. The immediate problem is: What can we do about this terrible problem today?
The present situation is not unlike what happened in 1971 when our American friends imposed a 10 per cent surcharge on Canadian exports to the United States. The Employment Support Act was passed specifically to remedy that type of unfair taxation by the United States.
Will the minister take this question as our representation to invoke the terms of this act immediately as a
countermeasure to what the Americans have done to the softwood lumber industry of Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, of course we will take any representation from the hon. gentleman, but I have to tell him that the big problem with 1971 was that they did not have a dispute settlement mechanism to help them solve the problem. They had to reach out and provide more public funds from the Canadian taxpayer to handle the problem.
What we are trying to do is make sure that American taxpayers who are going to have to pay more for houses as a result of this decision, American taxpayers who will have to pay for this wrong decision on the part of the Americans, will pay for the bad decision they have made with respect to this matter.
What we have is a dispute settlement mechanism now which we did not have in 1971. I think our case is so strong we may not even have to use that mechanism. But if we do, we will and we will use it vigorously.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That answer is totally unacceptable. I am talking about a problem that exists today.
At the time of the dispute settling mechanism we could go to GATT. What I am talking about today is an interim measure. In 1971 when the countermeasure, the Employment Support Act, was introduced, it only took three days to pass through this House with all-party support. Let me add that at that time all parties in the House gave full co-operation to the passing of this act.
As an interim measure to help every softwood lumber industry and employee in Canada, I ask the minister to invoke this Employment Support Act today. He should not only invoke it but make it retroactive to the date the Americans imposed the tax, March 6, so that we can show them we have the ability to counteract moves they make in our export business.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, that bill passed, if it did, in three days because there were no other options available to the Government of Canada.
March 12, 1992

The option available at that time was GATT. GATT, as we all know, is not binding. GATT has very powerful moral suasion but it is not binding. Today we have GATT, and as a matter of fact we are pursuing this particular case under GATT. We expect a resolution from them in June or as late as July.
We are pursuing GATT but we are also pursuing our rights under the free trade agreement which gives us what we did not have in 1971 and what we did not have until 1989: the binational panel, the dispute settlement mechanism. That is why we do not have to resort to spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on the proposal the hon. member suggests.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement both countries must provide an equal exchange of information for government contract tendering and bidding.
According to External Affairs officials, Canada has provided statistics to the United States but the United States has not responded, despite three years of requesting this information.
Will the minister defend Canadian businesses and ensure that this part of the agreement is fulfilled, or will he suspend the supply of this information until the U.S. begins to provide the necessary statistics?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of this request for information. The Americans indicate that they are going to supply us with that information. Of course if they do not, that would be a very serious violation of the understandings we have with them under the free trade agreement in terms of bilateral trade outside the free trade agreement.
What the hon. member should know, however, is that we have negotiated through the free trade agreement access to American procurement we never had before. We have information now from American government authorities on contract opportunities we never had before. We have that information. We would be very
Oral Questions
happy to supplement it with the information the hon. member suggested as well.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister making some sort of commitment to take action. I would like to bring to his attention that in fact the agreement states the two governments must exchange information on an annual basis to allow monitoring of contracts. Without this information, how can the government know if Canadian businesses are getting a fair shake in the U.S. market?


Thomas Hockin: The hon. member makes a constructive point. We will make sure that we have all possible sources of information, including the information that he suggests.
Our information right now on the American market is very deep and very comprehensive but we will be glad to pursue our rights under the agreement with the Americans as raised by my hon. friend.


ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last week, the minister and his colleague in Newfoundland made a very difficult and important decision for conservation of Atlantic salmon, one that followed a ban on fishing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia some years ago.
Accompanying the decision last week was an offer to the fishermen to repurchase their licences for retirement. I think that was a sound and compassionate offer and an investment in future conservation.
I would like to ask if that offer is also going to be made available for those New Brunswick and Nova Scotia fishermen who still retain commercial licences?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe last week we made an important step forward with reference to the conservation of the Atlantic salmon, one of the finest and noblest fish that it is possible to come across, or to catch or to consume for that matter.

March 12, 1992
Oral Questions
With respect to the question of a similar program for commercial fishermen in New Brunswick or elsewhere, we are considering an initiative to retire the remaining commercial salmon licences in New Brunswick as well as in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
However, in Newfoundland and Labrador this is a program shared 70 per cent by the federal government, 30 per cent by the province and therefore we will need the co-operation of the provincial governments in these places as well.
I am glad to see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who is from New Brunswick, is very interested in the reply to this question.


GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Lead in gasoline causes irreversible brain damage in children. Knowing this, the Canadian government banned the use of it in Canada in 1990. However, this ban did not extend to the export and production of leaded gasoline.
Why should the children of the developing world suffer from a Canadian desire for exports? Will the minister today announce that he will enforce a ban on the export and production of leaded gasoline?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, in the case of tetraethyl lead, the Government of Canada has a policy by which we do not permit its common use in Canada now. It is permitted in certain exceptional circumstances in farm machinery. It is also used for certain planes. I think there are about 75,000 aircraft in Canada that use that type of fuel. Those are the conditions under which it is used.
In the case of export we are now in the process of putting forward regulations requiring that a notice be given to the countries that receive this product because in Canada there is specific legislation that constrains its use.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I think most members would agree there should be
standards internationally, not just for Canadian children, but for all the children of the world.
Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, or MMT, has replaced lead in gas used in Canada. It too has potentially dangerous health effects and has been banned in the U.S. since 1978.
Will the minister allocate funds to help companies producing lead and MMT to convert to the use of environmentally friendly alternatives like ethanol?


Jean J. Charest: am very happy to report to the House, Mr. Speaker, that in the last budget the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Finance, brought in a measure that would specifically encourage the use of methanol by withdrawing the excise tax on that specific product, a very innovative measure that is going to be good for agriculture.
It is good for the environment. The impact on the environment is not perfect but it is going to be very good and that is exactly what the Government of Canada is proceeding to do.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Garth Tiimer (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week I met with farmers from Halton and Peel counties. They are concerned about their futures as a result of the GATT talks, the possible elimination of article XI.
I know the minister is fighting for Canada's position at the GATT, but I have a question for him. Some farmers want Canada to take a walk away from the GATT table if we do not get a strengthened article XI.
Can the minister tell us what the likely consequences of that would be?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the position that Canada put forward at the GATT was developed with the stakeholders, the producers and the provinces.
The rationale for Canada's position under supply management was the recognition that article XI, as it
March 12, 1992

exists today, after findings by GATT, would no longer allow us to continue with supply management as we view it in Canada. Therefore, the need to have it strengthened and clarified so it could apply to further processing or other products is important. That is why the position was developed.
I think the members of the supply managed community understand the rationale for the development of this position and are continuing to support Canada in presenting it at GATT.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for internal revenue.
Manitoba cabinet makers have lost up to half a million dollars because of poor application of departmental policy by Revenue Canada. Last week the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determined that Manitoba cabinet makers had been right all along.
In the case of the Imperial Cabinet Company versus the minister of internal revenue, would the minister endorse the conclusions of the tribunal? Will he admit that his department has unfairly treated Manitoba cabinet makers?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that all manufacturers of kitchen cabinets were provided with the regulations, in fact, on two specific occasions, once in 1985 and again in 1989. Consultation was made available to all those in this industry prior to any decisions being made by Revenue Canada to the satisfaction of the majority who participated.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. That interpretation is contrary to the ruling made by the tribunal, and I have the document.
In March of last year, the minister said in this case of the Imperial Cabinet Company, if his department was at fault those cabinet makers would be given refunds.
Will he now make immediate restitution to the Imperial Cabinet Company. Will the cabinet minister make refunds to all eligible cabinet makers from Manitoba?
Oral Questions


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, this cabinet minister made available refunds to all cabinet makers in Manitoba in the past, on two separate occasions.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
After over 60 interventions in this House to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance, the government continues to do nothing to address the competitive position of the port of Halifax. Higher Canadian fuel taxes, higher Canadian sales taxes and higher Canadian depreciation have all contributed to the operating costs of the port of Halifax being 28 per cent higher than the highly subsidized U.S. ports.
When will this government start putting Canada first and implement policies that give the port of Halifax and Canadian industries an opportunity to compete fairly against their American counterparts?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, in his latest budget, the Minister of Finance adopted a certain number of measures to help the transportation industry be more competitive. The Canada Ports Corporation has undertaken a study concerning port competitiveness across the country and it is coming out with recommendations to all ports to do what is necessary to make themselves more competitive.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
As a result of this government's shipbuilding rationalization plan, nearly 200 employees of the Dartmouth marine slips are waiting for their pink slips because of a pay-off for lay-off deal that is currently being negotiated with the department.
My question for the minister is this. Since the Dartmouth yard has always been a profitable operation and suitable buyers are interested, will the minister give this House his assurance that he will not participate in a rationalization scheme that will lead to the premature closing of the Dartmouth marine slips in the port of Halifax?

March 12, 1992
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could have gotten a more positive answer from the government benches if he had given notice on that particular question. It is a very technical question.
He knows that it is very important to rationalize the shipyards across Canada. Each case has to be treated within that over-all policy. I would be glad to look into this and get back to him.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It involves the experimental lake areas program run by the Freshwater Institute.
This program, arguably is now and has been among the most important environmental programs run in Canada. It is the program that proved acid rain comes from industrial pollution. It is the program that proved algae comes from phosphates and not carbon. It is one of the lead elements in determining the nature of global warming and its impact on Canada now.
But it is in a funding crunch. I would ask the minister if perhaps he could not come up with the roughly $450,000 in operating money required this year and, if he is feeling really generous, the $10 million to do the site upgrading to bring it to first-class, world-class standards.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is asking the question is in the money crunch and I am in an answer crunch because he was not able to give me notice of this question until during the Question Period. I have not looked at the Edmonton Lakes situation now for some time.


An hon. member:: The experimental lakes.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Edmonton experimental lakes. Is it in Ontario? Now you really know I have not looked at it recently.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will do my best and get back to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton East, short supplemental.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could jog the minister's memory or perhaps that of his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, with a brief quote from the report of the Auditor General in December in which he said:
The program has clearly reached a critical decision point. The
secure financial base is eroded and the program currently relies
heavily on unpredictable special external funding sources.
My question is for either minister. Would either minister please come up with the money to keep this flagship program going and make it able to do the work that is vital that it do?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of the Environment would answer affirmatively if he were here.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


MORDECAI RICHLER
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Quebecers were amazed and disgusted to read this morning that Mordecai Richler considers them "a tribe with a self-destructive elite". In Toronto, he admitted that he thought Quebecers were anti-Semitic and a tribal society.
I ask the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to denounce and condemn these racist, offensive, insulting and degrading remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry, but questions must concern the administration of government. The question may be serious, but it is not one that concerns the running of government.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask another question.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I put the question to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship because he is the guardian of the spirit of tolerance and generosity in this House.
March 12, 1992

In that regard, I again ask him to call upon his colleagues and the English-speaking community in Montreal and Quebec to oppose-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to point out that the question is out of order.


CHILD BENEFITS
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
As the Acting Prime Minister will know, there has been a great deal of confusion on the part of the Canadian public dealing with the child benefits package.
In the Budget Papers the minister announced that $400 million would be provided this year for the new child benefits package. We found out yesterday from the minister who responded in the House that it is now $500 million.
Could the Acting Prime Minister please confirm for Canadians just how much money is being made available: the $400 million in the budget or the $500 million as claimed by the minister yesterday?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my colleague brought this matter to the attention of the House.
As he will realize, the white paper with regard to the child benefits package is a new regime of fairer and simpler taxation. Obviously the Minister of Finance stated the $400 million in the Budget Papers. We are now reviewing with our counterparts from province to province the package the minister put forward. We will be coming back to the House later with the specific plans.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, as the Acting Prime Minister knows, this child benefits package is front and centre to the program of this government. It is good to see so many members on the opposite side concerned and so many facts available.
Points of Order
In answer to another question yesterday, the question about the public consultation aspect of the white paper-and all members of Parliament know that a white paper is the cornerstone of public consultation with the whole country-the minister responded that they would be "working hard".
Could the Acting Prime Minister elaborate on what working hard means for a public consultation process?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am pleased so many members on the other side of the House are looking at this favourably.


Some hon. members:: Favourably?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Yes, favourably. It is fairer and simpler taxation. It is going to put more than $2 million over the next five years into child care, and that is exactly what the people of Canada want.
Open consultation starts with the minister talking to his provincial counterparts, with agencies, with concerned commissions, and indeed with taxpayers and families right across the country.
I think the member can just wait and see that it will be totally open.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my regular question to the government House leader concerning the business of the House for tomorrow and for Monday and Tuesday. Perhaps he could indicate what bills he intends to call for those particular days.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow, Friday, March 13, an allotted day.
On Monday it is the government's intention to call Bill C-13, the federal environmental assessment process bill, for debate at report stage and to carry it through to completion hopefully on Tuesday.

Points of Order
In terms of the rest of the week, discussions are ongoing with the opposition parties in this regard. I will get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


POINTS OF ORDER
Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, during his response to my question, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans observed that the Minister of the Environment was not in the House. Unfortunately that was not only incorrect but of course was a question of order because he was commenting on the presence or absence of a member.
However, as the Minister of the Environment is here and under the circumstances, I think he should be allowed to confirm the assertion of the fisheries and oceans minister that he would in fact grant the money required to the program.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is an extension of Question Period, but as the minister seems to be prepared to answer of course he may.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, for the record I think it is important to point out that yes, the Minister of the Environment was in the House. What the minister of fisheries said, and I think everybody understood, was in jest. I felt that it was probably better that he answer the question given the fact that he had fully briefed me on this issue.


ADMISSIBILITY OF QUESTION RAISED DURING ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I appeal to you to help me understand a Standing Order of this House, since I wanted to ask the minister of multiculturalism a question about a case of racism. In this House, ministers are responsible for the law on hate literature. We talked about racism and fighting racism and I do not know why my question was not in order. I would like you to tell me who in this House is responsible-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker was in the Chair at that time and he already made a decision. The purpose of questions asked during Oral Question Period is to call the government to account on the work of a
department and that question in no way concerned the work of the minister or the department. The Speaker already gave his decision and I uphold it.


