1992-02-19

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 1991, the Prime Minister signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on behalf of all Canadians. Article 9:1 reads:
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interest of the child.
As Canadians we all agree with the United Nations that the family is the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, and particularly children.
I therefore urge members of this House to support my Motion No. 634 and petition to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and urge the minister to change his policy to allow spouses and children of refugees to be reunited in Canada as do the United States and France.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the dairy, poultry, and egg farmers of Canada in their efforts to impress upon this government the extreme importance of protecting and strengthening article XI and preserving our supply management system.
There are approximately 700 farmers and farm families in Prince Edward Island who will be at risk. It is estimated that as many as 6,250 jobs in Atlantic Canada could be lost. If the farm quota restrictions are devalued, what will happen to the balance sheets and the net worth of our farmers?
No area will be harder hit than Prince Edward Island. Island farmers hold a greater proportion of the nation's butter fat quota.
Since Island farms tend to be smaller than the national average, the Prince Edward Island dairy industry will be more vulnerable to United States competition.
Supply management products play a proportionally larger part in the economy of Prince Edward Island. Supply management must be preserved.


IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. Dan Heap (IHnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board has done it again. Two Ahmadi brothers from Pakistan claimed religious persecution-identical cases, one was accepted, and one was rejected; two different tribunals and two difference decisions on the same evidence. Amnesty International reports:
Members of the minority Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan
continue to be charged and condemned to prison terms for the
peaceful exercise of their religious beliefs.
There is no consistency in the decisions of these IRB tribunals.
I therefore join with refugee coalition groups and the churches in calling for an independent inquiry into the decision-making process of the IRB, the increase of negative decisions, the use of prefabricated, fill-in-the-blanks prepared decisions on the negative, and the outrageous conduct of some members when hearing cases.

February 19, 1992
I also call on the minister to review the case of the 23-year old Ahmadi and allow him to remain in Canada, as is his authority to do, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sat in this House in amazement, listening to a partisan New Democrat painting his party as the champion of medicare. His holier-than-thou rhetoric failed to mention that all first ministers of all political stripes and the Prime Minister agreed to discuss user fees at their meeting last week.
It was not until three days after the conference ended that the B.C. NDP took a stand on the issue, long after my leader and myself again stood in this House and challenged the first ministers.
Let it be known that the current Canada Health Act was introduced as a Liberal initiative in this Parliament in 1984.
It has since guaranteed that Canadians would not need to go first to the bank before they go to the hospital.
The message is clear. The federal government shall not be allowed to renege on its financial and moral commitment to the provinces to ensure the continued survival of medicare.


MYRIAM BEDARD
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I would like to draw the attention of the House to another Canadian athlete who won a medal in Albertville today.
I want to congratulate Myriam Bedard of Neufchatel, Quebec, who won a bronze medal in the women's 15-kilometre biathlon. She displayed all the technical skills and endurance required in this demanding Olympic sport. This is the first Winter Olympics in which women officially participate in the biathlon.
Canadians feel joy and pride over such an Olympic performance, which is also very motivating for all athletes in Canada.


SIT-RITE PRODUCTS LTD.
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, a recent edition of The Financial Times explained the circumstances of yet another plant closure.
Sit-Rite Products Ltd., a manufacturer of ergonomic office and industrial work place furnishings, closed a
48,000	square foot facility in Atlanta, Georgia, in order to expand its facility in Mississauga.
On the basis of consistent quality, delivery, and service performance, Sit-Rite management found that products out of the Mississauga plant were superior to those from Atlanta.
Though Canadian employees earned higher wages, other factors such as lower employee turnover rates, access to skilled tradespeople, and better supplier reliability favoured the Mississauga plant.
The benefits of Sit-Rite's consolidation efforts are showing as the company reported a 30 per cent improvement in sales in 1990 to approximately $15 million.
Who says Canada cannot compete?


BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month in Nova Scotia.
This month has been set aside to recognize the outstanding contributions of black Nova Scotians, who have played a vital role in the history of my province since the early 17th century.
As a Nova Scotian, I take great pride in celebrating Black History Month, but I find this pride is overshadowed by the continued existence of hate literature.
Almost three months have passed since I asked the Minister of Justice to initiate investigations and, indeed, actions against the distribution of a racist piece of literature entitled Stop Apologizing.
Literature such as this only furthers the problems minority Canadians face on a day-to-day basis. Yet three full months later all the minister has done is write to me
February 19, 1992

to say the issue really is not her responsibility and maybe I should contact the Ontario Attorney General.
I find this non-action not only unacceptable but offensive. Each day the minister did not act was another day this deplorable hate literature sat on Canadian bookshelves.
As a sign of respect for Black History Month in Nova Scotia, I call on the Minister of Justice to take the necessary action today to stop passing the buck and to use the weight and influence of her office to stamp out this and other examples of bigotry and racism in Canada.


PRESIDENT OF QUEBEC'S UPA
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I met farmers in my riding, in Lachute. Yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada met Canadian farm leaders to reassure them about our position in GATT.
Except for Mr. Proulx, the president of the UPA in Quebec, they all said that they were very satisfied with this meeting and confident that the Canadian delegation, which leaves for Geneva tonight, will gamer significant support from the hundred other GATT member countries.
What was Mr. Proulx doing yesterday morning when he met the leader of the Bloc Quebecois several hours before his meeting with the Prime Minister? It is easy to understand that the strategy developed by these two leaders who are dedicated to Quebec separation is clear, and they especially do not want Canada to succeed and prevail on the subject of article XI.
Many farmers think that Mr. Proulx has no choice but to resign, and I agree with them, because he showed yesterday that his political interests take precedence over Quebec agriculture.


LIBERAL PARTY CONVENTION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, a welcome is in order for the many Liberals who are in the national capital region for the Liberal convention.
But this welcome should also be accompanied by a warning to those actual and potential Liberals who are opposed to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or free trade with Mexico and want to see these agreements abrogated: You are at the wrong convention.
To those actual and potential Liberals who are opposed to the GST and proposing tax loopholes for the rich, you are at the wrong convention.
To those who wish to preserve medicare over and against the wishes of many Liberal premiers, you are at the wrong convention.
You are welcome to attend the next NDP convention where you will find a party that is not funded like the Liberal Party is, by the same people who fund the Tories.


PRESIDENT OF QUEBEC'S UPA
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a message for our farm producers in Quebec.
Yesterday, Jacques Proulx, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, decided to support the policies of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois whom he had met that morning. Mr. Proulx decided that, to him, Quebec's separation was more important than what happens to all farm producers in Quebec.
I want to say to all our farm producers that, together with Canadian producers and with the support of Quebec's genuine farm producers, our national delegation will be leaving this evening for Geneva to support their cause. We are convinced that despite the withdrawal of Jacques Proulx all farm producers are with us all the way.

February 19, 1992


GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare continues to disregard the perils to the health of Canadians.
For the fourth time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has disallowed MMT as an additive in American fuel. Studies have indicated it causes an increase in hydrocarbon emissions.
A main component of MMT, manganese, has also been linked to such disorders as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.
MMT has been added to Canadian gasoline since the early 1970s. If the government were serious about protecting our environment and removing risks to our health, it would take immediate steps to ban the use of this additive in Canada.
There is a clean and readily available alternative. Ethanol could be used, significantly reducing the damage to our environment and potentially to our health.
At the same time Canadian farmers could sell their grain for the production of this clean burning and safe additive.
When will this government act to support Canadian farmers and consumers?


PRESIDENT OF QUEBEC'S UPA
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my complete disapproval of the attitude of the president of the UPA of Quebec. Mr. Proulx, after a meeting attended by our Prime Minister, decided not to join the Canadian delegation that is going to Europe to defend our agricultural policies.
All this makes me wonder about his sincerity, since it seems to me that as a leader he should be on the firing line to defend his troops. That firing line happens to be in Europe at the present time. I fail to understand why, and I am also very sorry that a constituent from my riding
who is also president of the UPA has refused to join this delegation.
The game is not over until it is over. The third man at bat still has a chance to hit a home run. I therefore urge UPA delegates to call their president and insist that he go to Europe.


MEMBER FOR LASALLE-EMARD
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to read in the Toronto Star the other day that the member for LaSalle-Emard supports funding for the retraining of unemployed workers, eliminating violence against women, and cleaning up the environment.
That is exactly what this government has been doing in that $1.8 billion has been earmarked for retraining unemployed workers.
In partnership with industry and local school-boards we kick-started Skills Canada which emphasizes skills training at the high school level. As promised in the throne speech, a non-partisan panel of women is working to find ways of eliminating violence against women.
Since its inception, the green plan has been increasingly effective in helping Canadians feel they can make a difference in helping to clean up their environment, as well as attacking environmental problems at the industrial level.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I think this government should feel flattered by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard that Dominion Textiles was closing its plant in Valleyfield, Quebec. This means a loss of 225 jobs in a region where the unemployment rate is already 15 per cent. Thirty jobs were also lost in Montreal. This marks the end of the textile industry in the region. Furthermore, Bell Helicopter has announced 80 lay-offs at Mirabel. In Quebec, the unemployment
February 19, 1992

rate is now 13 per cent. Is that supposed to be cost-effective federalism?
Quebec's unemployment rate has always been higher than the Canadian average due to federal policies that tend to overlook Quebec in terms of industrial investment and research and development. The government's next budget will do nothing for Quebec. This government is ignoring millions of Quebecers who are unemployed or living on welfare. Quebec has no choice but to go its own way.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that his budget will take into consideration the realities of the day. The reality today is that 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. The reality today is that 2.5 million Canadians are on welfare. The reality today is that Canadians are suffering. They are desperate.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Does his government's definition of reality take into account the human suffering? Does his definition of reality take into consideration that millions of Canadians do not know how they are going to pay the rent or do not know how they are going to pay the mortgage? They do not know how they are going to feed their kids.
How does the Prime Minister propose to alleviate the fear, the pain, and the suffering, the problems and the reality today?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced yesterday that next Tuesday, February 25, at 4.30 p.m. he will be delivering his realistic budget. I would suggest that between now and then the opposition and many of the media will be writing that budget for him, but I would ask them to have patience till next Tuesday afternoon when the Minister of Finance will bring down what I believe will be a budget that will be widely supported by Canadians.
Oral Questions


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again for the Prime Minister.
The casualties of this government's economic policies are mounting and all the Prime Minister can offer Canadians in terms of an economic plan is more of the same. This government's policies are laying waste to our industrial capability, especially in southwestern Ontario. The human costs are staggering: 3,600 jobs lost at Ford, 3,600 jobs at Imperial Oil, 2,000 at IBM, 1,450 at Dofasco, 1,300 at Dylex, and the list goes on and on and on.
Why are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance not prepared to employ creative solutions to immediately kick-start the Canadian economy? Canadians cannot wait until next year. They cannot wait until next month. They need help and they need it today. That is the reality of today.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think we should draw to the attention of the House that most of the statistics that the hon. member rhymed off today are companies that are making these adjustments, not only in Canada but around the world. This is a restructuring that is going on today in the world. This is the realistic structure that we have to face here in Canada. As a matter of fact, there is a report out today from the Royal Bank of Canada which says that Canada has been behind in keeping up with what is going in the world today in the restructuring and that we have some catching up to do.
I want to quote from that report. The report applauded federal government efforts to control inflation, curtail spending, and reduce budget deficits. Some of its recommendations are to remove national and interprovincial trade and investment barriers. That is exactly what this government is doing.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my third question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will reply.
In the province of Quebec, 400,000 people are unemployed and 650,000 people are on welfare. Last year 10 per cent of Quebec's forestry workers lost their jobs.

February 19, 1992
Oral Questions
My question to the Prime Minister is this: What kind of realistic solutions does the Prime Minister intend to include in next Tuesday's budget to give Quebec's economy a boost and put Quebec's workers back to work?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we will not do. We will not pursue policies at the national level that would have the effect of raising interest rates to 21.75 per cent, where they were when my hon. friend's party was in power. Yes, 21.75, while today interest rates are around 7.5 per cent.
This morning the inflation rate was at 3.8 per cent, but when my hon. friend was in power it was 12.9 per cent. I agree the unemployment rate is too high and we are trying to get it down, but today it is 10.4 per cent and when the Liberals were in power it was 12.8 per cent.
I can assure you that we will pursue policies but not yours.


TAXATION
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Statistics Canada reports that Canadian families are paying far more of their wages in personal income taxes than they did in 1986. Since then this government has chosen to shift the tax burden away from corporations and onto the backs of ordinary children. The personal share of tax revenue has risen 11 per cent, while the corporate share has dropped by nearly 14 per cent.
When will the Prime Minister admit that his government is engineering a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary workers to the shareholders of large corporations?


John Horton McDermid: No, that is not true at all, and I think the facts point that out. Our tax rates in Canada for corporations and small businesses must be comparable to those of our competitors. We cannot tax our industries and our businesses a higher rate than our competitors or we will lose all our businesses in this country, so that is not accurate.
As far as increases in taxes are concerned, there has been some increase in income taxes in this country. I
must remind the hon. member that it was done in a period of time when there was tremendous growth in this country, when house prices where rising at 15 to 20 per cent a year, income taxes at 2.5 per cent a year, and salaries were increasing at 6 and 7 per cent a year. Compared with the other prices that were increasing in our economy, the income taxes rose at a very low rate. I might add that most of the savings, over two-thirds, that we have realized in this government has come from cost cutting.