NOTICE OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Madam Speaker, on March 10, the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization tabled a notice of a ways and means motion.
This motion appears to me to have been irregular, and I want to explain why. I asked the Chair to provide some guidance on this issue and to consider ruling out any further proceedings based on this notice.
The notice that I am referring to is short and I will quickly read it in its entirety:
That it is expedient to amend the Excise Ihx Act and other legislation respecting the implementation of the goods and services tax to give effect to the statutory measures that were announced by the Minister of Finance in the press release dated March 10, 1992 relating to the goods and services tax, to be applicable as specified in the announcement.
This notice on its own does not tell us much. It contains nothing of substance except to indicate that it will change the GST and that the changes are contained in a press release.
I do not think it is necessary as this point to take up further time outlining the important role of a ways and means motion or the strictures it places on the ability of the House to amend the bill based on it.
I accept that this is not the first time that a ways and means motion has referred to a press release or another non-parliamentary paper, but we have raised that general issue before. In fact the Speaker has ruled:
There is nothing in our Standing Orders or in our practice to restrict all references in ways and means motions solely to documents tabled in the House.
I ask today whether that ruling has not been misinterpreted by those who prepared these notices. Surely that ruling was not intended to permit notices which contained as little real substance as that which was tabled on Tuesday.
After all, the Speaker qualified in his ruling of January 29, 1990 that:
In considering whether a ways and means motion should only refer to documents tabled in the House, the argument appears to hinge on whether the House and members had access to the documents and that these documents were public in nature.
March 12, 1992

He further qualified:
The terms of the motion itself which I have just outlined must serve
as a beacon to guide members in drafting any amendments.
I suggest that the notice given to the House on March 10 does not meet this test. As a beacon, it will not provide very clear light on what amendments are or are not acceptable because it simply refers us to a press release that was released outside this House.
I do not think a motion to concur in this notice should be permitted. I ask the Speaker to rule that this notice is irregular and that there can be no further proceedings on it.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona indicated in his comments, the ways and means motion was not different from others that have been accepted in the House.
Indeed I would refer the hon. member to a ruling by the Chair of January 29, 1990 when the same issue was raised by his colleague, the member for Kamloops.
That being said, I think it should be pointed out for the record that in fact when the ways and means motion was tabled, the press release referred to was part of the tabling. The information was there, but I do acknowledge that with a few changes on a word processor it would fit in more with the traditions of this place.
Even though what occurred was not out of order in terms of our practices and previous rulings, I think a change in procedure may be appropriate in this instance. We will make that strong recommendation to the Department of Finance.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I wish to concur with my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona. We are intending to raise this when the government was obtaining concurrence.
However, the difficulty with the notice of the ways and means motion is that in accordance to the ruling to which my hon. colleague has made reference it was to be a beacon to guide members and I think, as members now know from the words of the government House leader, it
Supply
is probably not appropriate and the recommendation the government House leader is providing is timely.
I would hope that this kind of practice would not continue in the future. The difficulty with this notice of ways and means motion is that it is incomplete and, I would go as far as to say, unintelligible.
The notice provides for the introduction of a bill to amend the GST along the lines described in a press release. However, the ways and means motion merely refers to that release which was neither appended to the notice as tabled nor subsequently tabled in the House itself. In other words, the House is asked to decide on an issue about which it has no official knowledge.
The parliamentary secretary is indicating something quite different. However I just wish to be on the record as concurring with my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and by the minister. There seems to be a way where things could be done in a more appropriate manner. Should things not be done to the satisfaction of hon. members, I am sure they will come back to the House and we can look at it at that point.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Simmons (p. 8079).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls has two minutes remaining.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here. As I was saying this morning, the minister of fisheries will be appearing tomorrow afternoon at 1.30 at the law school of the University of New Brunswick. The posters say that he will be addressing the students and faculty of the law school concerning the fisheries.

March 12, 1992
Supply
As I was also saying this morning, he should explain why the department on the one hand issues press releases saying that it has to follow the Law of the Sea in giving quotas to foreign nations inside the 200-mile zone and then turns around on the other hand and says: "We have no jurisdiction over transporter stocks because the Law of the Sea was never ratified by the 60 nations to make it law".
I hope the minister will be able to explain that tomorrow afternoon to those bright young law students who will, as I understand it, have an opportunity to question the minister immediately following his address.
The issue is very clear. Canadians are not able to fish because the government says there is no fish inside the 200-mile zone, the major reason being that the foreigners are taking it outside the 200-mile zone. Yet the Government of Canada is able to give them cod quotas in 2G, 2H and 3N-0 off the minister's riding. It was able to give tuna quotas a couple of weeks ago to Japanese vessels, to give them squid quotas off Nova Scotia, to give them mackerel quotas off Sydney Bight, to give them the quotas of what the minister and the department claims are under-utilized species to Canada. There is only one under-utilized species in this country under this government, and that is the fishermen and the fish plant workers of eastern Canada.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague from Gander-Grand Falls. I watched his performance and his involvement in the fishing industry long before I became a member of this House and I share, along with all my fellow Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians, a great respect for the hon. member, who is something more than a folk hero and a great champion of the fishing cause in Newfoundland. I compliment him on his very substantive presentation.
I have heard him speak at length, both in Question Period and presentations in the House, on a fascinating subject, the so-called under-utilized species that has been caught in Canada, exported to another country and then comes back to Canada in a secondary processed fashion at a much higher price to the chagrin of fishermen and plant workers. It comes back to Canadians so
that we have to buy the fish that we cannot catch because of the so-called legal implications of the Law of the Sea.
I am fascinated by that subject and I would like to ask the hon. member if he could give us a couple of more minutes on this aspect of the dreadful subject of foreign overfishing.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. As he was speaking, I could just imagine what the longlinermen here in Ottawa are thinking today. Here we have the Japanese who have just received seven large ship licences for tuna. Bluefin tuna are an endangered species today in the northwest Atlantic. They got five times the quota from this government that Newfoundlanders or Nova Scotians got within our 200-mile zone.
Out in 3M, that great spawning ground that was a recognized area of spawning called the Flemish Cap, outside the 200-mile zone, the Government of Canada lifted the moratorium last year for the first time in years and gave foreigners 12,900 tonnes and gave Canada 100 tonnes.


An hon. member:: Wow.


George Baker: The point being that I am not saying Canada should have been allowed the 12,900 tonnes. I am saying that nobody should have been given any quota out there in that spawning ground.
In answer to the hon. member's question, when you examine the figures from customs, you will see that the very type of fish allocated is under-utilized inside the 200-mile zone. That same type of fish is imported from every country that is given a quota inside our 200-mile zone, every country that violates the law outside. We also import the same fish back into Canada: Korea, Atlantic cod; Chile, Atlantic cod, brought back into our country. We are importing so much fish today that in the past eight months we imported from the EEC countries one third of the total amount of fish we export to them.
I will conclude with this. We even import from four nations to which we give fish aid, foreign aid. We also import some fish back from them. That is how serious the situation has become.
Perhaps the minister should think about this and say that we will forbid the imports of Atlantic cod from places like Korea and Chile.
March 12, 1992


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. member does not want just his colleagues on his own side asking him some questions, I would like to ask a question.
I wonder if the hon. member would agree with what is fact that no quota for tuna has ever been given to Japan by Canada. Any quota for tuna that Japan has is a quota given to Japan by ICCAT, the international organization that supervises international catching of tuna.
Never in the history of Canada that I know of has any quota for as much as the tail of a tuna or the nose of a tuna or the fin of a tuna been given to Japan by Canada. This is done by the international organization that supervises.
As I said earlier this morning, and I would like the hon. gentleman to confirm whether he heard this, we have allowed Japan for a number of years to fish within our 200-mile zone to catch a limited number of the tuna for which it has a quota from ICCAT. It is easier for it to catch that particular quota from ICCAT within our zone. In return, one of the quid pro quo from Japan is that it has invariably supported us in NAFO, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and has invariably observed the conservation rules of that organization and has voted in the same way to support the causes that we support in NAFO.
Does the hon. gentleman suggest for a minute that there is something pernicious or terrible about our allowing one of our firm supporters in NAFO to catch some of its tuna quota given to it by an international organization within our 200-mile zone?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The five minute period of questions and comments has expired. I am quite prepared to let it go on with unanimous consent and then I would allow of the hon. member to answer. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will conclude my question. Does the hon. gentleman realize that Chile has no vessels whatsoever fishing in the northwest Atlantic? I do not know where Chile is catching the Atlantic cod unless the Atlantic cod has been transplanted somehow to Chile.
Supply
Cuba might catch something out there, but certainly not Chile.
I would like the hon. gentleman to explain to me where all this Atlantic cod that Chile is said to be exporting to Canada is. What is the volume of it and how did Chile get it in the first place, since Chile has no trawlers fishing in the northwest Atlantic and has never appeared as far as I know in the northwest Atlantic? Could he explain to us what the problem is with allowing Cuba, for example, to catch some offshore squid if it appears in 4VWX, in that particular zone, when Canada has a huge surplus of squid which Canadians do not and cannot catch and therefore we permit a quota to foreign vessels?
The hon. gentleman mentioned cod in zone 2G and 2GH, far up north. Would the hon. gentleman inform the House whether any foreigners have ever caught any cod up there and in what quantities they have caught cod up there? Or is he simply attempting to cod the House and to cod the Canadian people?


An hon. member:: I withdraw unanimous consent.


John Carnell Crosbie: Great. I accept your withdrawing unanimous consent and now the member for Gander-Grand Falls cannot answer.
Would the hon. gentleman answer some of these questions and stop trying to fool the people of Canada and the members of this House with specious pretences that he is using fact?


George Baker: Madam Speaker, let me take these issues one at a time. First of all, as far as squid is concerned, the minister asked what is wrong with giving Cuba offshore squid in 4VWX. Zone 4VWX is a zone just east of Nova Scotia. It fishes in what is called the silver hake box. It is 80 miles from the coast of southwestern Nova Scotia. It fishes there on what we call the 401 of squid that are born in Florida, as the minister knows. They go up the coast of the United States. They go around Cuba but they are too small to catch. They are just right to catch when they get to Nova Scotia. They are just big enough for the trawlers to intercept them. That is where Canada gives its 15 factory freezer trawler licences to Cuba.
The minister must realize that it was under his ministership that we restricted squid licences to all Canadians. Today squid is a restricted fishery in Newfoundland. Squid is a restricted fishery to Canadians.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Let me get on to another question. The minister refers to tuna and ICCAT. He made a very impressive little speech about tuna and ICCAT, the international organization.
There are only three countries that belong to ICCAT, Canada, the United States and Japan. They meet once a year on assigned quotas. This past year they met and they assigned quotas: to Japan, 1,300 tonnes of bluefin; to the United States, 800 tonnes of bluefin; to Canada, 570 tonnes of bluefin. Canada is the only one of those three countries that allows Japan inside its 200-mile zone to catch tuna. We are not allowed to go inside Japan's 200-mile zone or the zone of the United States to catch tuna. We have assigned Japan a tuna quota of 180 tonnes of bluefin off Newfoundland, which is five times the quota that is assigned to Newfoundlanders, with an unlimited quota of other types of tuna.
One final point that the hon. member made, he talked about flags. He asked where the Atlantic cod are coming from. It is on the customs reports into Canada in the past year. He asked about Chile and about Korea. They do not see any Korean flags out there. They do not see any Chilean flags out there. They see Panamanian flags out there, that is what they see. That is where those countries get their flags and the hon. member should know full well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that we can say without unqualified hesitation that no one knows more about where squid comes from in the world than the hon. member from Gander. I would also say, more appropriately, that no one understands what is happening to the fishing industry and says it with more eloquence and more commitment than the member.
I want to join this debate to ensure that Canadians understand that this is not just a regional issue. As deeply as my colleagues from Newfoundland feel the ravages and the pain of their own fish workers and their own fishermen, this is an issue for all Canadians. This is an issue that affects every one of us. This is an issue that has ramifications and implications even beyond our own borders. It is very important that all Canadians stand up and be counted on this clear issue when there is such an incredible threat to one of the most valuable resources Canada has possessed for the last 400 or 500 years.
We like to talk about problems of holes in the ozone, but the much more real dramatic, environmentally sustainable development crisis facing us is right off the coast of Newfoundland today. It is that which we all have to speak out against and raise our voices to in order to understand that action is required.
I have to say that I was deeply and sorely disappointed when I listened to the minister speak today. I have always felt that when this minister takes on a cause he goes the full mile. He has never been reticent either about his own talents or about his own commitments. Listening to him today trying to defend the indefensible we find unacceptable. We tried to convince this House that this government was doing everything possible within its range of authority and jurisdiction to stop this overfishing. I went back and checked a few small facts.
He gave us a travel log of all the places that he and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have visited, trying to convince people in Europe and other places that they are in the wrong. Let us look at a few interesting facts. I suppose there is no better test of a government's commitment than where it puts it resources. Let us talk about the UNCED conference. This minister said: "By God, we are going to take a stand at UNCED". Why is it that the Department of External Affairs has cut its budget in half in terms of its commitment to UNCED in the next fiscal year? Is that a sign that it is prepared to take an environmental defence?
Last August, when the Government of Canada prepared its national report for the conference on environmental development, an incredible opportunity to state the case of the initiatives it will take on overfishing, what did it assign in this book of 300 pages? One paragraph was on overfishing. Not only that, it promised, in this very same book, a national, sustainable fisheries and oceans policy. That was last August. Have you seen this policy, Madam Speaker? No one else in the House has seen it. It is the best kept secret in the minister's back pocket. Here was an opportunity to use UNCED to state the Canadian case, put a policy on the table and it has disappeared.
Let me give a few other interesting facts in the estimates book of the Department of External Affairs. The most important aspect that we can undertake is the legal department right now. We need the best legal minds in this country working out the kind of presenta-
March 12, 1992

tions that we are going to have to take. What has the Government of Canada done? It has cut the legal affairs division of external affairs by almost $2 million. Where is it going to get the lawyers? Where is it going to get the research to mount the kind of battle that is going to be required?
Furthermore, not content with just cutting its own bureaucrats, it totally wiped out the world renowned International Centre for Ocean Development which has provided, over the years, some of the best research on fishing, on environment, on ocean management and on the international Law of the Sea. We do not even have the kind of intellectual muscle to go to work on behalf of Canada because this government does not believe in providing the kind of sound, hard reasoning.
Do those few facts alone tell us that this is a government that really cares, that really is committed, that is going the last mile and using every resource possible? Hardly, Madam Speaker. Maybe the best reason is that I do not think it believes in what it is doing. I think it is all for show.
In fact, I will give a final commentary. The information campaign that was supposed to inform the rest of the world about the problems in the northwest fishery has also had a line in the budget, from $135,000 to 0. This is a government that is standing up for the northwest fishery, but it cannot bother to spend 5 cents to let the rest of the world know what the problems are. Is that a government fully committed to the battle? Is that a government going to the barricades with all swords brandishing? It seems to me it is a government that is meekly, sneakily crawling off into the night because it does not have a case.
Let me come to the crucial issue. We all know that this thing must be resolved in an international context and that is why I want to speak today, because I find that the arguments used by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be weak and fallacious when it comes to the right of Canada to take a stand.
I heard the minister this morning and he said: "We have freedom of the high seas. International law backs us on this issue. Canada has no authority beyond 200 miles.
Supply
We do not recognize it. We are going to continue to fight if it comes down to a question of confrontation." He said: "We are limited. Once we get out of that 200 mile zone it is like a wall we cannot climb."
Twenty years ago when a previous government was faced with a serious environmental problem in the Arctic waters this Parliament was given a bill called the Arctic Waters Pollution Act which established unilaterally the right of Canada to protect on behalf of the entire international system those precious, delicate, fragile Arctic waters. That was a unilateral action.
As a result of that unilateral action we were able to push the rest of the world into recognizing the right of coastal states to defend environmental requirements beyond its own. We took the initiative, we established a case and the rest of the world agreed. That is why in the resolution presented by my hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's we say it is time for this government to take action, to bring legislation into this House, asserting the right of Canada to exercise management in that area on behalf of the entire international environment.
We are not asking for a bigger grab bag for Canada. We are saying that if somebody does not take action there will not be any cod at all. It will be a resource that will virtually disappear as a sustainable food resource for the rest of the world. To give that kind of legislative initiative some credence and credibility, this government today, as soon as it can, must ratify the international Law of the Sea.
It is tragic and criminal that one of the most important international initiatives undertaken by Canada during the 1970s, up to 1982, signified that there has to be a rule of law on the high seas where there can be a dispute settlement mechanism. This minister was the minister of trade.
He used to run up and down Canada saying: "We have to have a dispute settlement mechanisms". The Law of the Sea has a dispute settlement mechanism, but because President Reagan in 1982 picked up the phone and said to our Prime Minister: "Back off, Brian", we are no longer prepared to become a major advocate or supporter of the Law of the Sea. Canada, to its disgrace, has yet to ratify that fundamental, international law.