Albina Guarnieri: The minister's words are small comfort to the families that are struggling to make ends meet. This government's big business, small grocery basket agenda is particularly appreciated by foreign shareholders. While Canadian families were hit with stiffer tax bills, foreign shareholders made off with 38 per cent more interest and dividends in 1990 than in 1989, double the increase I might add that Canadian shareholders were able to bring home from abroad. When will the minister put an end to his government's policy of exporting Canadian jobs and wealth?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying that people have invested here in Canada, that they are creating employment here in Canada and jobs for Canadians, that they are realizing a return on their investment and they should not have that. This country needs foreign investment if we are to grow and expand. I am not sure what the hon. member is getting at, but if the policy of the Liberal Party is no more foreign investment, let her say so.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The finance minister spoke yesterday of a realistic budget. The reality for 1.5 million Canadians is that they have no jobs and their families have little hope. The reality is that we have an income tax system which lets the wealthy off the hook. It favours wealthy Canadians. The reality is that this government would rather close hospital beds than close tax loopholes. The reality is that unemployment in this country is costing Canadians $30 billion a year.
February 19, 1992

I want to ask the Prime Minister this: By " realistic", does his government mean that it will bring in a budget that will create jobs for Canadians or just do more of the same that has put Canadians out of work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has raised a very legitimate point, one that concerns us all, namely unemployment and how we can get it down. In the first term we brought it down from 11.7 down to 7.3. It is up to 10.4 and we hope to bring it down again by following programs that will reduce interest rates, keep inflation down, and invite foreign investment to join with national investment to create new and productive and durable jobs. I am surprised at the rhetoric of my hon. friend. All of her prefatory remarks are gratuitous and quite offensive because they bear no resemblance to any degree of reality.
I would have thought that since the NDP presented its last budget last May in Ontario my hon. friend would have realized how difficult it is for an NDP government or any government to bring in a budget.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for a government that cares about them. Canadians are looking for a government that understands what unemployment means to Canadian families, is willing to look at it seriously and do something about it.
One thing that can be done is to look at our tax system. Statistics Canada shows that between 1982 and 1990 under both Liberal and Conservative governments the income taxes of lowest income Canadians have gone up 600 per cent. That is six times the increase incurred by the wealthiest Canadians. This does not count the GST and other sales taxes.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is this a realistic tax policy? Is the Prime Minister prepared for his government to bring in a realistic tax policy? Will he make the tax system fairer so that everyone pays their fair share?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally recognized that any tax system can be improved and successive governments seek to do that. One of the facts is that the Minister for International Trade, in his previous incarnation as Minis-
Oral Questions
ter of Finance, closed more tax loopholes for the wealthy than any Minister of Finance in Canada's recent history. He did an excellent job of closing these unfair loopholes.
My hon. friend says, in regard to this: do something about it. Her position is always the same. When asked and pressed what do something about it means, her view of doing something about it was to spend more borrowed money. That we will not do. We have a policy of bringing down interest rates, of bringing down the inflation rate to just about a 20-year low, and of creating in the process new, durable and competitive jobs. That is a little less glamorous and a little more difficult than spending borrowed money, our children's and grandchildren's money, and throwing it at the problem.
We will not do that. We are on a course that will restore Canada to a sensible degree of economic growth and durable prosperity.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it will come with great astonishment to the Canadian people that a government that doubled the deficit during its term can lecture Canadian people on how to manage the economy.

I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister that could save him $2 billion. Will he just cancel the capital gains exemptions? In that way, he would no longer need to cut back his programs. Will he cancel the capital gains exemptions and thus recover $2 billion in taxes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will announce his intentions on tax measures on Tuesday night. That is the tradition and we will respect tradition.
Second, and I quote, the New Democratic leader just said: that the government doubled its deficit during its term. It is an absolute falsehood. The deficit went from $38.9 billion down to $31.5 billion. That was false.
Now my hon. friends are yelling they made a mistake; they are talking about the debt. The debt did indeed increase from $206 billion to $420 billion, every nickel of which was compound interest on the debt we inherited from the Liberals, every single one.

February 19, 1992
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this government has agreed in 1992 to give fish quotas inside our 200-mile zone to Cuba, Japan, Norway, Poland, and Russia for redfish, witch, capelin, and squid. In fact the Russians have been allocated a quota of 1,600 tonnes of cod in a zone 50 miles east of the riding of the minister of fisheries.
Will the government now cancel all of these foreign quotas inside the 200-mile zone? We need the fish. Are we going to tell our own people to sit at home while they watch as these licences are issued to foreign nations that have quotas inside our 200-mile zone?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, as always, we need to listen carefully to each word of the hon. gentleman so that we can understand what facts are being obscured.
The situation is that NAFO paid international quotas to the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and other places mentioned for
1992.	We can, if we wish, agree to them fishing for some of these quotas inside our 200-mile limit. We usually do agree with respect to the former U.S.S.R. and Cuba because they are firm supporters of ours in NAFO in establishing quotas and observing the moratorium on cod catches outside 200 miles in 2J-3K-L. But, if we allow them to fish inside our 200-mile limit to catch these international quotas of redfish, witch, or whatever then they pay us licence fees in the thousands of dollars. They also have our observers onboard so we know exactly what they are doing and control exactly what we are doing.
This is a very intelligent application of policy by Canada to regulate the fishery. The hon. gentleman should be celebrating it, not attempting to denigrate it in this House.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, those are the quotas for foreign nations inside our 200-mile zone.
This year the government, against the advice of eveiy scientist in this country, in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Ottawa in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has agreed to the reopening of the cod fishery
on one of the chief spawning grounds outside the 200-mile zone, on the Flemish Cap where there has been a moratorium for years on the fishing of cod.
Why did this government decide to reopen the fishery in 1991 with quotas for 1992 to the EEC, Denmark, Russia, Norway, Poland, Cuba, 12,800 tonnes, and Canada, 100 tonnes? Why is this government party to the destruction of this major cod spawning ground?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let us just examine again what the hon. gentleman is proposing.
This is the Flemish Cap which is well outside the 200-mile limit and it is a fishery that is governed by the NAFO, the international organization.
At one time there was a moratorium in connection with the catching of cod on the Flemish Cap. Canada does not have a cod fishery there. That is why our quota is so small, 100 tonnes, and no one bothers to catch it.
Denmark and Norway, two of our staunch supporters in NAFO, asked in 1990 that the moratorium be lifted because certain countries were cheating and not observing it. They who depend upon this particular area and the fish there thought it was better to have no moratorium than to have a moratorium that was not being observed by countries such as Spain and Portugal.
We supported it. We abstained from voting. In return, Denmark, Norway and other countries supported us in our bid to get aerial surveillance accepted for surveillance enforcement outside 200 miles. They supported us in getting the hail system instituted. That is why we abstained.
The hon. gentleman should be able to see, if he cares, how sensible this is. We have to co-operate with other countries if we want them to co-operate with us, which is exactly what they did and we did. There are certain countries that are not co-operating, but not the ones gaining by our abstaining in that moratorium.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, co-operation is a two-way street, and so far Canada has not seen much co-operation from the nations that have overfished our waters.
February 19, 1992