March 12, 1992
Supply
When this minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that they are doing everything they can, all we can say to them is: "That is hogwash. That is nonsense. We cannot believe you, because you know what the steps are. You know what your rights are. You know what the opportunities are, and you are not taking them."
If we were to sign and ratify the Law of the Sea, we could clearly establish the need to use it to provide a clear and unmistakable authority to provide for the conservation of the fishing stock beyond the 200-mile zone. That is a clear and obvious alternative for Canada to exercise under the rubric of international law.
For the sake of me, when there are such crucial resources at stake, I cannot understand why this minister and his government is so negligent in its response.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question, or perhaps two questions.
First, the hon. member refers to the estimates. I do not know what item appears in the estimates for public relations spending, et cetera in connection with this matter but I can assure him that I am making provision for the year 1992-93 for the spending of many times $100,000 in connection with public relations campaigns to get on our side environmentalists and others in connection with this issue.
There will be more than adequate funding available for anything we need to do in the way of promoting the campaign to confirm and establish what the facts are with respect to this overfishing outside the 200-mile Canadian economic zone, hopefully to get the nations of the world onside and ready if we have to take some kind of action such as the motion proposes, ready to be supportive of that action.
I would like to ask the former minister this. He referred to the Arctic pollution regulation or the action taken some 20 years ago in the Arctic. He must surely realize and recognize that it was an entirely different situation in connection with the Arctic. The action taken was not recognized and approved by the rest of the world.
By now, of course, it may well have been. The only party that had any active interest in the area at all was the United States. While I would have to do some research on this to get the exact facts, it certainly was not supportive of our action and I am sure protested it. Because we were taking action in an area that other nations were not occupying and a region that they could not get to, we had a good chance of some success with respect to that unilateral act.
A unilateral act taken along the lines of what is proposed in this resolution are surely quite different. It would be our extending our jurisdiction in connection with fishing matters, the management of fisheries out beyond 200 miles and in fact out to about 280 miles to the nose and tail of the banks in an area where many other countries are, at present, fishing and exercising high sea fishing rights so that there would be an immediate clash between our action and their exercising what they think are their rights under international law.
We would immediately have conflict and confrontation with at least five, six or seven other nations, including the European Community, which is a very powerful combination of 12 other countries.
Surely the member will admit that these are two different fact situations. If we are to even contemplate taking the kind of action that the resolution proposes, we have to set the stage so that a considerable part of the world and other nation states are ready to say: "Yes, this is an action that is justified. This particular state took every conceivable step it could to have this resolved and now it has taken a unilateral act".
It is this unilateral act that the rest of the world should be prepared to accept. That is the position we have to get ourselves in. Surely he will admit the fact situations are quite different.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I will take both those serious questions and respond in like time.
First I would say to the minister I am more than pleased to hear that he will take up the slack that his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has allowed to develop. I want to say to the minister in return, is his own department of fisheries prepared to pick up the major subtraction of legal fees, the cancella-

tion of the Ocean Development Institute, the support for the UNCED conference?
I want to say to the minister that he needs the backing of his colleagues. It is time he stopped fighting the battle himself. It is about time his entire government got behind him on this issue. While he may be prepared to fight it, it is clear his colleague from external affairs is not prepared to fight because, by her own actions and where she is cutting her budget, we can see that there is just no interest in the issue at all.
On the question of precedent, international law is not like domestic law. There is no central world government that can make decisions. To use the words of a lawyer, it is a "horizontal legal system". The precedent is an evolving one, usually undertaken by different countries that take initiatives, establish certain rights which then become accepted or then get codified into some kind of regulation or some kind of international agreement. We cannot go to some international legislature and petition for them to pass a law.
Changes in the international law only come about when individual countries make their case. I want to make this observation to the minister. If he looks at the international Law of the Sea, article 116, it is clear that it gives the dominant preference to coastal states. If I might quote a fairly senior and learned international lawyer: "Article 16 gives the right of coastal states to issue the kind of orders on conservation beyond the 200-mile zone". Other states would have to respond to us with that initiative. That is the kind of international law we are asking the minister to assert.
Of course we want other countries to agree. I would simply make this observation. The other countries will not agree until we take the action, until we take the initiative. That is what this resolution is about and why the government should support it. If we took the initiative, brought in legislation, then went abroad, then we could begin to establish a new set of international laws as it pertains to the conservation of our fishing resource.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam
Supply
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on the motion of the hon. member from Newfoundland on the state of Canada's east coast fisheries.

Madam Speaker, I am sure that some members here today remember the Atlantic fishery in the early 1970s.
Canada's territorial sea had just been extended to the 12-mile limit. The waters beyond 12 miles were entirely international and we used to refer to them as the high
seas.
I would like to take this opportunity in considering the motion before us today to remind hon. members of the tremendous progress that has been made in recent years and to describe some of the real measures that can and are being taken by Canada to protect fish stocks.
In the early 1970s, fish stocks beyond Canada's 12-mile territorial sea continued to be severely overfished and were crashing to an all-time low. At the same time international experts were meeting at the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
By 1976, a consensus had emerged that national jurisdiction had to be extended 200 miles to protect the interest of coastal state fishermen and to protect conservation needs of living marine resources.
On January 1, 1977, Canada extended its fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles, consistent with what would become a fundamental principle in the 1982 United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea. This was a tremendous gain for Canadian fishermen. It meant that Canada achieved exclusive jurisdiction over more than 40 important fish stocks on which Atlantic Canadian fishermen depend.
But the new 200-mile zone did not encompass the entire extent of the Grand Banks, leaving two small portions known as the nose and the tail beyond our zone in international waters.
Five important groundfish stocks could be found both inside and outside the new 200-mile limit. These straddling stocks, as they are known, remain vulnerable to fishing by foreign fleets. In addition, three other

March 12, 1992
Supply
groundfish stocks remain entirely outside Canada's 200-mile zone in an area known as the Flemish Cap.
To ensure that stocks occurring beyond the Canadian zone were properly managed, 11 countries whose vessels had traditionally fished in the northwest Atlantic joined with Canada to form the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, known as NAFO.
The NAFO convention created a framework for international co-operation to ensure the optimum utilization and rational management of the northwest Atlantic fish stocks and recognized the special interest of the coastal state Canada, in conservation and management of these stocks.
Until 1986 NAFO worked well in the best interests of all its members including of course, Canada. Scientists from all NAFO member countries assessed the state of the stocks every year and provided the scientific basis for annual management plans. NAFO members agreed on total allowable catches, known as TACs, and national quotas.
Member countries respected the TACs and quotas. NAFO members also agreed to a wide range of conservation measures like mesh size and inspection schemes. NAFO established for itself a solid reputation in both scientific assessment of fish stocks and in fisheries management.
This conservation regime was successful in maintaining and rebuilding fish stocks. TACs for most NAFO stocks actually increased in the early 1980s.
Then in 1986, Spain and Portugal became members of the European Community. The European Community then began a policy of overfishing outside Canada's 200-mile limit. The EC decided to ignore NAFO conservation decisions and instead to conduct a unilateral excessive fishery in the waters just outside the Canadian fisheries zone. In this way the EC simply took advantage of the fact that the 200-mile zone does not protect all the fish stocks that spawn and live on the Canadian Grand Banks.
Since 1986, EC fleets have taken cumulatively more than 400,000 tonnes above their NAFO quotas in the northwest Atlantic. They have hit straddling stocks of flatfish such as grey sole and flounder so hard that NAFO TACs for those stocks have been cut in half since 1986 to avoid total depletion.
Fishing vessels fishing under EC flags have also been joined in the last few years by vessels flying so-called flags of convenience or of states that are not members of NAFO.
In 1991 a total of 28 such vessels fished in the NAFO area and are estimated to have taken about 43,000 tonnes of fish including 7,000 tonnes of northern cod. Though they were flying the flags of countries like Panama, 19 of these vessels were crewed by either Spanish or Portuguese. The other nine were either registered in Korea or crewed by Koreans.
Overfishing in the NAFO area has focused attention, and quite rightly so, on the action of the small number of countries that do not respect NAFO rules.
But it is important for Canadians and for members of this House to realize that only one NAFO member has overfished in the NAFO area. Seven out of the eight active NAFO members besides Canada, namely Japan, Russia, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Denmark, Poland and Cuba support fishery conservation, respect their NAFO quota and have a long-standing record of co-operation with Canada.
Canada's international fisheries policy has built upon the co-operation and support of those countries to do exactly what the hon. member's motion suggests, to save a national industry and a way of life in Atlantic Canada.
Canada has not isolated itself or acted alone in protecting its fisheries resources. Instead we have worked with countries that share our objectives for conservation and rational management.
In 1977 as Canada was preparing to extend jurisdiction to protect coastal communities, agreements were reached with all our important fishery partners. They agreed to recognize the new Canadian fisheries zone and to co-operate with Canada on conservation. This was essential for Canada.
In 1976 there were over 100 non-Canadian vessels fishing in the waters that were to fall within Canadian jurisdiction. On January 1, 1977 Canada assumed control of these waters without encountering resistance.
In return Canada gave access to Canadian waters and ports to the countries with which it had signed fisheries agreements, with one important difference. They now fished only in locations permitted by Canada and only as
March 12, 1992

long as they respected all the relevant Canadian laws and regulations.

As the Canadian fishery and its markets expanded, the volume of fish stocks allowed foreign vessels within Canadian waters went down. In 1986, Canada announced another change in its international policy: only fish surplus to Canadian needs, fish that Canadian fishermen could not use, would be allocated to foreign fishing fleets. Since then, other countries-with the exception of France, which receives allocations under a fishing agreement that acknowledges the special status of the French islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon-have only fished surplus fish stocks in Canadian waters.
What does this mean? It means that groundfish allocations for foreign vessels dropped from 370,000 tonnes in 1977 to 80,000 tonnes in 1991. During the same period, quotas for Canadian fishermen rose from 300,000 tonnes to 815,000 tonnes. In the past two years alone, under the Groundfish Enhancement Program which gave Canadian companies a chance to develop a fishery of species that had not been used before, Canadians caught 40,000 tonnes of fish formerly allocated to foreign vessels, including silver hake and Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait.
Madam Speaker, we must remember that international relations did not destroy the Canadian fishery but actually contributed to its development. A well-known figure in the Canadian fisheries industry recently told the Evening Telegram in St. John's that when they were fishing within the 200-mile limit under joint ventures, foreign vessels had a positive impact on many Canadian companies and communities. Positive international relations made such joint ventures possible. In fact, we are seeking the support of these countries during the crisis in the Canadian northern cod fishery.
As members of this House are well aware, there are still a number of serious problems that must be dealt with if we are to improve conservation in the northwest Atlantic. The biggest challenge to NAFO is the need for effective control measures to deal with a small number of fleets that are overfishing in the regulated zone, in other words, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

NAFO has been making responsible quota decisions and putting in place the necessary conservation mea-
Supply
sures. These are being violated in the following ways. Spanish and Portuguese vessels fish far in excess of the quota set for them. The Iberian vessels violate not only the quota set by NAFO but also the unilateral quota set by the European Community. Spanish and Portuguese vessels do not comply with NAFO fishing regulations such as mesh size.
This is what makes it so devastating when they fish on the tail of the Grand Banks, in the nursery area for American plaice and flounder stocks.
The NAFO scientific council has reported that the flounder caught by Spanish vessels outside the 200-mile limit are much smaller and younger than those that Canadian fishermen are permitted to catch inside the Canadian zone.
Spanish and Portuguese vessels misreport their catches. A common ploy is to fish for stocks that are regulated by NAFO such as cod and flounder but to report catches of species of fish that are not regulated by NAFO, such as skate. Many fishermen know these tricks and some may try to use them if they think that they can get away with it.
It is worth while to stress that last point. Effective control of fishing activities inside the Canadian fishing zone or international waters is making sure that fishermen will not get away with it and that they know they will not get away with it.
Effective control of fishing activities can be achieved. By and large we have achieved it inside the Canadian fishing zone and we are continuing to address remaining deficiencies. The same can be true in the NAFO area. The problem can be solved. Solving the problems, making sure that fishing activity on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is effectively controlled is now the focus of Canada's effort in NAFO.
We know that NAFO must have, and must have soon, an effective system for ensuring that catches do not exceed quotas and that fishing regulations are respected. Otherwise there will be no fish left for any fishermen.
There has been some progress since Canada made this a priority in 1990. A new NAFO hail system came into effect in 1991, similar to the system we have inside the Canadian fishing zone for both domestic and foreign fleets. Vessels have to hail their positions when they enter and exit the NAFO area and when they change divisions within the area.

March 12, 1992
Supply
On Canada's initiative NAFO member countries approved last fall the use of aerial surveillance to monitor compliance with the hail system. If there is a difference between where the vessel is observed by the aircraft and where it is said it would be, the vessel may be cited for an infraction of the hail system. This will make it harder for vessels to misreport where they were fishing.
The additional resources the government is now putting into both aerial and surface surveillance along the 200-mile limit and the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, $28 million annually, is paying off.
In 1991 Canada logged over 3,000 hours of air surveillance, recorded 4,600 individual vessel sightings and conducted some 310 inspections of foreign vessels in the NAFO area, 285 inspections on European Community vessels alone. These surveillance efforts enable us to keep track of activity in the area and to keep NAFO informed of any apparent infringement of the NAFO rules.
With the hail system, aerial surveillance, NAFO inspection, this is a good start but clearly there is still a lot more to do to achieve control of fishing activity in the NAFO area.
Action cannot be delayed. This is why Canada sought a special meeting of NAFO to discuss enforcement issues and to get the agreement of other NAFO members on measures to be adopted as soon as possible in 1992. Other NAFO members have agreed and a special meeting will take place in May at the NAFO headquarters in Dartmouth. Canada will pursue a number of initiatives at that special meeting.

An important point is including catch reports as part of the radio reporting system. Vessels will be required to report their catches when they report their geographic location. This information will be a great help to authorities of NAFO member countries who are asked to keep track of catches by their vessels, and also to fisheries inspectors who board vessels to check whether quotas and other NAFO regulations are observed.
Canada would also like to see a regulation that would oblige vessels fishing in the NAFO-regulated zone to show their logbooks to NAFO inspectors, who would
then be able to check log entries and compare them with the catches stored in the ship's hold.
We also would like to see changes in NAFO reports that would make it easier to spot vessels accused of violating NAFO regulations and to know what coercive measures were taken to prevent further violations.
Creating an international observers program within the NAFO zone, similar to the one that has been so successful in Canadian waters, is another item on the agenda of the organization's special meeting in May.
Other NAFO members have told us that an observer program would be very costly and difficult to administer. However, what could be more effective than a program that puts observers on board fishing vessels to remind fishermen that they must observe NAFO quotas and other regulations?
There are a number of other surveillance and control mechanisms that could be adopted by NAFO later on. The use of electronic procedures to track ship movements is now common practice. NAFO members are considering a system that would control the number of vessels allowed to take fish stocks subject to quota by NAFO. Some countries have already taken steps along those lines. Another option that will be discussed at the special meeting is bilateral agreements on regulation enforcement, similar to the international agreements applied to salmon fishing in the northern Pacific.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I would urge members to reflect on the progress that has been accomplished since that memorable day in 1977, when Canada assumed responsibility for fish stocks within its new 200-mile limit. There are still problems that remain to be solved, but during the past 15 years, Canada has entered into international alliances and designed mechanisms that can and should be used to deal with the present crisis. All this was achieved within the limits of international law, because this country has always recognized the rule of law.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity of seconding this opposition motion today and I would like to repeat it for our viewing audience because I think it is important that we understand exactly what we are putting forward in the House today.
March 12, 1992

In the opinion of this House, in order to prevent further ecological disaster through the pillaging of trans-boundaiy fish stock off Canada's east coast, and in order to save an essential national industry and valued way of life for many rural citizens, Canada should take immediate steps to extend its functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. This was put forward by my colleague from Burin-St. George's.
I have listened carefully to the debate today. As my colleague from Burin-St. George's said earlier, this is an environmental crisis. He said that we are all in this together. He suggested that the tone of our debate should be constructive. We are naturally trying to prod the government into taking more aggressive steps but we are not trying to point fingers without coming up with some constructive criticism.
I have been listening all day and I keep hearing the words sustainable development, that we are all operating on the premise of sustainable development. I guess it was in 1988 that my colleague from Restigouche-Cha-leur, when he was putting together a bill on forestry, requested in committee that the definition of sustainable development be put right into the act, not just the words, but the definition. It was defined. Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
My colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur was very insightful when he requested that definition. When you repeat that and you keep going back to that definition, it is something that every person in the world should understand today. Therefore, when we talk about a situation that is happening in Newfoundland, off the coast of Newfoundland, if we really are as a world community buying into that sustainable development, whether the Law of the Sea is ratified or not ratified, or whatever the limits are in terms of our 200-mile limit, 200 or 250, if we are not operating on the premise of sustainable development, then that is the fundamental environmental law that is being broken. We know now
Supply
that the law of sustainable development is being broken, so what we have here is a serious communications problem.
The minister of fisheries said that he has travelled the world speaking to foreign ministers of fisheries, talking at the United Nations and in all kinds of different international forums. He basically said that nothing was happening. If something as fundamental as an ecological disaster like this is happening and our minister is taking all these steps to communicate what is happening, then there is something wrong with the communications. The communications strategy or the content of the communications is not working. What we have here is an ecological disaster that is worse than the Valdez oil spill. What we have here is something that is as bad as the Brazilian rain forest. What we have here is something that is as bad as the oil spill in the Persian Gulf. Look at the amount of world attention that was garnered for those environmental disasters. This is an environmental disaster no less serious than those three.
I do not want to get hung up on the law. All of these laws are important and I agreed with everything that was said today. Our communications on this environmental disaster are lousy. Sometimes we have to take a lesson from some of our American friends-I hate to admit that. Look at the plight of the farmers in the United States. I see Willie Nelson and his "Farm Aid", which is something he has done for five or six years in a row now. There is not a network in the world that does not cover it, does not bring focus and attention to the issue.
Maybe we should be looking at something like that. Maybe we should have something like "fish aid". Maybe we should be calling in the Bryan Adams, the Anne Murrays. Maybe we should be using some of that Canadian entertainment talent that is respected all over the world, and say that we have an environmental disaster on our hands here and we need help. We are not going to do it by just debating on the floor of this House.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Last Friday night a constituent of mine from Newfoundland, Jim Martin, brought in a tape he had just completed. The title of the tape was The Rape of the Grand Banks. I was in my constituency office on Dan-forth and I put the tape on and we listened to it. Within five or ten minutes there were about 15 or 20 people gathered around listening. The power of music in communicating a problem like this is something that we should not overlook.
Right now we have some of the best entertainers in the world. Here is a crisis on the environmental side. They have certainly gone to the rescue of other environmental disasters around the world. Maybe we should ask them if they would help us out on this problem.
The names that keep coming up today are Spain and Portugal. What are we doing? What is Canada's presence at the World's Fair in Seville this year? What are we doing there as a government? Are we going to have one of those big exhibits that just mentions the terrific tourism features of Canada? Are we going to have something that just boasts of our manufacturing? Maybe we should use that World's Fair to talk about this ecological disaster. Maybe we have to develop a little more of a flair for the dramatic. Maybe we have to take a page out of the Greenpeace book. Maybe we have to enlist Greenpeace. I remember being here in 1980 and 1981 when Greenpeace and every other environmental organization in the world dropped hundreds of thousands of post cards on every member's desk protesting about the seal hunt. It certainly had an impact. This crisis is 10 times larger than the seal hunt but we are not communicating that.
Today I read the pamphlet of the minister of external affairs, this beautiful glossy pamphlet entitled Canada and the World Environment. As I read through this I thought it was a flawless document. There was not anything in there that anyone could argue with. We have to take the words that are in this document and somehow bring them to life, give them meaning. I would humbly suggest to the government that when we have a crisis here in our country, bigger than the Valdez oil spill, bigger than the spill in the Persian Gulf, as big as the rain forest disaster, then we must communicate it.
If our own Government of Canada communications systems are not equipped or are not creative enough to really bring the CNNs of the world to the crisis, then let
us go to the best in that field and start getting world attention in order that we can solve this problem.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what the hon. member has said and I must say that I agree with him on several points. It is unfortunate, however, that so far all of Canada's efforts in the international forum to draw attention to the disastrous situation of northern cod stocks and the impact of their depletion on the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada did not yield the expected results.
I would like to remind my hon. colleague that, if Canada contemplated for instance a resumption of seal hunts in the winter months, as traditionally practised by Atlantic Canadians, I am convinced that all conservation groups, including Greenpeace, would come right out and launch a huge protest campaign.
Why are organizations apparently dedicated to conservation, to the preservation of the environment, such as Greenpeace, not showing concern for the disastrous situation created by the depletion of northern cod stocks and its economic, social and human impact on communities in Atlantic Canada?
He seems to know a great deal about promotional programs, publicity stunts, spectacular actions. Perhaps he could contact groups like Greenpeace and help us alert them to this situation.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
There is an organization that exists, I think at arm's length from the Government of Canada, yet the Government of Canada supports it. It is called the National Round Table on the Environment.
The member knows of this organization. It is an integrated organization of government and private sector people from all over the country, from all sectors of the economy, that deals with all issues related to the environment.
I have been following this organization closely in the last year. It seems that it has a very different way of communicating its message. It is much more flexible in its communications strategy and its communications approach. It seems to have a good relationship with a lot
March 12, 1992

of these non-governmental environmental organizations.
I would suggest that maybe this quasi-government organization, the National Round Table, which I believe reports to the Minister of the Environment or the Prime Minister, should perhaps be mandated to develop the communications strategy. Maybe it could be the bridge to all of these environmental groups that sometimes have difficulty in dealing directly with government agencies.
I am not suggesting for a second that getting Greenpeace to take up this cause is going to be easy. I am not sure that we are trying hard enough. That is my point. Quite frankly, if the minister were to write a letter to all these environmental organizations and they refused to assist, it would taint the credibility of the organization. Although we have had bad experiences with them in the past on other issues, where maybe we questioned their motives, this should not stop us from asking them to address probably the most serious environmental disaster we have ever had in our country.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today. It is good that the House is taking the time to look at the problems facing the Atlantic fishery, but as was said, we have to debate the problems.
I look forward to the day when we can talk about the tremendous success in the fishing industry and how prosperous the communities are.
The motion today is about extending the jurisdiction to control of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Problems in the Atlantic fishing industry are not new. The people of the region have made their living from the sea for literally hundreds of years, having come from England, Scotland and Ireland. Fishermen have had to endure the dangers of nature, the dominance of merchants and isolation. Nor is the problem of overfishing new.
In the eyes of many people in Atlantic Canada the problems in the fishery are caused by two things, foreign overfishing and government inaction on the overfishing. For years fishermen, unions, plant workers and companies, all of these people, have been telling government to take firm action on foreign overfishing.
Supply
When the current crisis started back in the late 1980s, the government appointed Leslie Harris of Memorial University to study the northern cod stocks and to make recommendations. In his report, Dr. Harris said that while Canada must pursue a negotiated agreement over the control of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, I quote:
The setting of the Total Allowable Catch and other management decisions ought, in logic, to be the responsibility of a single regulatory authority which, in the instant case, should be the Canadian government.
Everybody agrees that a negotiated settlement giving Canada control of the entire Grand Banks is preferred to acting on our own. However, for a number of years the government has been pursuing this with absolutely no progress. In fact foreign overfishing on the nose and tail has increased. The government has sat idly by and and watched the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Koreans and others taking our fish. In the formal recommendations to the report Dr. Harris said, and I quote:
That Canada should seek international agreement to permit its management of all fish stocks indigenous to the Canadian Continental Shelf, and that extend beyond the two hundred mile economic zone; and, that failing achievement of this objective, Canada should take unilateral action to acquire management rights in accordance with provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention.
The key words are "take unilateral action". However, action seems to be a foreign word to this government.
On a number of occasions my colleague from Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception has outlined the historic precedent that would allow Canada to take over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. From what I understand, one of the key requirements of the government is to extend the jurisdiction which would have the ability to enforce its jurisdiction.
Just over a year ago, the Canadian government sent the navy halfway around the world to stop a madman from destroying a country. The government was defending freedom, it said. Well, what about defending Canadian fishermen? What about defending our environment?
Right now a number of fishermen from Newfoundland are preparing to go to the nose and tail to challenge foreign vessels stealing our fish. Experts in the matter from Iceland are providing advice. While it is nice to see fishermen take strong action against the foreigners, they

Supply
should not have to do it. It is not the job of the fishermen to protect Canadian sovereignty, it is the job of the federal government. The only job fishermen wish to do is to go out and catch fish, have a fair supply and receive a fair return. Unfortunately, the government is asleep at the switch and is not defending our interests.
Nobody is really talking about the navy blowing the Spanish trawlers out of the water. What we are talking about is using the navy and the Coast Guard in an effective and aggressive way to protect our interests. If we can protect Kuwait, surely to God we can protect ourselves.
Members opposite have a habit of going back 10 or 20 years to find bad things the Liberal government did. One thing they will never find is a Liberal decision to abandon Canadians in time of need in the name of diplomacy. The Liberal Party has always defended the interests of Canadians, first and foremost. When action was needed, Liberals took action.
We have a government that is sitting on the sidelines talking. Talking might be fine for the embassies of Europe, but it is doing nothing for the Canadian fishermen. The government has tried the diplomatic route and it has failed. Now the government must move to extend Canadian jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Anything less than this is unacceptable. If the government fails now, the fishery could be destroyed. For the sake of fishermen, plant workers and people in Atlantic Canada, I urge the government to end this destruction and stand up for the Canadian fishermen.


David Kilgour: Would the member be kind enough to give us his view as to why the weak-wristed people opposite, and I see the minister of external affairs opposite, have not seen fit to ratify the Law of the Sea convention? Perhaps he has a view on that. I think most of us in this House find it to be very hard to swallow when we hear it, and I suppose we will hear shortly from the minister, getting up and telling us why it is that they cannot ratify the Law of the Sea convention. The minister might not have heard the minister of fisheries this morning who was asked that question very clearly. He got up, and after comparing
himself to Sylvester Stallone, did not even grapple with the question, let alone answer it.


Lawrence MacAulay: I want to thank my hon. colleague. When we look at the problem of overfishing and the quotas, the European Community was given 20,049 metric tons and they indicated they fished 46,000. Our figures indicate they fished 58,000 metric tons. This was quota, fish they received quota for.
The fish they did not receive quota for, it is indicated they took in total 152,950 out of a total quota of 20,049. From what I understand, the Law of the Sea gives preference to coastal states. I think now we are in a desperate situation on the east coast and the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It is time that we take action in this country to stand up for the fishermen and extend control to the nose and tail and then see how it will be dealt with. If we do not take unilateral action and move in this country, there will be no reason to move very shortly. The fishery will be destroyed and the stocks will be gone. Now is the time to stand up for our Canadian fishermen.


Roger Simmons: First of all, I want to say how much I appreciated the remarks by my friend from Prince Edward Island from the riding of Cardigan. He knows better than most members in this Chamber, I submit, certainly better than many what job loss means to rural Canadians, whether they live on Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or elsewhere in this country. Many of his constituents are fishermen and many are farmers, but all of them, like my constituents, are really the subject, the guts of this particular motion that we are discussing today. These are people who live close to nature, close to the earth, close to the sea in the case of the fishermen.
I would submit that he, better than many people in this Chamber if there were time, could relate to us the kind of devastation, the kind of heartache that results when men and women have their livelihood yanked out from under them and have their way of life under threat.
I had no particular question for the member, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank him for what he said in this debate. Having a voice from Prince Edward Island to lend to the growing call for some action on this
March 12, 1992

issue is extremely encouraging and I just wanted to thank him.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have already heard from a number of my colleagues, including the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on the problem of foreign overfishing in the northwest Atlantic, the impact on the stocks, the measures needed to achieve sustainable development of the fishery and the tremendous efforts that the government is expending to resolve the problem and to ensure a viable future for the communities affected.
Well unfortunately we cannot create the fish, but if the hon. member is prepared to listen, which would be unusual for him, perhaps he might learn something.
The severe depletion of the northern cod biomass is only the most recent example, although it is certainly the most critical, of the precarious balance of nature, in this case in the northwest Atlantic, and the serious consequences when international management measures are disregarded.
The economies of the Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland in particular, are facing yet another blow with further plant closures, tying up of fleets, increased job losses. The tragic consequences of human suffering and hardship involved are only too evident and it is something on which the government is focusing all of its efforts.

The hon. members of the opposition raise the question of what is to be done to solve the problem. The government is pursuing a very clear strategy to this end and, while my colleagues have spoken to a number of its specific components, I would like to review it further with you. But there are a number of general points which must be emphasized in preface.
There is an international framework within which we carry out our strategy. The provisions of the Law of the Sea convention with respect to conservation of living marine resources of the high seas represent customary international law. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization which derives from the Law of the Sea is the responsible regional fisheries management body. The United Nations which provided for the convening of the Conference on Environment and Development is a
Supply
key multilateral forum for the resolution of international problems by peaceful means.
Bilateral diplomacy has a host of mechanisms aimed at the resolution of differences. But because each nation is sovereign, progress is often too slow and painful. One needs to make use of every possible avenue to ensure that a problem receives the priority that is warranted and that pressure from every source is exerted to achieve a resolution.