The senior scientific adviser to the minister of fisheries has told the minister, and indeed has told members on this side of the House, that the collapse of the northern cod stock is so severe that a period of up to five years of deep quota cuts, deep restrictions on the right of Canadian fishermen to fish in their own waters, may be required to allow those now fragile cod stocks to rebuild, to regenerate to a healthy and stable level.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Why should one pound of fish be taken in Canadian waters by foreign vessels during the next five years when Canadian vessels and Canadian fishermen must tie up and stay at home?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that certainly sounds veiy patriotic and sensible until one examines it again.
First, the northern cod stock is not in as bad a state as the hon. gentleman suggests. In December the scientists advised me that the biomass was 1,130,000 tonnes. Seven weeks later they revised it downward to 780,000 tonnes. That is the difficulty we are dealing with. As they say, their scientific calculation of stock could be 25 per cent off one way or the other. That is what creates the difficulty in management.
With respect to foreign vessels, they are not allowed to fish inside our 200-mile zone for any fish or any stock that Canadians are interested in. If they fish inside then it is because we are observing the Law of the Sea convention or they are catching fish for Canadians to be processed on shore.
Does the hon. gentleman want to close Canso? Does he want to close Burgeo? Does he want to close dozens of other plants that get fish landed by foreign vessels because we do not have the technology and vessels to land the stocks at those particular plants? Is he out to do Canso and Burgeo in?
Finally, with respect to our campaign, the ambassador from South Korea was in to see me today and South Korea has already agreed to withdraw a vessel from this fishing area this year and another one in the first half of next year to start the process of withdrawing its operations in the northwest Atlantic. That is the effect of our efforts, the Prime Minister's efforts, and the efforts of
Oral Questions
the Minister for International Trade. That is the kind of effect we are having. We are getting some progress.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries has asked if we want to close Canso, if we want to close Burgeo, if we want to close Canadian fish plants and shut down Canadian vessels. No, we do not. We want to close the 200-mile limit to foreign exploitation and overfishing. We want this minister to show some backbone and some guts and understand that the fishery of Atlantic Canada is not a little regional issue; it is a national issue, a matter of national pride and national interest. It is time this government stood up for the people of Atlantic Canada.
I ask Canada's Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of all of Canada: Will he now stand up for those Canadians who have been abandoned by his minister in the region of Atlantic Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when we listen to this effusion what does it all come down to? It comes down to zilch.
While the hon. gentleman is effusing, what are we doing to help the situation? We have approved 575 projects in fisheries alternatives, $41.9 million in assistance, and 1,547 new jobs in alternatives to the fishery. In alternatives, $19 million was spent to create jobs outside the fishery. We helped Canso and Burgeo to reopen. Grand Bank is reopening this February with 225 jobs because of our assistance, and on and on I could go.
That is the kind of quiet, effective work we are doing when all we hear is false hysteria and play-acting by hon. gentlemen opposite.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister addressing farm groups, reiterating what some of his agriculture ministers have been saying, namely that Canada has presented a balanced approach at the GATT negoti-

February 19, 1992
Oral Questions
ations. It has attempted to protect supply management by working for a clarified and strengthened article XI.
Canada's initial presentation to the negotiating group on agriculture, presented October 20, 1987, outlined our definitive stance on agricultural negotiations. Given that it did not mention anything about article XI, could the minister or the Prime Minister tell us at what point that became part of the official negotiations? When did we enter a strengthened and clarified article XI into the negotiations?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is very well aware-I cannot tell him precisely when that happened; I was not in the portfolio at the time-of the strong position that this government has taken for some period of time, led by the Prime Minister, in support of the supply managed sector and in support of strengthening and clarifying article XI.
This has consistently been a part of our negotiating position and it is why my colleagues and I, along with farm leaders, will be leaving this afternoon to visit Bonn, Brussels, and Geneva in support of that position.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Along with farmers, I have believed that this was our negotiating position because this is what I heard in the House and throughout Canada, but I cannot find any evidence that that was the position in the negotiations.
When did we present in writing a position that clarified what it was we were looking for? It does not show up in the documents. When did we do this and what documentation can we be provided with?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is looking for answers in a realistic way.
The reason he has had some difficulty looking back in 1986 is that the position Canada has been continually presenting since we laid documents in 1990 in front of the GATT negotiating council has been the position for clarification and strengthening of article XI. The position was developed with the industry in light of other findings that article XI was not going to be able to give
them the supply and the border control to continue supply management.
The hon. member will recall a finding by GATT on ice-cream and yogurt. That is where the position of the supply managed groups, the provinces, and the Government of Canada came from.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the GATT talks and Ontario soybean growers.
He knows Ontario soybeans are the third largest crop with direct gross sales of $650 million. They could be wiped out by the GATT plan of a 20 per cent subsidy reduction.
What will the minister do to save the 25,000 soybean producers in Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the Dunkel text has been used as a basis for negotiations.
It has been brought to the negotiator's attention through the SAGIT, through the representatives of Ontario com growers who have represented soybean growers in a very strong fashion. Our negotiators are aware of it. We are looking at how that 20 per cent domestic reduction could be handled. There are opportunities for internal support for agriculture producers in the Dunkel text that could be placed in a green box. We will continue the discussions with the soybean producers in Ontario.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. When farmers, implement dealers, feed dealers, and other representatives of rural Canada assemble here on Friday, what is the Minister of Agriculture going to offer other than what he has already offered by saying "Look, farmers, we are sorry. What happens over at GATT is entirely out of our hands".
What can the farmers attending on Friday expect from that rally? Can they expect to hear some new news, good news, positive news, something that they can return with to their communities and look positively on themselves and on their profession, the noble profession of farming in Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I think, Mr. Speaker, the very important fact is that yesterday
February 19, 1992

cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister met with the farmers representing the balanced position of the Government of Canada. That is a very important step. The initiatives that were taken from that meeting, as my colleague, the minister of trade has mentioned, are that we will continue in tandem with our partners, the farmers, to present the position that Canada believes is important.
The other thing that is very important is that I have not heard from any of the farm leaders that the rally that will be held here on Friday is anything but a rally in support of the position that the Government of Canada is representing on their behalf in the international community.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, further to the minister's answer, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Farmers are united and stand together. Their objectives are clear and precise, to save their family farms. For several days now, Canadian farmers have been asking their Prime Minister whether he intends to join them in the rally this Friday. Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister join the farmers on Friday or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I spent several hours yesterday with the leaders of Canadian farm unions and farmers: I spent two hours with them at noon today and an hour or two yesterday afternoon from 4.30. I am about to leave the House to speak to President Delors, President Mitterrand, and Chancellor Kohl in order to facilitate the work of the special mission which leaves for Europe this afternoon to defend the interests of farmers in Canada and in Quebec. It is too bad that some have decided to play partisan politics instead of participating in a major international initiative in support of the true position of Canadian farmers. My work for farmers is sustained and ongoing.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday farm leaders from across Canada met here in Ottawa. Supported by their counterparts from Japan, Switzerland, and the United States, their common cause was to support the orderly marketing systems here in Canada and their opposition to tariffication at the GATT.
Oral Questions
I ask this government this. In view of the increasing opposition from Canadian farmers and those of other nations, will it place the needs of Canadians ahead of the greedy aspirations of trans-national corporations which will be the real benefactors if tariffication is accepted?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the negotiators of the Government of Canada are negotiating on behalf of the agricultural sector, the agricultural economy, a very important sector of our economy. We are not negotiating on behalf of trans-nationals and the hon. member knows that.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Prime Minister was frank and forthright with our farmers yesterday afternoon. Jacques Proulx is afraid of flying, but we all know that you, Sir, have no fear of facing GATT. As the minister responsible for agriculture, how do you intend to ensure, on your trip, that Quebec and Canadian farmers will be able to get their message across to those who do not believe in the importance of article XI?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we were disappointed when the president of the Quebec farm producers turned down the offer made by the Prime Minister.
However, I can inform the House that only a few minutes ago the Quebec Minister of Agriculture offered to take his place to defend the interests of Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, in these situations I think it is important that producers across Canada, the provincial government, and the federal government all work together to defend the ultimate interests of farm producers and refrain from seeking any partisan or other advantage.
It is now time to make an effort, and it will be quite a considerable one, to meet other countries and put forward Canada's position which is to reinforce article XI.

February 19, 1992
Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns some very questionable practices of AECL, the federal Crown corporation in Saskatchewan.
Most notably, AECL has been distributing letters praising nuclear power to spectators at high school sports activities, purchasing ads in high school publications, and is now blatantly attempting to brainwash children by offering them free tickets to plays and chances to win bicycles if they accept AECL propaganda.
AECL receives $162 million annually from the federal government. I would like to ask the minister if he sees brainwashing children as an appropriate way of spending public money?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not accept brainwashing as being valid. I would just hope that the hon. member would start getting his facts straight.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the facts are quite clear. That is exactly what AECL is doing and presumably the minister is condoning that activity. It is time the minister stopped this activity and started a fair debate on this issue.
I have a further point with regard to AECL. It plans by its agreement, which the minister signed with the provincial government before the last election, to develop technology within Saskatchewan so that Saskatchewan could become the waste disposal site for Candu reactors across the world, placing in jeopardy Saskatchewan children, the children that the Prime Minister said he has fought so hard to help.
Will the minister now apologize to the people of Saskatchewan, apologize to Saskatchewan children for putting the financial viability of AECL above their interests?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I said in my first answer that I expect the hon. member to follow the facts of the issue. First of all, there is nothing in that agreement which says that Saskatchewan would become the dumping ground
for nuclear waste. That is patently false. He can say what he wants and take all the liberties he wants in opposition but what he said is untrue and he knows it.
Second, he should know that Saskatchewan is a province where approximately 1,100 jobs are related to the uranium industry. He can close those up. Go ahead do it, try it and then come back to this House and complain you do not have jobs.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. I think we would all agree in this House that the spirit of citizenship is a priority in Canada to be kindled and nurtured in every possible way. Several months ago we discussed the concept of promoting the rights and responsibilities of citizenship for all Canadians, as we do so well for new Canadians.
In this 125th year of our Confederation would it be possible, for example, to launch a program to present certificates of citizenship to all Canadian students who are leaving grade six public school levels, and would that not be a reasonable way to initiate a long-term program at tolerable cost?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very excellent idea and an exciting project that we have been studying very carefully. It is very important for us to do all we can to rejoice in our citizenship and recognize the proud achievements and accomplishments that we have carried forward together.
In the very near future I will be announcing a program that will certainly encompass the ideas that are reflected in the member's thoughts today.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, again given the urgency of this situation, I have given notice to the Prime Minister's office of my intention to ask this question. On Monday the Prime Minister undertook to look very carefully into the imminent deportation of a Polish couple and their seven-month old Canadian baby.
February 19, 1992

I ask the Prime Minister, has he personally reviewed this case and will he let this family stay in Canada?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has conveyed his interest and concern in this case to me. He has also forwarded to me the letter sent to him by the hon. member and he has instructed me to review this case fully to make sure that every aspect of it is considered in fairness. I am doing that. I am reviewing the case right now. I know that time is of the essence and I hope to be able to complete my review in the very near future and advise the hon. member as soon as I can.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister. I thank the minister for his answer, but again time is running out on little Agatha and her right to stay in Canada and be brought up where she was bom.
The deportation hearing is tomorrow. I ask the minister why no action has been taken yet to tell this family they can stay in Canada. Will some action be taken to ensure that the threat hanging over their heads is at least delayed.


Bernard Valcourt: The hon. member says there has been no action. I could pretend to review the case or really review it. The member has raised points which I have to fully consider. That is what I am doing.
I have indicated that as soon as I can complete this I shall advise her of the results.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
For the past several weeks, volunteer, private Canadian citizens, particularly in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, have collected over 200 tonnes of food and medicine to give to the people of the former republics of the Soviet Union, yet this government department
Oral Questions
refuses to provide any assistance in the transport of this very generous gift by individual Canadians.
I want to ask the minister why the government and her department are so indifferent to the generosity of Canadians. Will the minister not reconsider and have the Department of External Affairs help in the transport of this generous offer of Canadians to their counterparts in those poor republics?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have conveyed the fact that I think it is important that Canadians express their support for what the government is doing in the former Soviet republics.
We have been very active in providing assistance to the former Soviet republics. We have been doing it through multilateral international agencies for a reason-through agencies like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and so on-to ensure that it is the right kind of aid and that it goes to the right places with as little loss as possible through what we know is a very questionable distribution system.
We have encouraged Canadians who wish to participate to do the same thing through multilateral organizations. I certainly do commend people for their generosity, but we do think that in order to provide the best kind of aid we should stick with those international organizations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines issued by the minister specifically discourage Canadians from offering donations of goods or services. Not every Canadian has a big cheque book they can sign. Many want to express themselves through the donation of gifts and services.
Why is it possible for Canadian Armed Forces planes to airlift powdered milk from Europe, which was donated to republics in the former Soviet Union, but we cannot offer the same assistance and the same kind of aid provided by Canadians.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, any aid and any products for which we have provided transport are products that have been specifically requested or specifically identified as products that are desperately needed in particular areas of the republics. We have been very careful to manage this in such a way that the tax dollars of Canadians are being used to get the best value because we are giving the best possible assistance.