This then is the essence of the government's strategy. Most of the fishing by foreign fleets and all of the overfishing is taking place outside 200 miles in international waters where Canada has no jurisdiction except in relation to Canadian vessels.
Under the Law of the Sea, states have the duty to take such measures for their respective nationals as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas. They also have the duty to co-operate with other states or with regional organizations. But flag states alone have the legal authority to enforce against their own vessels.
The problem of overfishing is centred on the activities of vessels from the European Community, principally Spain and Portugal, and to a lesser extent from a few countries that are not members of NAFO, notably Panama and Korea.

I would emphasize that most of the countries that fish in the NAFO area-Japan, Russia, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Denmark, Cuba-support fisheries conservation, respect their NAFO quotas and cooperate with Canada.

Since 1986 however when the EC began to set its own unilateral quotas, EC vessels have reported catches of cod, flounder and redfish totalling more than 530,000 tonnes as against NAFO quotas of 100,000 tonnes. Non-NAFO vessels have caught more than 165,000 tonnes.
Since 1986 the EC and those other countries that do not co-operate with Canada by respecting the conservation decisions of NAFO have not been eligible for benefits in the Canadian zone. Their fishing vessels are barred from Canadian ports except in emergencies. They are not accorded allocations of surplus fish from under-

March 12, 1992
Supply
utilized species in the Canadian zone. They are not eligible to take part in commercial ventures involving any fishing by their vessels in Canadian waters.
These restrictions however have failed to induce the co-operation that we sought and vigorously pursued. The cumulative impact had begun to take its severe toll and in 1989 this government initiated a comprehensive campaign bilaterally and multilaterally aimed at ending foreign overfishing in the northwest Atlantic outside the 200-mile limit.

We will be pressing ahead on all fronts in 1992. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has laid out an ambitious plan of objectives and initiatives for the first half.

We have undertaken a high-level political initiative lead by the Prime Minister to ensure leaders of the EC, its member states and other nations are aware of the serious consequences of overfishing.
At the Houston and London summits of the G-7, for example, the Prime Minister pressed the issue with his colleagues. He obtained commitments in the communiques to conservation of living marine resources including compliance with the regimes established by regional fisheries organizations through effective monitoring and enforcement.
In bilateral and multilateral discussions at every opportunity we have sought to persuade the EC to return to compliance with NAFO decisions.
We have participated actively and constructively in bilateral working groups on science, surveillance and control and non-NAFO fishing which were set up following ministerial meetings with the then new EC fisheries commissioner, Manuel Marin.
There have been some signs of progress such as the acceptance of eight of the eleven NAFO management decisions for 1991 and for 1992, but clearly not as much as we would like.
In 1991 the EC initiated implementation of the NAFO vessel reporting system and assigned a fisheries patrol vessel to the regulatory area for seven months. It will increase its presence in 1992. That will be of some assistance but surveillance data confirm that EC vessels in 1991 were still taking catches significantly in excess of quotas.

Early last summer our special ambassador for fisheries conservation who was appointed to co-ordinate and carry forward Canada's diplomatic, legal and information initiatives in this important area initiated bilateral consultations with the European Community. The EC rejected Canada's proposals to help resolve the problem, but we remain committed to working out a resolution with them which ensures compliance with NAFO decisions.

Respect for the 3L cod moratorium is critical. The minister of fisheries and I called in EC heads of missions on February 27 to impress on them the sense of crisis that is prevailing and the need for urgent response on the part of their governments. We pointed out to them that it is not simply in the interest of the Canadian fishery but also ultimately in their interest that this overfishing comes to an end.
Ambassador Gherson will be returning today from his current mission to the EC to present the scientific evidence on the northern cod stocks and to urge the EC to stop fishing contrary to the NAFO moratorium. EC capitals are now reviewing Canadian findings and our early information is that they are quite shaken by the data we have given them.
We have continued to press our case within NAFO and have provided leadership to the work that has begun to improve its system of surveillance and enforcement. The number one priority in international fisheries management is improving effective control.
All NAFO members must agree on the measures necessary to ensure that conservation decisions are enforced. It is not simply just ourselves or the result will be a failure.
At our request a special session on surveillance and control is being held in May. We have undertaken bilateral initiatives and we have led work within NAFO aimed at eliminating fishing by vessels registered in countries that are not members of NAFO.
The Panamanian government has at last been co-operating with our officials on steps to end the use of Panamanian flagged vessels in northwest Atlantic fisheries and further meetings are scheduled.
March 12, 1992

Korea has reduced the number of vessels licensed to fish in the area. We will continue to press it to withdraw completely.
Canada has also spearheaded international efforts to improve the effectiveness of international law as it pertains to high seas fish stocks.

A major objective for Canada in this legal initiative is international recognition of the special interest of coastal states, like Canada, in conservation and management of fish stocks which are also harvested both inside and outside national fishing zones.
Canada will be taking its proposals on high seas fisheries conservation to the United Nations Convention on the Environment and Development-the earth summit-in Rio de Janeiro to seek international support for improvements to high seas conservation.
The Canadian delegation is active at the current prepcom for UNCED in New York and support for our approach is growing.
A comprehensive Canadian information campaign has underlined the ecological risks of overfishing and called on the European public to oppose foreign overfishing in the northwest Atlantic. A number of you have participated in the parliamentary delegations that have taken our message to Europe.
The minister of fisheries himself has travelled to London, to Tokyo and to New York to speak on the need for effective control of international fisheries, and will visit other capitals over the coming months to build up support for Canada at NAFO and the Rio summit. These are some of the ways we are working to end foreign overfishing outside Canada's 200-mile limit.
The new scientific evidence serves again to confirm the devastation of the northern cod stock by the relentless foreign overfishing and seeming disregard of NAFO's rational conservation decisions in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks outside the 200 mile zone.

I can assure the members of this House that during 1992, efforts to end foreign overfishing will continue to be a top priority of this government.
The Prime Minister, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I have repeatedly and at every opportunity registered with our colleagues in the Com-
Supply
munity that the northwest Atlantic fishery, especially northern cod, is in serious trouble because of continued and excessive overfishing by EC vessels.
It may seem to have produced very little by way of results but it is like water dripping on a stone and we are seeing growing alarm in Europe concerning this issue.
We have made clear that it is an issue of critical importance for Canada. The EC and non-members of NAFO must recognize and address this issue seriously. If this important resource is to be saved, this country must bring its fleets under effective control in compliance with NAFO conservation decisions. Ultimately their own fishery is also at risk besides our own and if a concern for the environment is not something to which they will pay attention, then surely in their own self-interest, they will start to pay attention.
I want to quote briefly from a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations who underlined in eloquent terms the dimension of the problem and I quote:
The elaboration of the law of the sea regime for the rational management and conservation of high seas living resources is now firmly inscribed in the international agenda. While this may be in large part attributable to the large-scale drift-net fishing issue, it is to be emphasized that this issue is but one symptom of the larger problems confronting world fisheries within national jurisdiction and beyond. Another symptom is the report of problems of overfishing by distant-water fishing fleets in the proximity of EEZ's.
The United Nations General Assembly took up this issue for the first time at our request, at the request of this government, in 1989 and it expressed concern regarding the use of fishing methods and practices on the high seas that can have an adverse impact on the conservation and management of the living resources of the marine environment. That was elaborated in 1990 and we intend to use as well all of the countries that will be going to the UNCED in June in Rio to keep reinforcing this on a broadly-based international scale so that pressure can be brought to bear on the main culprits.
The General Assembly, as a result of our efforts, adopted a resolution that criticized fishing methods and practices such as vessel reflagging and inadequate surveillance control and enforcement aimed at evading the regulation and control of high seas fisheries. This, of course, has given us the opportunity and the ammunition that we need as the Government of Canada in this regard. It recognized that the measures now in place to conserve and manage the living resources of the high

Supply
seas are not effective and they do not adequately implement the provisions of the Law of the Sea convention. That is something that we will take to UNCED when we meet with other countries there in June. It called on states to prohibit fishing methods and practices that can have an adverse impact on the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas and to take the measures required to give full effect to the applicable provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea convention and called on states to comply with the regimes established by regional fisheries organizations through effective monitoring and enforcement measures.
It is against this background of crisis in the Canadian east coast fishing industry and developing international concern-which is growing largely as the result of the efforts of this government-with respect to the problems caused by overfishing by distant water fishing fleets, that Canada launched its high seas fishing initiative at UNCED. This initiative seeks to develop specific principles and measures consistent with the Law of the Sea convention with a view to giving full implementation to the provisions of the Law of the Sea convention, strengthening regional organizations and ensuring the recognition of the special interest of coastal states with respect to straddling stocks. That would provide for an effective legal regime governing activities on the high seas. We are optimistic concerning our ability to achieve this objective.
The first steps in the elaboration of the principles and measures were taken at a legal conference held in St. John's, Newfoundland in September 1990. The conference recognized the need for such measures and agreed on a set of conclusions reflecting an increasingly shared view on how the rules of international law should be interpreted and applied. This was further developed into a set of principles and measures at a meeting of Latin American states, New Zealand and Canada in May in Santiago, Chile. This is called the Santiago paper and it was tabled at a meeting of legal experts in New York City in July. The meeting was convened by the UN by the Under Secretary-General responsible for the Office of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.
In August, the Santiago papers, as refined in New York City, were included under agenda item 21 at the third
UNCED preparatory committee. It gained additional sponsors and was praised for its "forward-looking strategies" to deal with specific problems that have arisen in the last decade and to implement effectively the provisions of the Law of the Sea convention. The Santiago paper has won the support of some 40 countries and is part of the documentation on the table this week as a fourth UNCED preparatory committee begins its work in New York City on fisheries issues.
Canada and like-minded countries are determined to do all they can to ensure that the principles and measures set out in that Santiago paper are incorporated in the documents adopted by the UNCED summit when it convenes in Rio and that they serve as the basis for a diplomatic conference to be convened following the UNCED summit to address in particular the problems of high seas fishing.
The government considers the only way that Canada can achieve its goal of protecting Canadian fish stocks for Canadian fishermen today and in the future is through international co-operation and not through confrontation on the high seas.
We are determined to act with the imagination and vigour required to achieve success, and we know that it takes a considerable amount of effort. Results are not always visible in the early stages, but our fisheries communities deserve no less because ultimately it is international co-operation that is going to assist them.
We are committed to finding an effective solution to this problem, a solution that enhances Canadian control over the fish stocks off Canada's east coast throughout their migratory range. That is why we are going to such extraordinary lengths.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions.
I have listened to the minister on two occasions. I know that she takes this debate seriously, as we all do, but three weeks ago we held an emergency debate and this week it is our opposition motion on the crisis that exists. We would like to see more effort, more energy from the government on this crisis.
March 12, 1992

Our fishermen are serious and our communities are serious about what is happening out there. If the government is not going to take more action, then it seems to say to the rest of the world that we are not interested. I cannot believe that we are not interested. I know that the minister has recounted all the times that she has spoken, or the Prime Minister has spoken, but we have to see some real effort right now.
The season is upon us, and the reality is the potential of 8,000 jobs immediately in the Newfoundland area and the spin-off in other areas.
I ask the minister two or three simple questions and I will start them in this way. First, this week The Globe and Mail carried an ad that I think was false. I would like to know how she, as minister of external affairs, can have our national daily carry an ad that is not disputed by this Government of Canada.
We know that the herd has to be culled. I am sad to say that it is growing. We know that the herd eats too much fish, and it is not just cod, it is the whole stock out there. It is the amount of fish that seals eat. Why has the government, the day after or by this weekend, not taken a responsible position and placed an ad to counteract that terrible ad that we saw in the papers this week? On the east coast, we think we are defeated before we ever get started with this government.
The second thing I want to ask is this. Why have we not ratified the Law of the Sea? It was 1977 when we signed it. I know the U.S. will not sign it. I know why it will not sign it and I know why it does not want to sign it, because their big business and their multinationals do not want to be over-regulated by a Republican government, that is Reagan and now Bush.
There is no reason why we have not signed it and shown that we believe in what is in the Law of the Sea. I think that there is no reason why we cannot put more effort into this. I belong to parliamentary delegations. I have not been asked to go over and meet with the U.S., or the EEC, or France or the Commonwealth to get support from our own colleagues in Parliaments and try to overcome this burden.
Would the minister please give me an answer?
Supply


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the last part of the question first.
As minister, as the hon. member well knows, I am not responsible for parliamentary delegations. They have to be approved in this House for money. That is not a government activity. That is a House activity. Let me say as well that I would be very happy if the hon. member would like to put together a parliamentary delegation and then we can discuss it. I have never been presented with a request for a parliamentary delegation.
Let me also say that on the Law of the Sea convention, which we did sign in 1977, needs strong multilateral support. We live by the Law of the Sea convention and we tailor our activities accordingly, but if it is just ourselves ratifying it, it is not going to have any impact on this problem. What is going to have an impact on this problem is exactly the kind of actions that we are taking and that we are taking in Europe.
When the member says we have not pursued this vigorously, I can assure her that we have brought our relationship with the European Community to a state of some considerable tension as a result of the vigour with which we have pursued this problem.


Dennis Joseph Mills: They don't know what the problem is.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We have pursued it both at the level of the commission and at the political level.
In Ambassador Gherson's latest trip to Europe, when he presented them with the data, yes, he did not get a warm reception. It was quite the reverse. He got a very cool reception at first, but once people started to look at the data, they are paying closer attention.
This is the kind of thing that has taken us a long time to get to, but it is worth every minute that we have spent and all the energy that we are putting into it. We have done this at some considerable cost to the other issues we are dealing with in Europe because it has led to strains in our relationship with the community at both the political level and particularly with the EC commission, to say nothing of our relationship with Spain and Portugal. That is all the more reason to pursue this.
In my view, the only thing that is going to have an impact on their-I think the hon. member might listen to my answer instead of talking to her neighbour.


Coline M. Campbell: I am listening.

March 12, 1992
Supply


David Kilgour: The seals, Barbara, the seals.


Barbara Jean McDougall: What is going to have an impact on this ultimately is if we can convince the Europeans that it is in their own self-interest, it is their fish that are going to disappear as well as ours. That seems to be the only thing that is going to have an impact, particularly on the Portuguese.
The retiring Spanish ambassador, when he left to go back to Spain before taking a new assignment, was clearly quite shaken up by the information that we had presented to him. He said that in his view, and he would be advising his government, that it was essential that we bring this issue to a resolution.
In terms of the ad in the newspaper this week, I agree with the hon. member. We are looking at the issue of seals. We need more data. We understand the fundamental principle and we agree with her conclusion on this. We do need some more data on this. But the ad itself was very offensive and I absolutely agree with her.


George Baker: Avery short question, Mr. Speaker.
Presently there are two factory freezer trawlers from St. Malo, France heading across the Atlantic to fish. One of them will fish the northern cod stock, the second will fish the cod stock in the gulf.
As the minister knows, March 30, the end of this month, all French vessels were supposed to lose their quotas of northern cod and also cod in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, lose it totally. However, the Department of External Affairs, in consultation with the tribunal meeting in New York on the boundary dispute between Canada and France, St. Pierre and Miquelon, the Canadian government informed the tribunal that it will not accept a decision in French only.