February 19, 1992
Oral Questions
I would encourage Canadians to participate in a way that is the most effective.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, followed by a single question from the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago the Davis Inlet Innu people were forcibly removed from their traditional homeland on the Labrador mainland to a remote island. After the move, promised improvements in the living standards never materialized and 25 years later the 500-member community has no running water, no fire services, inadequate housing and no sewage treatment.
The deplorable living conditions of the Davis Inlet people received national attention last week after a tragic fire took the lives of six young children.
My two-part question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is this. Has the minister now committed his department to relocating the Davis Inlet people back to the mainland of Labrador as soon as possible and to providing them with adequate housing and community facilities?
Second, has the minister agreed with the president of the Innu nation to do a detailed inquiry into the root causes of the social deterioration at the Davis Inlet community and to have the term-


Mr. Speaker:: I did ask the hon. member to put a single question, keeping in mind the time.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of this House share the deep regret and heartfelt sympathy for the loss of six children in a tragic fire early last Saturday morning at Davis Inlet in Labrador.
The relocation of the Innu to Davis Inlet on a small island, which the hon. member speaks of, was determined by the Government of Newfoundland at that time when the population of the community amounted to about 150 persons. Since that time there has been a significant growth in population. We agree that there is a need to examine the possibility of relocating that community to a more appropriate area, and I have made such an undertaking to the community.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister ought to be aware that last year the Government of Canada issued 100 factory freezer trawler licences to foreign nations to fish within Canada's 200-mile limit.
The Prime Minister ought to know, as I am sure the minister of fisheries knows, each of those particular licences represents a floating fish plant.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he would explain to people in my district and throughout the rest of Atlantic Canada the fairness of asking Canadians to stop fishing in their own waters and, on the other hand, allowing foreign nations to fish at will.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is simply another misstatement of the situation.
There is no foreign fishing vessel permitted to fish within the Canadian 200-mile economic zone unless all Canadians who are interested in the fishery or even not interested in the fishery have had a chance first to say they want the fish stocks or indicated they do not want the fish.
If we have stocks that are surplus and cannot use, such as the grenadier and others it is not economic for us to fish, then foreign countries have to be offered the opportunity to catch them. We offer that opportunity to countries that support us in NAFO, that play the game in conservation, that support us when we need their support, like the former U.S.S.R., Cuba and so on.
We do not offer them to any other country that is out there despoiling fish stocks like Spain and Portugal. We allow foreign vessels in if Canadians beg and plead with us to do it for the over the side sales. The fishermen can sell the fish they cannot otherwise sell. We also allow them in if Canadian processing plants need them to catch fish that we cannot catch and land them at Canadian plants where Canadian workers process them. They are the only things keeping Canso going and Burgeo going.
February 19, 1992

Now let us face up to it and be honest. There can be opposition but there can be honesty as well. Just face up to it. This is a sensible policy.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Lyn McLeod, member of the Legislative Assembly and Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to briefly clarify my answer of yesterday to a question from the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
In my response I indicated that the accident reports would not be made public and I would now like to be more specific.
The post accident safety review conducted by Transport Canada and referred to by the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan will not be released because of its confidentiality under the Access to Information Act. But the final accident report by the Saudi Arabian authorities will, of course, be a public report.


TRAVEL BY MPS
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and to Minister of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's Ottawa Citizen reports "Sponsored travel by MPs since 1988 Election". It reports that I took a free trip to Italy and I would like to correct that because it is not true. When I went to Italy I paid for my own trip. As a matter of fact, I sent you a letter on January 9, 1990 just to give you notice. I did not know if it was a good or bad thing to do, but I did mention I was going to Italy on a very special matter which was le dossier a I'ltalia. We lost our airline after 32 years. I went to Italy to help solve that problem, and finally after 26 months we did solve the problem.
I went to Italy and I paid for my ticket. I informed my office, the Assistant Deputy Registrar General of Canada,and the letter was sent to me on June 18, 1990 saying that I respected all the rules.

All I can say, is that when I went to Italy, I went to clear up a problem. Unlike some of my colleagues, I did not come back with a suitcase bulging with catalogues. I came back with 80 jobs for Montreal, and we were able to bring back the airline.
Routine Proceedings
On January 19 this year, there was an official departure from Montreal, and I was invited once again. I went to the airport to say hello and pose for the official photograph, but I did not get on the plane to drink champagne.
I wanted to make this quite clear, Mr. Speaker. The reporter did not even call me to check his information. My trip to Italy, like the 22 others I have made during the past 30 years, was paid for out of my own pocket.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of Legislative Committee F on Bill S-2, an act to implement conventions between Canada and Finland, Canada and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Canada and the United Mexican States for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion and a convention between Canada and the United Mexican States for the exchange of information with respect to taxes, without amendent.


HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status Women entitled Hepatitis B.
Your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PENSION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Pension Act (prisoners of war).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.

February 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Svend Johannes Robinson: The purpose of tis bill is to ensure that there is discretion in the case of Canada prisoners of
ward to award pensions and benefits to those individuals if they were imprisoned for fewer than 90 days. This matter was first brought to my attention by a constituent who was a prisoner of ward for 89 days and as a result of the very harsh and strict requirements in the present law was denied a pension. I would hope the House would agree there hsould be discretion to ensure therei s some flexibility in the case of those where were prisoners of ward for fewer than 90 days.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Robinson 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. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: It gives me great pleasure to stand today and introduce a petition on behalf of many of my constituents who are quite upset about the process of dealing with refugees who are trapped in the system, particularly those who are trapped in the backlog of the system. Those refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardship and their future is undecided as they await the slow process.
In light of the latest scenario of trying to deport a family to Poland along with their child, those refugees are-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member was getting into debate. The hon. member for South Shore.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by 216 residents of Shelburne County, Nova Scotia. These people feel that the rural and native housing program and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program have been very beneficial. They are concerned that in the current constitutional talks that these programs may be undermined.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, to support all housing programs presented by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am
pleased to rise to present a petition today signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa area. I note that the petition is on recycled paper. I am sure these petitioners would be delighted, since their petition deals with gasoline prices, if MMT were taken out of gasoline, and ethanol used to replace it to bum more cleanly. They are for the environment since they have clearly signed an environmentally-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if this is what the petition is talking about?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, I was just coming to that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will come to it very quickly.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to correct the injustice being done to Ottawa area motorists by excessively high gasoline prices in this region. I would hope that their petition would soon be answered by the government.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present six petitions containing approximately 1,275 signatures of citizens of Burlington, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Dundas, Mississauga, Oakville, Scarborough, Guelph, Kitchener, Toronto, and all over southwestern Ontario.
The petition urges the government to stiffen the penalties for violent crime and points in particular to the death of Miss Nina de Villiers who was brutally murdered on August 9, 1991. The petitioners ask the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to continue to review all legislation that deals with public safety and negotiate where necessary with the provincial authorities to ensure that the laws are amended to reflect the concerns expressed by the petitioners on public safety.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the country, in particular by a number of executive members, field workers, and staff workers of the Canadian Federation of Students.
They point out that in October 1985 the subcommittee on equality rights for the justice committee submitted a unanimous report to the House of Commons recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction. They point out that even though the government promised in 1986
February 19, 1992

to implement this recommendation no action has been taken on it since that time, despite the fact that a number of jurisdictions-including Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, and Nova Scotia-have included this protection.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to ensure the government act to immediately bring forward an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions which I will present very quickly. First is a petition from Franco-Manitobans.
It mentions the globalization of the economy, the constant evolution of Canada's economy, the 3 per cent administrative charge on student loans, the $485 million cut in transfer payments to universities and colleges, and of course universal access to post-secondary education, a principle that is very dear to all Canadians, and asks the government to review its policies and change its decisions as soon as possible.