Coline M. Campbell: Why, we are bilingual.


George Baker: France, of course, under international law would accept the decision in one language, as any other government would, but the Department of External Affairs was adamant. The registrar of the court informed external affairs that because of that it would take four days into the month of April to deliver the decision. This meant that because of the four days Canada has now
given France an additional three months of quota of northern cod and cod in the gulf.
I ask the minister to respond and to tell us why the Canadian government did not really feel like following international law and just gave away three months of additional quota to France and they are sending over the factory freezer trawlers when she stands up in the House and says: "We are concerned about northern cod and cod in the gulf"?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the decision has not yet been written and Canada has not asked that the decision when it is written be translated, even though, as the hon. member knows, it is the practice of this government that we always work in two official languages. I hope he is not trying to turn this into a language dispute as well as a fish dispute. It is serious enough.
The boundary tribunal will issue its decision this spring. Consistent with the agreement the French quota in 2J-3K-L will be reduced in the same proportion as reductions that affect the Canadian offshore fleet.
The hon. member knows that this is pursuant to an agreement that was signed by a Liberal government, and it is an international treaty that has been very difficult for us to live with.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period a little longer so that we can have the benefit of the presence of Secretary of State for External Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to extend the period?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


An hon. member:: No.


Coline M. Campbell: Who said no, the minister?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my point of order of course is one of fairness. This morning the minister of fisheries took an extra half hour to respond to questions on this issue. The only minister more central to this question than the minister of fisheries is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure that she, who said no to the request for unanimous consent in the last 30 seconds, will want to reconsider. We would like to have the benefit of her knowledge on this issue.
March 12, 1992

I ask for unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The Speaker has no option but to receive the request.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is not a good thing to do. [Translation]


@Acting Speaker: I have no choice but to comply with the decision of the members of this House. And since there is not unanimous consent, I cannot go back to that matter.


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just given the lie to all of her pious comments about being concerned and serious in wishing to protect and defend the cod stocks in Canada's eastern waters and the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It is completely hypocritical of her to come here and claim that she is-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I have to remind all members that there is no unanimous consent to extend the period. It is not the choice the minister. I ask members to be fair on that matter.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments. They are less well prepared than they should be because I was planning to intervene on a question or comment to the minister if she had stayed a little longer.
I would like to begin by addressing the point I was going to raise earlier with the minister, the question of control of the stocks currently in the area, that is the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
As the minister would know and everyone here would know, that is currently regulated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO. One of the problems we have with NAFO is the fact that its current constitution does not have any teeth. There is no way to regulate Canada or any other country that wants to enforce more stringent conservation measures or formulas for managing fish stocks under the region governed by NAFO in that area. It permits countries such as Spain
Supply
and Portugal to fish in that zone with impunity and to violate the NAFO quotas and in fact their own quotas. Canada has no recourse under the current rules to do anything about it.
If we are not to proceed immediately as our motion suggests with functional jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks to protect those straddling stocks, it is clearly in order to seek a strengthening of the NAFO convention so that it allows countries to enforce the NAFO quotas. Currently they are meaningless because countries such as Spain and Portugal violate them routinely and have been doing so for several years. There is absolutely no way in which the quotas under NAFO can be enforced.
The government knows very well that some obvious amendments can be made to the NAFO convention which would allow for the convention to have more teeth, to be stronger and to enable that organization, in the absence of Canada's jurisdiction over those zones, to be perhaps more effective in conserving those stocks.
I am sure the minister is very well aware, as is the minister of fisheries, that article 12 of the NAFO convention which bears directly on this problem needs to be strengthened and needs to be made more effective so that this can take place.
We are informed that NAFO will be meeting May 1 at a special meeting which I believe will be convened by Canada. I have been told the issue which is central to the effectiveness of NAFO is not even on the agenda. I would think it ought to be very high on the agenda. If this government does not want to extend functional jurisdiction now but wants to proceed gradually, as it seems to want to do, one would think it would at least be pushing to strengthen the organization that currently regulates the area in which the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is located, namely NAFO.
It is very surprising to me that would not be very high on the agenda. This government should be seeking to put some teeth into the NAFO convention. Failing that, perhaps the government ought to be considering getting out of NAFO altogether since it is obviously not of any use to Canada in terms of protecting the straddling stocks, one of its major responsibilities.

March 12, 1992
Supply
I wanted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why this avenue is not being pursued or, if it is being pursued, what the results of her efforts so far have been and whether we could expect the government to be taking strong action to strengthen the NAFO regime from a conservation perspective.
Failing that, it seems that the motion before the House today is obviously the next step. There is really no other place for this government to go but to affirm Canada's functional jurisdiction over those zones. There is no other way, in the absence of any responsible behaviour by the states which are fishing that zone and in the absence of any regulatory regime which can be enforced and where objections by countries such as Canada have any legitimacy. We are currently seeing the depletion of a fish stock with drastic consequences for the economies of eastern Canada, particularly Newfoundland but also Nova Scotia. We would think this government ought to be working to strengthen the only organization that is governing those regimes.
That was the first point I wanted to raise with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps when she reads Hansard she may want to provide me and this House with the answer to that question. I would be very interested in hearing it.
It is important to underscore, as has been said by several speakers today, that this issue is not an issue which is confined to one part of Canada. It is true that the province of Newfoundland which depends vitally on the fishing industry, particularly the fishing industry centred in the northern cod zone, stands to be devastated by the collapse of this fishery. It is also true that the province of Nova Scotia is in the same situation, although perhaps less directly than Newfoundland. In my own constituency of Cape Breton Highland-Canso we have plants that fish the northern cod and other ground-fish stocks which stand to be depleted by the excessive fishing in those zones.
This is an issue which extends beyond Newfoundland to Nova Scotia and, as other members have pointed out, to all of Canada. It is an environmental issue of alarming proportions when we see countries purporting to pay lip service to environmental concerns completely denying
these concerns. We are facing a very serious situation which we in Canada have a right and a responsibility to take a leadership role in correcting.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate my friend and my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for his excellent participation in this important debate.
He was here a moment ago, as I was, when we witnessed a spectacle that I really could not believe. At the same time it confirmed for me something I had suspected for some time. I want to see if I am out in left field on this or whether or not my friend from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso shares my view on it.
I had been alleging for some time that the minister of fisheries would very dearly like to get on with this issue in the spirit of the wording of the motion. He realizes the futility of diplomacy, sweet talk and so on. He realizes as one who lives among the people most affected by this, as a man who represents those people, that it is time to bite the bullet. I had been alleging his problem was that he was alone in the cabinet.
For the record, he has had to say otherwise and to say: "Oh, no, my Prime Minister is behind me; everybody over here is behind me". Was I wrong? Is it too late in the day? Am I having some kind of illusions? Am I misleading myself? I saw the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who ought to be our lead spokesperson on this, half sleepily read very badly a text that somebody had prepared for her. Her heart clearly was not in it. She refused to take any questions beyond what was required of her.
Would the member want to comment on whether he thinks my suspicions are correct? Is it the problem of the minister of fisheries? Was it confirmed before our very eyes in the Chamber just now that the people who matter most in this play, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could not care less about this file? That is one of the reasons it is going nowhere, unless the minister of fisheries takes it in hand, delivers an ultimatum to the Prime Minister, and says it is time to do what has to be done with respect to this foreign overfishing.
Does he agree the real problem is that the people whose support he needs are not coming to his defence and indeed are laughing at the whole issue?
March 12, 1992


Francis G. LeBlanc: I certainly share my colleague's suspicion on this question. I think one way of illustrating the contrast in the commitment to the issue would be to play back the speech of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs back-to-back. You would see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, because he comes from an area that is vitally affected by this crisis, is committed and serious about doing something about it.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, perhaps because her constituents are not as directly affected immediately by the problem or perhaps it is some other reason, obviously by the tone of her voice and by her expression here today, does not exude in her body language a deep and abiding commitment and determination to solving this problem. Perhaps we are misreading her. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.
I am afraid that the fishermen in eastern Canada and the fish stocks themselves cannot wait much longer. They are being plundered and the livelihood of a whole part of the country is disappearing while we wait for this government to sort itself out and to sort its priorities and we wait for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who seems lackadaisical in her approach to this very serious issue.
I do not like to accuse anyone of being insincere, but it is awfully tempting when you see the behaviour we just witnessed a few minutes ago.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my colleagues on the lack of interest. I would say that the minister of fisheries should bring them back a big dose of cod liver oil and it might get them all moving and doing some action. However, we do not seem to have any energizer over there and that minister of fisheries has gone down instead of going up so he needs a dose of cod liver oil as well. Cod liver oil might give him the force or the energy.


Mr. Robitaille:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Terrebonne on a point of order.
Supply


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind you, this House and the hon. member that we do not need to dance on the desks and shout as they do to show some interest in the subject. Just because we keep cool, Mr. Speaker, does not mean-


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, my good friend from Quebec, who normally exhibits an awful lot of good horse sense, good common sense, has really missed the point here.
His minister, his colleague, has badly upset us by coming into this House and mocking an important issue. That does not sit very lightly with me. Better she had not come in than to come in to pay lip-service to an issue she either does not understand or does not believe in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think that we express opinions on all sides of the House. It is a matter of opinion and I think that it would be good to return to the substance of the debate according to our rules. I again recognize the hon. member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: Whatever they need, they need a new battery change and they need some energizers over there.


An hon. member:: They are out of gas.


Coline M. Campbell: They are out of
gas. They are out of steam and they are out of any type of power.
We have seen here this week representatives of the communities from Newfoundland and the representatives of the fishing efforts in Newfoundland. They have come to Ottawa looking for help and guidance.
This is not the first debate. We had one three weeks ago. That was an emergency debate. It went on well into the evening and well into the night. My colleague the parliamentary secretary knows that this is a serious issue.
I may have said that there is something lacking in the government and to my way of looking at it and to Canadians I am sure, looking in from out there, is the idea that the government is not doing anything, and it is not.

March 12, 1992
Supply
Government members may go to New York to the conferences and they may talk once to somebody in New York, but there are things that we, as Canada, can take upon ourselves.
One, we can say to the world even though we have 200 miles we are not totally in control of our biological stocks that we depend on to fish and we want control of that. We want to go to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That is the crux of the issue, we are not in control.
How would we gain control? We perhaps could take on the role of monitoring the foreigners who go there because our coastline is adjacent to that stock, and we are not doing that.
When I say monitor it, we have all sorts of conservation methods within the 200-mile limit and we cannot monitor any of the conservation methods that we have here in Canada, that short distance of control over the biological stocks. So we should be saying that.
The other thing that we should be doing is we should take very effective diplomatic relations against the offending countries. One, our trade with Spain and Portugal, or maybe we should tell Canadians not to go there.
Maybe we should look at what is going to happen in Madrid or Barcelona with the Olympic Games coming up this year. Maybe it would hurt some people over there as it is going to hurt our people here.
I have seen other countries ban the Olympics. We had some people ban our Canadian Olympics. Why not put that as a threat out there? Why not take our diplomatic officials away from some of those countries to show those countries we are serious as to how it is affecting the east coast.
The last thing, why not put a ban on their goods? We drink their wine. We take their canned sardines or any of the canned fish they send over here. Let us show them it hurts in Canada what they are doing, irrespective of any of the guidelines that we feel should be enforced in those areas.
I have not seen this government do any of that. Sure it is hard to take some of that, but we have to show them
that we mean to and we want to support the fishing effort on the east coast.
I would also like to say in the short time that I have that we as a country have made it clear to the foreigners that we are serious this time. We should take over all the activities within our 200-mile limit.
It may mean that the Government of Canada has to put a bit of money into changing gear so we can fish, changing processes so we can market the fish that those countries come within our 200 miles to catch that we do not catch, that is considered under-utilized by the Law of the Sea. It is no longer under-utilized.
Those foreigners should not be within the 200-mile limit. We should say as of today we are fishing it all. I do not care how we market it. We should be able to sell it to those countries, Japan, Cuba and the former U.S.S.R. that come to fish within our 200-mile limit. We are not doing it.
This is the same thing as GATT. The government says that it is doing this and this and this, but it is not doing anything.
I can sit here, my colleagues can sit here, nobody has gone face to face with any of the organizations. I belong to all those organizations, to Canada-France, Canada and the Commonwealth, Canada and the U.S. I have not been asked on either the GATT or in this dispute to sit down and talk face to face with people who belong to the same organizations or the IPU and tell them what they are doing.
It has to start even here at home. An ad that appeared in The Globe and Mail I think it was on Tuesday had all those lovely seals saying "Not me, not me, not me, not in a month". And the implication was: "I have not had a fish in a month, I am not the culprit". It is wrong for the government to allow that ad to go across Canada as if it is the fishermen who are to blame for the foreigners and others and the seals that are taking the fish.
That is wrong. The impression that will be given to the rest of Europe is that we are responsible. We are not responsible in this. We want the foreigners off. We want to cull the herd of seals and we want to tell the world that the seals do eat a tremendous amount of fish.
March 12, 1992

Why can the government not pay for that? It pays for an awful lot of other ads.


David Kilgour: It has no backbone.


Coline M. Campbell: There is no backbone. That is right.
The environment, fisheries and external affairs departments should be taking a paid ad in the papers to support the east coast in this effort. If they do not, we will see the same thing that we saw last night on the lumber in B.C. on the national news here in Canada being analyzed by people in Germany saying that we were doing something wrong.
We are going to have it everywhere in Canada if this government does not start to act responsibly and to defend our primary industries and resources.
The government can do that by taking a full page ad, the same type of ad that the IFAW had in The Globe and Mail and probably in other newspapers this week, which was so detrimental and without any consideration of the real issues behind it.
I just want to say that the government has the ability. It has the power within Canada, within the Department of External Affairs and within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to give support to our fishing communities. It has the power.
We have a navy. We may not have much of a navy under the national defence policy because we do not have a national defence policy, but we have a navy that could be out there. We have planes that could be out there doing some surveillance the same way that they do it within our 200-mile limit.
We should be taking that authority; ratifying the Law of the Sea and taking control of the biological stocks that are rightly Canadian.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the last member.
It is passing strange that she would tell this House that the government has the ability to stop an ad from being run in a newspaper. I heard her words. They are the ones she used: "They should have stopped it and not allowed it".
The last time I checked, we are living in a democracy which does mean freedom of speech. The hon. member
Supply
is doing the people of the east coast a disservice when she insinuates that those kinds of things can happen.


Dennis Joseph Mills: She said protest.


Ross Belsher: I know what the lady said. I was listening, and that is why I am up here commenting about this.


David Kilgour: A sexist remark.


Ross Belsher: No. She is a good friend, as far as friendships can go from across the aisle here.
What we are talking about here today is a fishery which we are all concerned about. We have had very disturbing news given to us by our scientists who say that the spawning mass which was 270,000 tonnes was lowered to 130,000 tonnes, and that is for the 7-year old and older cod, as well as for other parts of the biomass too. They have downgraded their estimates on that.
In the light of that, what other actions could the government have taken particularly with what we do control within the 200-mile limit other than what has been taken already?