Ron J. Duhamel: The second petition which I have the honour to present concerns the goods and services tax on reading materials. The petitioners point out that there has been no tax on these materials since the beginning of Confederation and point out that reading is a cornerstone of democracy, that productivity and literacy should not be taxed. They ask that this tax be removed, and I would concur.


Ron J. Duhamel: Finally, the petitioners have two other points. They point out that certain Canadians get more tax-free benefits when they have receipted child care. They feel that has limited choices.
They also point out that common law relationships enjoy certain tax benefits and tax concessions that married relationships do not. They would like to see this reversed. They would like to see it changed in a positive manner.
Routine Proceedings HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition along the same lines as the petition introduced by my friend for Burnaby- Kingsway dealing with the requirement and need to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As I said, the petition asks Parliament to ensure that the government and Parliament immediately present a legislative amendment to add sexual orientation to the prohibited grounds for discrimination.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to the House some duly signed petitions presented to me by my constituents who continue to oppose the goods and services tax.
They demand that the government go back to the drawing board and review all other options for tax reform in this country including the single tax.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition similar to the one presented by my colleague for Burnaby- Kingsway, signed by members of several communities in Canada: Edmonton, Vancouver, Windsor, and Saskatoon.
They call upon the government and Parliament to immediately bring forward an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination. They do so on the basis that in 1985 this House mandated the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs to look into the matter of equality and rights in Canada. In the same year a subcommittee indicated that sexual orientation should not be grounds for discrimination. The government itself accepted that report in 1986 but has not acted upon it.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, including some from the community of Thunder Bay which I have the honour to represent.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
The petitioners point out that the Government of Canada has failed to respond to a report produced in 1985 calling for the Human Rights Act to be amended to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
They call upon Parliament to ensure that the government and Parliament act to immediately bring forward an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-56. With this legislation the federal government intends to control government expenditures. The bill arises from the conclusions of a federal finance committee which in 1991 decided there should be some control of government spending.
I rise in the House today to speak to this bill because it is an absurd piece of legislation. After looking at this government bill, it becomes clear that the government does not really intend to control its spending. That is a serious matter because today spending is out of control. We are faced with a total debt of more than $420 billion, more than twice what our debt was when the Tory government came to power in 1984.
The bill proposes to set a 3 per cent spending limit on government expenditures. However, and this is the absurd part, if they fail to keep a 3 per cent limit on spending they will try to save on other items. If the minister decides for some reason to spend 15 per cent more than last year, which means 12 per cent more than would be allowed under this bill, the government can go to another department and make enough cuts in its programs to make up the difference. The problem is that there is no way to check whether the government actually made the cuts in other areas, which would justify proposed increases in another department. What we have here is an elaborate smoke screen, because there is no way of knowing how much the government has cut back on its spending.
There is another major drawback to this bill. Let us say that two years ago the government increased spending in certain departments by 15 per cent-as in my former example-to recover the difference of 12 per cent. There is a spending limit of 3 per cent per year, which means the government may spend up to 3 per cent but not more. Two years ago when the government was looking for ways to cut spending it adjusted its budget to correct the 12 per cent overspending. This is incredible! And we cannot check what the government did to make up the difference over a period of two years. It will be extremely difficult and extremely complicated, and I think it will be impossible to verify.
February 19, 1992