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if I did say "stop" and "allow", I would never presume that this House should ever stop and disallow anything in the newspapers as has been done in some instances, however.
I will say that I would have hoped that the editorial board of The Globe and Mail would have had a little bit more common sense. What I was implying was that the Government of Canada-it cannot be the fishermen who put the money in; they are always putting money in-this is a real fact. It is a known fact that the seal herd should be culled. The seals eat a tremendous amount of fish and they are continuing to do so.
On your question as to what else could have been done, I say that what will happen I saw happen two years ago in Nova Scotia when the government, without doing a study, said that fishing had to stop because the stocks could not take it and because there was overcapacity onshore and in the fishery.
What will happen is that the fishermen will hurt so badly that come this year there will be very few fishermen left because they have had to sell their quota-that was the department's decision-to companies and they no longer have that effort. The communities are going to die because there is no longer a fish plant.

March 12, 1992
Supply
I felt at that time and I still feel today that there are a tremendous number of foreigners coming into our waters to take species that should not be called under-utilized any more. We should be able to fish all the fish that those 100 foreign freezer factory ships that come within the 200-mile limit fish, even if it means that we have to put money into converting what we have to fish, if it means that we have to put money into developing markets to send that.
We are not under the free trade agreement in this. We are talking Japan, Cuba, the U.S.S.R, eastern Europe, western Europe, all over the world. We are not doing it. We have lost a lot of time in not doing it. We have allowed the foreigners to think that they now have a right within our 200-mile limit. They do not have a right within our 200-mile limit. I think that they have a limited right if it is done well and directed well to come and fish outside, but they should not be violating our biological stocks as they are doing.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that I have to conclude this debate. What we have heard here over the past several hours is a fitting discussion about an issue which is a real tragedy for Canada, but particularly for our most eastern province of Newfoundland. It is a tragedy that pertains not only to the cod fishery, which is largely what this debate is about, but which pertains as well to the salmon fishery in which we saw significant action taken just last week by the minister and his colleague in Newfoundland to close that commercial fishery indefinitely. It is a tragedy that is exacerbated by the closure or at least the slowdown of the Hibernia oil development project.
It seems that for Newfoundland all news is bad news as this particular time in its history. It is very fitting that we have this debate this afternoon. I believe that in our heart of hearts all members share the concern for the province of Newfoundland and share the determination to find ways to launch new initiatives to take action to solve the very serious problems which confront us.
The cod fishery disaster is not too strong a word. The cod fishery disaster is a major environmental world issue and one which deserves world public support and world public attention in the same manner that unfortunately and inaccurately world attention has been devoted to our lumber products and forest products in Canada, both on a trade basis and on a very significant environmental basis from Europe.
I am going to speak about this a little later with respect to a public information program but it seems to me that one of the things we have to do with this cod issue and this overfishing issue outside our 200-mile zone is establish in Europe the same kind of environmental outrage, the same kind of environmental action in support of our position, as has been applied against us on the basis of inaccurate perceptions with respect to lumber.
It is sort of a sad irony that Europe has responded to a perception of forest management in Canada which is inadequate and has acted to boycott our lumber products. In the face of a totally documented disaster with respect to our fishery, extremely well documented, and one that is being perpetrated by the our own European colleagues in the fishery, we cannot seem to mount the public outrage, the public thrust for action that is so desperately required.
There is no dispute that overfishing is causing the severe depletion of the fisheries resources off Canada's Atlantic coast. The northwest stocks are being ravaged, principally by European Community fleets operating on the high seas outside of Canada's 200-mile limit.
Since 1986, overfishing of those straddling stocks has totalled more than 400,000 tonnes above the internationally established quotas, and has continued without any appreciable reduction in 1991. Although migratory patterns differ from species to species, one element is common to the cod and the flounder and the redfish stocks that straddle that 200-mile limit. Many migrate for part of the year outside the 200-mile zone to deeper water on the edge of the shelf, and that is where they are subject to intensive overharvesting which has led to the stock depletion.
This is not supposed to occur. These straddling stocks are supposed to be harvested in accordance with conservation and management decisions made by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. It was Canada and the European Community, Japan, the U.S.S.R. and Norway, among others, that signed the NAFO convention in 1978. NAFO was established to scientifically assess stocks, to decide on a total allowable catch, to allocate quotas to the NAFO contracting countries and to set inspection and control measures for the area outside the 200-mile zone. However, it remains for those NAFO contracting parties, those countries that belong to NAFO that exercise state flag jurisdictions, to give effect to those NAFO decisions. That has not been happening.
March 12, 1992

Before 1986, the European Community did adhere to virtually all of the North Atlantic Fishing Organization decisions. In 1986, Spain and Portugal joined the European Community and they were given a limited access to European Community waters and were promised other fishing opportunities. Beginning in 1986, the European Community commenced to object to NAFO quotas and to set higher quotas for itself unilaterally, quotas that have been allocated largely to Spain and to Portugal. As well, the European Community has failed to exercise effective control over its Iberian fleets, which have fished virtually at will outside our 200-mile limit. As a result, catches by European Community fleets have greatly exceeded both the NAFO quotas and even the unilateral quotas which the European Community has set for itself.
This has created a real crisis in fisheries in the northwest Atlantic. From 1986 to 1990, European Community fleets reported catches of cod, flounder and redfish totalling more than 530,000 tonnes. This was more than five times the European Community's NAFO quota, and for some flounder stocks it has been reported that they have exceeded the NAFO quota by 18 times, much of it being juvenile fish harvested in nursery areas.
These are just the reported catches. They do not include unreported catches or catches which have been misreported on unregulated species like skate. These figures do not include catches by non-NAFO fleets either. From 1986 to 1990, non-NAFO vessels operating without any NAFO quotas caught more than 165,000 tonnes of cod, flounder and redfish, which add to the extensive figures I have already quoted that represent such a total overharvesting of our resource.
The figures for 1991 by the European Community are not very different from recent years, notwithstanding that the European Community did accept most of the NAFO quotas for 1991. In the face of this continued overfishing, stocks have become very seriously depleted and many quotas in Canada have been cut in half. From 1986 to 1990, Canada's quotas for regulated species were reduced by a total of 300,000 tonnes.
Supply
That pattern is now well established. Canada and other NAFO contracting parties, except the European Community, have limited their catches to conserve fish stocks. European Community and non-NAFO fleets continue to take everything they can, often just outside the 200-mile limit.
While Canada has had to reduce its offshore fleet by about one-third since 1986, European Community fleets are being reduced in community waters in an effort to end fishing, but the number of European Community and non-NAFO vessels fishing in the northwest Atlantic has actually increased. Why? The area just outside 200 miles is one of the few remaining convenient fishing areas where distant fleets can continue, in effect, to fish at will.
Canada as made repeated efforts since 1986 to persuade the European Community and its member states to end their overfishing. Time is running out for the stocks which are being overfished. It matters not a whit whether overfishing is carried under the flag of Spain or Panama or Korea if the stocks are going to continue to be depleted.
One of the main thrusts by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and by the Department of External Affairs has been to launch a public information campaign that will tiy to win the state of public opinion in Europe and elsewhere that will bring world opinion to bear on the European Community, particularly on the Portuguese and the Spanish fleets, to end the overfishing, to live within the NAFO quotas, to in effect join in the battle to conserve this immensely traditional and immensely important cod stock.
Campaign activities have been extensive, including visits to Europe by Canadian industry and parliamentary delegations, by participation in environmental round tables, by the involvement of Canadian spokespeople in key European events, by liaisons with environmental and scientific organizations, media briefings, interviews and

March 12, 1992
Supply
the development and distribution of communication materials such as pamphlets, brochures and visions.
The campaign has included the Prime Minister, several cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, provincial MLAs, the private sector, union and academic spokespersons and a broad effort to generate European media attention. The public information initiative targets European Community and member state decision-makers, industry leaders, European environmental and scientific groups and the media, particularly in Spain and Portugal.
Some specific examples have been parliamentary missions, including many of our colleagues from this House. In October of 1990, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce led a community development mission to Spain and Portugal comprised of key representatives of the Atlantic Canada fishery community. Also in 1990, a delegation from the Newfoundland-Labrador Federation of Co-operatives attended an international co-operative alliance meeting in Spain. A specially prepared brochure entitled The Fragile Fishery, which documents the foreign overfishing issue, has been widely disseminated in Europe and in all fisheries countries around the world.
In the spring of 1991, industry and union representatives accompanied the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to Portugal, where he made a major public speech and held meetings with his counterparts.
The campaign remains a vital component of the government's efforts, and for 1992 a number of activities and new initiatives are already under way. Our mission to the European Community and our embassies in European Community member states and in NAFO member countries have been provided a detailed communications package in which to develop and present this very important and tragic story.
The campaign is being broadened to support more fully our legal initiative, particularly with respect to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Brazil later this summer.
During March we have invited foreign journalists from Europe and NAFO countries to visit Newfoundland. This will provide an opportunity for them to gain first hand the knowledge of the impacts of foreign overfishing.
All of these efforts continue and none of them are particularly radical perhaps, but together they bring into focus this tremendously urgent and rapidly developing environmental disaster. In all things environmental, in the whole world of sustainable development, nothing starts without a sense of vision. We have to start again as
a country and as a world with respect to our fishery on the Grand Banks to determine what is achievable, what can be done and then commit ourselves to those measures to accomplish those goals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will be please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED -MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
Bevilacqua	Blais
Couture	Dorin
Duplessis	Fee
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Kaplan
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLaren	Marchi
McCreath	Milliken
Nowlan	Pickard
Tardif	Vankoughnet
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
Private Members' Business


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was held back by the winds of winter, even though I was an hour on the road trying to get here. I did want it to be known that I would support my party.
I cannot believe that the minister himself voted against this motion. It is a shame and a disgrace.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of the Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario) moved: that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (personal and living expenses), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this private member's bill that I put into the draw back on June 19 for first reading. This bill is one that some would argue is controversial. It certainly has an impact on an awful lot of Canadians and it deals with tax fairness.
I would like to suggest just who it impacts on. It impacts on all members of Parliament, all senators, all members of provincial legislatures, all elected mayors, reeves, councillors, all school board trustees, all members of hydro commissions, public utilities commissions. It probably affects even a dog-catcher somewhere in Canada, if there is such an elected person.
All of these people who I have mentioned have a special privilege, a privilege to which no one else in Canada is entitled. That privilege is that they are allowed to receive a portion of their income, which is referred to as an expense allowance, tax free. In the case of members of Parliament, they are allowed to receive 33 per cent additional income on top of their allowance that they would receive as a member of Parliament tax free in

March 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
the form of an expense allowance. That amounts to some $21,300. It is an extra 33 per cent.
It is 33 per cent for MPs and 50 per cent for every other politician in Canada. I am not sure why that particular scenario exists but suffice to say that every other elected politician in Canada is entitled to receive an allowance and that allowance is tax free.
Again, I emphasize the issue of fairness. No one else in this country is allowed to receive a regular income from their employment which is designed to be tax free.
Some might argue: "Yes, we politicians have expenses" and I for one will not debate that issue one iota. We certainly have expenses. I might even be prepared to suggest that we members of Parliament have expenses that exceed our allowance. That is not the issue on which I am standing in front of this House today. I am quite prepared to suggest that we have expenses but I believe that since those expenses are being reimbursed to us, they should be taxable like they are to everybody else in this country.
In my previous career as a sales representative, I also had expenses. At the end of the year many of those expenses were reimbursed to me, but lo and behold, on my income tax form there was this thing called a taxable benefit. That taxable benefit dealt with the free income I received, not in the sense of the performance of my job but to help pay the expenses related to the performance of my job. That was a taxable benefit and I paid income tax on it.
Yet all of a sudden when I was elected as a member of Parliament, I got that same allowance but it was no longer taxable. I guess what I am suggesting by this bill is that all politicians across this country who get that allowance, which each and every one of us does, ought to receive that income as a taxable benefit.
When we talk about it as a taxable benefit, some will argue that they have expenses and have receipts for those expenses. I guess I could ask each and every MP in this House, and all those across Canada in fact, do we not on many occasions buy tickets to fundraising dinners, to charitable events, and receive a tax deductible receipt for those expense?
I wonder how many politicians in this country take that tax deductible receipt and say: "I got this money tax free.
I will not deduct that from my taxable income". I would suggest there would be very few politicians in this country who would not take that tax deductible receipt and deduct it from their taxable income rather than from their tax free income. My bill, I think, sets out fairness that every Canadian in this country has that politicians do not have and that is a taxable benefit for taxable allowances that individuals receive.
When I talk about tax fairness I guess what surprised me most of all is when this bill went before the normal process to determine whether it should be votable, I thought it would be difficult. I understand it is controversial and I am not sure many members may rise in support of this bill in this House.
What surprised me most was the party that believes in tax fairness gave me the roughest time in the committee process. I find it rather interesting that a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of attitude applied in the committee process. There certainly was very little sympathy for this kind of bill, even though they believe people should pay their fair share of taxes.
Yes, this would have an impact. The impact would be if we made that tax free allowance now taxable as a taxable benefit, what would it mean to MPs? That $21,000 would become taxable. I presume we are all in fairly high tax brackets so we would pay the 29 per cent tax rate. On top of that we would pay the provincial tax rate of some 55 per cent, plus the appropriate surcharges. That $21,000 would probably cost every MP in this House somewhere in the realm of $10,000 or $11,000 further tax. I understand that. I for one would be quite prepared to say if that $10,000 or $11,000 loss because of taxation is unfair, fine, adjust the allowance. I am not going to argue that point at all. Adjust the allowance on total impact to the revenues of the government. It would make no difference because yes, give us $10,000 more but it will be taken away in taxes. The net effect is minimal.
What makes it unfair is each and every year, as has happened for the last 40 or 50 years, this tax free allowance has existed. Every time an MP gets a raise, the fact a portion of it is not taxable is an increased benefit to high income Canadians and MPs are high income Canadians.
March 12, 1992

Every year the unfairness of the tax free benefit increases in value disproportionately to what might be the impact on other Canadians who get raises. There is no doubt it has an impact.
Since the salary of MPs is set up on the basis of income and allowance, some have suggested that we could make the whole thing taxable and increase the pension benefit. I would suggest, the way this bill is proposed, that I am not adjusting the income of MPs. Therefore it has no impact on the pension of MPs. The allowance is exclusive or outside the pension of an MP. If we continue to keep it as a taxable benefit, a taxable allowance, it is therefore not part of computing the pension of MPs. MPs would not all of a sudden enrich their pensions, which has been a comment raised by many about my particular procedure.
Is this idea unique or new? I do not know if this private member's bill has ever been introduced before. It is certainly new in this term of office but it is not unsupported in the community. In fact, a very interesting article appeared in The Toronto Star. I heard the NDP premier of the province of Ontario talk about the fact that they should look at this tax free allowance of all provincial and municipal politicians in Ontario. The reason they have that allowance is not provincial legislation, although they need the approval of the provincial legislature. It is federal legislation, the Income Ihx Act, that allows for it.
The city of North York talked about this issue at one of its council meetings and it was reported in The Toronto Star. This debate took place last year. Members of the council passed a unanimous resolution asking the province to make the allowance they received taxable. Basically their logic is explained in the paper as follows:
But councillors say the law is misunderstood and criticized by the public.
"The public feels that maybe members of council are getting big benefits," says Councillor Milton Berber.
Adds Councillor Paul Sutherland: "People don't understand why it's (the exemption) there. It really bothers people and it gives a false idea of what's actually being earned".
There are a number of other quotes. I would suggest that is true. A lot of my constituents say: "You people
Private Members' Business
don't pay taxes like we do. You have this unfair advantage. When you raise the income tax rate you are not affected the same as everybody else" .
I guess I am proposing with this bill to take away that charge, that concern of citizens of mine and probably other citizens across the country. We would be taxed exactly the same way as every other Canadian in this country. I believe that is in fact what Canadians are looking for, that MPs, senators, MPPs in the provincial legislatures, and all other politicians from one end of this country to the other pay taxes in the same way.
What does that mean in my municipality and in my riding? Let me give an example. Every riding is different. I have three municipalities in my riding. They each have eight elected mayors or councillors. There are 24 people there. We have another 10 or 12 public school board trustees. We have 10 or 12 separate school board trustees. Now we are up to 44 or 45. We have two MPPs, which put us up to 47.
In the case of the town of Pickering we have five hydro commissioners. In Whitby they have seven hydro commissioners. In Ajax they have six hydro commissioners. We are now up to about 65 people. We have an MP who is in on this. So in my riding alone this bill would affect about 70 people. We would multiply that by the 295 ridings in Canada. I suspect the number is much more than 75 on average because some ridings have 10 or 20 municipalities. A lot of people would be impacted by this legislation.
I come back to the original point. What I am trying to deal with is tax fairness. I am not trying to deal with the income of any politician in this country. It is within the power of all politicians in this country, if they feel their salary is inappropriate, if they feel that the expenses are much higher than they are being reimbursed for, to adjust it in a simple piece of legislation in their jurisdiction to whatever they think it should be. I know we in this House get a lot of flak when we go back to our ridings about making a lot of money, being overpaid and underworked. I am sure all members in this House are familiar with those allegations. Obviously we may not agree with each and every accusation that comes our way.

March 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
However, we do have the ability. We were elected to lead. We were elected to make decisions. If members of Parliament believe that $64,000 is not enough, that the $21,000 allowance is not enough or that the housing allowance, which we have on top of all those other items, is not enough, we have the ability to do something about it. I guess my resolution does not address that subject. They continue. All politicians continue to have that ability. Mine is simply that whatever decision Parliament or other legislatures make it becomes taxable. That is what I call tax fairness. That is what I believe is the appropriate thing to do, and that is why this bill is here today.
I am only sorry that ultimately this bill will not be voted on because of the decisions and the process that is involved. But I respect that decision because that is the parliamentary process. I am just sorry it is not being voted on because I do believe it is an appropriate measure that should be taken.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, there are many days in this House when I stand and challenge the government on its initiatives, but I would have to say that today I stand and I salute sincerely the initiative of the member of Parliament for Ontario.
He is addressing in my view one of the most fundamental frustrations that the people of Canada have when dealing with the tax act of Canada. The people of Canada feel that the rules, regulations, exceptions and exceptions to exceptions and all preferences that exist in the current tax act of Canada do nothing more than breed complications and paper burden. Absolutely everyone agrees that the current tax act is unfair.
What I like about the member's initiative is that he is taking members of Parliament, the most distrusted people in all of Canada as members of Parliament, and basically saying: "Let us begin this radical reform of the tax act by starting with ourselves. Let us blow out the preferences that we in this House of Commons and all other politicians in the country receive". As the member said, this is really not going to affect our work in any way, shape or form. In other words, if moneys are needed for legitimate expenses then, as the member said, we can come back to this House and say: "Listen, we need more
help to look after the expense requirements that we have as members of Parliament".
There is absolutely nothing more distasteful to the people of Canada than to think that the legislators of this country are talking about tax reform and fairness in the tax system day in and day out, but end up giving themselves a $20,000 tax preference year in and year out. The people of Canada will never ever totally trust this system unless we begin reforming ourselves.
As the member knows, I have been promoting or trying to advance the debate in the area of tax reform. I guess it has been almost three years. The whole principle behind the concept of the single tax rate is to blow out all the preferences that exist in this country, not only on the personal side but also on the corporate side. Maybe we could go back to basics on this issue and bring in a new tax act where people can judge clearly whether they are being treated fairly or not. I believe that a system like that will go a long way in bringing a renewed attitude toward productivity and the quality of our work in this country.
I have really nothing further to add to this. I give it my full support. The pity of having a private members' debate like this, late on a Thursday night, is that it should receive more attention. We should give members more notice and we should do more promotion on it. I will be honest with you; I did not hear about this until last night when I was advised by someone from the office of the Minister of Finance that this debate was happening.
It is the kind of thing that Canadians want to see. I regret the fact that it cannot be votable. I do not know why it cannot be votable. You are on the government side. There has got to be some way to get all of this support. Maybe we could make some kind of an amendment to the budget or something, or to the current tax act. Day in and day out the New Democratic Party talks about tax fairness and simplifying the system, so I am sure we would get their support. I know my own leader is constantly talking about tax fairness and tax simplification, so I am sure that if the member who has more and better access to the Minister of Finance were to push this a little harder, we could make this a votable motion and it could be law in this country. It is something that
March 12, 1992

would begin the rebuilding of trust in this institution, which is the central issue for Canadians today.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I also support the general thrust of this initiative. I would appreciate if the member who made this motion would listen closely because I think that in some respects the whole purpose he is addressing is a disservice by dealing in one narrow aspect of members' expenses, members' compensation or members' pension plans.
It is very much like the leader of the New Democratic Party said last week. I was not in the House when she made a speech about pensions. In isolation, she can demonstrate that pensions, which many of us will never hope to receive, are too generous or are based on the wrong criteria, and so on. Frankly, the hon. member has done the same thing by taking the narrow issue of expense allowances and the fact that they are tax free, and addressed that. The hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood has applauded that.
The fact that I know both of these gentlemen well would cause me to be certain they are not sanctimonious. But there is a danger of that by just addressing the one aspect of this problem. I agree that we should not have a tax preference. But I can demonstrate that the expense allowance by itself is inadequate to the needs of most of us. To put this motion and not say that is on the edge, frankly, of not really being fair to yourself or to all the other members.
In the narrowness of your presentation, my hon. friend, and in the response of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, you do a disservice to all members by helping to paint this picture of distrust in dealing with one item in isolation and not in the context of all items.
I have only been in this House for three years. I came here for the first time from a business background, as a matter of fact, a private business background, but an extensive public business experience as well. I was shocked to find the ad hoc, ill-designed, topsy-turvy compensation plan that over decades has been conceived, almost it seems on the basis of, well, what kind of patchwork can we put to the system today to solve this problem?
Last year we instituted a $6,000 a year expense provision for those of us who have to mainftain hotel
Private Members' Business
accommodation, apartment accommodation, or whatever, because we do not live in this area. That came after decades of this House sitting here. That allowance does not provide a means of recompense for me because I happen to own the condominium in which I live. I have to depend on a $40 a day allowance because for some reason it is not deemed appropriate that I file a claim based on my out-of-pocket expenses for a second home, which we all know and every Canadian expects is a requirement of this job.
We go on and on. I have been frustrated at the label that I have received, leaving a business career to come as a member of Parliament, and to find the disrespect in which we are held, the distrust in which we are held, the public perception that we are overpaid and underworked, that we abuse the tax system, we abuse the pension system and that our salaries are too grand.
I am not complaining. I would do this job for free if I could afford it, and as long as I could afford it, because I believe it is one of the most distinguished opportunities any Canadian can have. But the facts are that the total compensation that I receive is inadequate to the expenditures I make and inadequate to the salary I have made all my life. If you count the cost of lost businesses and lost business opportunities, if you take the opportunity cost for this job, it is not remotely adequately reimbursed.
I take issue, frankly, with two individuals who I hold in the utmost respect for addressing this so vigorously in such a narrow, isolated context.
I would challenge you and other members of this House, as I have frankly challenged my own leadership and my own caucus, to launch a study, a commission, some public inquiry into the total compensation of the members of Parliament: the adequacy of salaries in relation to the qualifications and the commitments required; the adequacy of all expenses, the expenses for a second home and for air travel; to make sure that we do not have broken homes because our wives and husbands and children are living apart most of the time; to ensure that the air travel expense we get is not a gift but is there for the purposes we have to serve. Why would you not mention air travel in this motion? The free air travel, the 64 points, particularly if you do not use them for official businesss, is even more offensive than the tax free aspects of the expense allowance.

March 12, 1992
Private Members' Business


Dennis Joseph Mills: It is not part of the act.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Forget the act, we are talking about the total package. You are resting on technicalities. The facts are that the public disrespect members of this House in a total compensation context because every so often somebody, either members themselves or journalists or citizens, take one narrow aspect of our compensation program and highlight it as this motion does today. It makes it look like a very stellar and courageous performance, we are going to change the world. Well, let us really change the world of politics in this country and in this House. Let us call for a public inquiry about the total compensation package, including the pension plan. Let us receive recommendations, let us debate them in this House, let us, in full public view, initiate a brand new compensation regime that touches all of these bases and let us implement it at the time of the next election.
Let us make sure that everybody running for office knows what it is in advance. Let us not compromise anybody's pension plan to this point. They have earned them under visible circumstances. Let us go on, from the next election forward, in a total regime, salaries, expenses, air travel, tax provisions, housing and pension programs that the public has confidence in and it will attract the kinds of people we need in this House.
I would vote for that kind of a motion. I would vote for that kind of a private members' resolution that puts it all on the table and says: "Let's strike such a commission and let's do it now."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke, spoke very well of some of the problems that attend the life of being a member of Parliament and attend the issues which this bill, in some respects, raises. I say in some respects because what is wrong with the bill is that it does attempt to deal with one particular problem in principle in isolation from the rest of the package, if you like, of issues which the hon. member who just spoke raised and that is the whole matter of compensation for members of Parliament and everything that involves.
Therefore, I would support, rather than this bill, the call by the hon. member who just spoke and the call by others over the years, that in some way or another these questions be taken out of our hands. We cannot win in terms of public opinion no matter what we do, as long as the public continue to be cynical about the political process. I might add that the public have always been to a degree cynical about politicians and the political process. In that sense we do not live in some new age.
I remember going through a book that had been prepared Fifty Years of Headlines. One of the headlines I noticed in the year 1906 was about MPs raising their salaries to an exorbitant rate. So as long ago as 1906 the media and, presumably others, were enjoying making members of Parliament out to look bad.
I think this has been an industry for a long time. No doubt, sometimes we have collectively deserved that criticism and other times we have not.
I was disturbed to hear the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood get up and say that we are the most distrusted people in the country. Frankly I do not feel that way. I do not feel like I am one of the most distrusted people in the country. I am still proud to be a member of Parliament. I still feel good about being a member of Parliament. If the member for Broadview-Greenwood feels like one of the most distrusted people in the country, I feel sorry for him. Sure people are critical of politicians and they are critical of the political process. But I think that is an exaggeration.
What we have here in the form of this bill and in the form of the comments made by the member for Broadview-Greenwood and other comments that have been made from time to time around this place is a form of piety, of piousness, of self-congratulatory heroism at the expense of one's colleagues.
The principle that the member opposite wants to promote, that all money should be treated the same, is a principle that I do not think anybody in my party would have any difficulty with. I think it is a principle we have promoted in the past and continue to promote.
All we are saying about this bill is that by itself it cannot deal with the over-all problem, both with respect to perception and with respect to reality as it pertains to members of Parliament compensation package.
March 12, 1992

The member is dreaming in technicolour if he thinks that if our expense allowance was to be made taxable and we then found it to be inadequate that we could just simply stroll back in here and increase it so that we would be getting exactly the same amount without bringing down upon ourselves much more criticism than the criticism he feels he is responding to now, I think he is being quite unrealistic.
Therefore, I go back to my original point, that no matter how we deal with it, what we need to do is somehow get it out of our hands. That point was made by my leader the other day with respect to the whole issue of MPs pensions, which has become such an issue, that is to get it out of our hands, to have somebody else make that judgment and probably to go beyond what we have done over the years, which is by law to have two retired MPs look at it. People could still say: "Well it is still part of the club". Let us have a mixture of people look at it and come in with some recommendations. I venture to suggest that if we did our jobs here, the responsibilities that we have might be judged by these outsiders to be worthy of more compensation than we receive now. I do not know.
The problem is that it might be the case in spite of everything everybody believes, that the greatest restraint on MPs salaries and other things is to some degree the fact that we do have to set them ourselves and we are politically answerable for that. Maybe there have been times when that has not been the case. I am certainly open to that, having voted against an increase myself in 1981, the last time there was an increase.
But it may be the case that the very fact we are in control of it actually acts as a restraint. It may be hard to believe, given everything people say these days about our benefits, et cetera. In spite of the fact that it might be true, I say for the sake of the political process and for the sake of members of Parliament, we do have to get it out of our hands.
It will not be just us who will have to take our chances with whatever those people will recommend, the public will have to take its chances with what an independent review of our situation might recommend. We will all have to take our chances.
Private Members' Business
The attempt by the member of single out this one element however much I might agree with the tax principle involved-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Well, that is what it is, a tax principle.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The tax principle involved is misguided at this point to the extent that it does not deal with the entire package it would have to deal with in order to be adequate.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ontario for bringing this subject to our attention this evening.
I for one can say one's standard of living does not go up when one becomes a member of Parliament. Nonetheless, it still does not alter the fact that the vast majority of people think that members of Parliament are very highly paid people. True, our salaries are certainly well above the average of what a lot of Canadians are earning. We are allowed an expense allowance, tax free money that is given to us to cover the extra expenses we have in accepting this challenge that has been given to us.
I think the hon. member from New Brunswick has hit the nail on the head when he said: "Listen, let us not look at this in isolation. Let us look at the total package and see if we can improve on what has been done".
I know in many other jurisdictions, at the lower levels in public life, the tax free money is usually one-third of the total compensation. That is not the case for members of Parliament. It has been kept to a set amount. I also know the way of life members of Parliament are obliged to live and what people expect of them when they send them invitations to various fundraising activities in the ridings and when people come to Ottawa and look forward to being entertained upstairs in the restaurant. These are things people just assume we can put on an expense account and get reimbursed for.
No, it comes out of the allowance which has been given to us, along with our second residence. In the last two years, we have been able to claim up to $6,000 of allowance for living away from our principal residence.

March 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
While I speak in favour of the sentiment of what the hon. member for Ontario is proposing to us, we cannot just look at it in isolation. I do not think he suggested that. I did not hear him say that in his remarks. He said that we would have to look at the total compensation to make sure that we are being fairly compensated.
The very reason we have to say that is the fact that we do not want just people that can afford to be sent to Ottawa to run for office.
We want to make sure that we have the proper cross-section of our country, one that stretches from coast to coast from various vocations so that our country is represented in a way that reflects the mix of our country.
While I express sentiment to what has been done by the hon. member, I concur with what the member from
New Brunswick has said to us tonight, that we would really need to do a little more studying on this rather than treating this just by itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since no more members wish to speak, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6.52 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.52 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 13,1992