Now this government may be incompetent, and it may have betrayed its sacred trust, but it certainly is not stupid. This is a very smart bill. It can camouflage all kinds of expenditures and even provide for all kinds of spending up till the next election, because if we are talking about two years, it means that two years from now. In fact, we know perfectly well the government will call an election a year and a half from now, at the latest.
This bill is an excellent opportunity for the government to spend money left and right, to give political handouts, and to create other Hibernias with the billions of dollars it will spend in it attempt to buy another election.
Although Bill C-56 seems intended to control spending, the real story is quite different. The government is not really trying to control spending; it is mostly trying to hide what it spends until the next election, so that it can buy the next election. I can tell you that will not work because the people, the voters, know that it is a sham, that this government is unable to cut its spending. That is clear.
We can talk about cuts the government has made to date, but do not look for statistics or figures. Thke the presentation made to the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee by the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, which talked about the federal government wasting $15 billion a year because of overlapping provincial and federal jurisdiction. Fifteen billion a year, Madam Speaker, is a lot of money. This bill does not deal with that at all.
Neither does this bill deal with the GST. I must tell you that 96 per cent of the population oppose the GST, and rightly so. Why? Because it is a bad tax at the wrong time. It is not visible, despite what the federal government promised us. It is a hidden tax. Worse than that, as the late journalist Marjorie Nichols wrote in an excellent report in which she had all the figures on the GST, this tax produced about $18 or $19 billion. She said that was not right because it cost between $18 and $19 billion to set up and administer this whole system. In other words, they spent $18 or $19 billion to make $18 or $19 billion. We were no further ahead than before the GST came into effect. [DOT]
Madam Speaker, I can tell you right away about five consequences of this GST First, the price of consumer
Government Orders
goods has risen about 2.6 per cent. Retail sales for all retailers, small and large, are off from 5.3 to 5.6 per cent in Canada. Exports to the United States have declined by
2.9	per cent while imports to Canada have increased 5 per cent. The icing on the cake, Madam Speaker, is that Canadians, frustrated with the GST, do up to 10 per cent of their shopping for consumer goods across the border. That amounts to nearly $2.5 billion a year.
Madam Speaker, the government is not serious with this Bill C-56. We urgently need to cut the GST now. The federal government should also cut its spending because people in Quebec and elsewhere are fed up with seeing you throw money out the window.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to join this debate on Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures.
Immediately, even with the title of the bill, we can see an admission on the part of this government that it has been unable to manage our fiscal and monetary policies. It is clear that this bill-excuse me, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize if the hon. member was disturbed. I was simply trying to answer a question which was asked by another member and I was using my fingers. I apologize and I will make sure that the time is added at the end of the hon. member's interruption.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying, this bill is an admission of guilt on the part of this government that over the last few years it has failed to govern, that it has failed Canadians. Why do we say that? If we start from the document, the proposed spending control act, produced by the Standing Committee on Finance last November, a committee of this House that was controlled by the majority government members, we notice immediately that even in this proposed bill, some of the excellent recommendations, and I will only mention two, that the committee proposed are not included. I refer to the definition of emergency, for example. The use of this provision must be clarified and must be subject to parliamentary approval. Without that clarification and clear delineation, I question the forthrightness of this government.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
Moreover, a second proposal by this committee, that a strict definition of good management initiatives should be included in this proposed act, is missing from this piece of legislation.
Right from the beginning I questioned the forthrightness of this government and why this bill was being introduced. Page 5 of the bill, clause 4(1) states:
The President of the Treasury Board may certify that a proposed
increase in the expenditures for a specific program for a controlled
fiscal year is justified by reason of good management-
Does that mean that the budget may be spent even if it does not fulfil good management? Does it mean that good management ought to be a criterion only when we have to increase the expenditure over the controlled fiscal proposal that is being made in this bill?
Let me tell you why there is a basis to believe that. Good management is not the intent of this government. I will cite a few of the facts and figures available to me at this point. From 1984 to 1990, according to the Auditor General's report, about $23 billion has been mismanaged and wasted by this government.
Let me cite a few recent examples. In 1988 a payment to a shipbuilder in advance of need resulted in the shipbuilder investing in certain securities for a loss of $4.25 million in interest payments and an estimated further loss of $1.8 million by the time of completion.
Second, in the same year it took Revenue Canada until May 27 to deposit all taxes paid, resulting in a loss of $3.4 million. This was improved later but by no means corrected.
Third, $14.3 million was spent for a bypass highway and $2.1 million was spent between 1985 and 1987 to build two bridges unrelated to offshore oil and gas and not yet connected to any road.
The International Centre for Human Rights, which is an institution I support, was established in September 1988. A cheque for $1 million was paid to the centre even though there was no one available to receive it since no employees had been hired as of July 31, 1989.
In 1990, CIDA provided $2.3 million to finance a coal washing plant in Pakistan which had achieved less than 1 per cent of capacity over 10 years. No feasibility study was completed when the project was approved.
We would like to fund useful projects. We would like to fund good initiatives, but it has to be done through proper and good management. Since 1984 who has had control over government expenditures? The answer is clear: this government. Who has doubled the national debt? The answer is clear: this government.
When you look at this so-called spending control bill, it is clear that this is a sham, a cosmetic make-up, and a camouflage, to say the least. Really, what is at issue here is not to stop spending arbitrarily but to institute good management and avoid waste and extravagance.
Earlier today in this House we heard of the many realities facing Canadians. We have 1.6 million Canadians unemployed and there are no jobs to be found. We have over 2 million on welfare and they want to work. We have seniors who remain unemployed and poor, as indicated recently by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is a reality.
We also have the reality that over the last many years under this government taxes have been increased several hundredfold. We also have the reality that the middle class has continued to be squeezed.
Of course I have alluded to the reality of waste, mismanagement and the scandals of this government. We have equally one reality and it is that this government has cut essential, not frivolous, cash transfer payments to the provinces. They are essential because these are payments for education of our youth and for the health of all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, if you can tell me that this government can justify letting Canadians be ill and unattended under the so-called umbrella of controlled spending, that we will not invest in our youth because we have to control spending, then I tell this government that it does not know how to manage. My leader has indicated five principles that will guide the future Liberal government. We would ensure a truly fiscally responsible government that will create an industrial strength for Canada, ensure a fair tax system, develop comprehensive and creative adjustment policies, and thereby ensure a balanced economic growth. When that happens, we can assure Canadians we will restore Canada's national purpose, to serve Canadians.
February 19, 1992

I believe, and I am sure you and the government will believe with me, that Canadians would rather be working than on welfare. They would rather be paid for jobs than handed unemployment insurance cheques. They would rather be able to buy clothes for their children and bread for the table than succumb to deprivation and hunger. They would rather pay their utility bills, rents, and mortgages than be frozen in their homes or evicted from them. The issue before us is not this bill, camouflaged with cosmetic make-up in preparation for an election, telling Canadians that this government wants to be serious. It has never been serious at all.
What we need is sound public policy and that means the government must exercise discretion and not delude Canadians as to its purpose. It must be sensitive to the needs of Canadians and not create a sham experiment with this bill. It must be caring and not arbitrarily control expenditures. This bill hides incompetence, extravagance, and insensitivity on the part of this government, and is an, attempt once more to delude Canadians. I say that Canadians have learned. In conclusion, I would not like this government to find an excuse to renege on its moral and financial commitment to the provinces and to Canadians with this bill.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate on the motion by the Minister of Finance for second reading and referral to Legislative Committee E of Bill C-56, the Spending Control Act.
I must tell you that I have trouble understanding all the reasoning behind such a bill. Until today I thought that the government had full authority to run the country using the budget, the budget estimates, and all the other means at its disposal to reduce and control spending. I wonder why such a bill is necessary, especially at this time.
Canadians are cynical about politicians, and I think that the debate in this House on this bill at this time is something of a joke. I think that the time has come for
Government Orders
the government, if it is serious and responsible, to present the nation's financial situation to the people. We must change our accounting rules. The Income Tkx Act requires all Canadians to report their financial activities to the government on an accrual basis, but the government continues to run the country on a cash basis; that is, it subtracts expenditures from receipts to come up with a deficit that is added to the total debt. We do not have a balance sheet showing our assets and liabilities. As soon as a project is financed and paid for, it is shown as an expense in that year. Once the project is complete we do not have a record of costs to show exactly what major capital projects the government has carried out across the country, for example airports or any other large-scale capital project.
If we had a better perception, a balance sheet of all these activities, I think it would be easier for Canadians to understand what the government does with the money it collects in taxes and perhaps there would be a better understanding of our situation, because Canadians are very concerned now about the deficit, about the debt that has doubled in seven years. They wonder how this can be, since taxes have increased enormously at the same time. This morning we read in the papers about the result of a study showing that between 1986 and 1990, taxes on family income rose by more than 4 per cent, which is huge. Every weekend when we go to our ridings, Canadians tell us enough is enough. They have had it. They do not want to be taxed any more.
I do not know what is in the budget that will be tabled next week. The Minister of Finance knows and will tell us on February 25. But I think it is time to have a responsible accounting system so that we can report to our people who pay the taxes and they can know what is done with their money. Maybe all together-governments, elected officials, public servants-we could be more accountable to the citizenry in a way that every year they would have a realistic statement of the situation that they could understand.
I remember the previous Parliament from 1984 to 1988. At one point the Minister of Finance was not able to meet his deficit target. To increase his revenues, he announced to us in early January that deductions at

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
source which were paid once a month, before the 15th of the following month, would from then on have to be paid twice a month. This enabled him to receive two more deductions at source by the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and he thus came up with $2 billion more to meet his budget forecasts. In actual fact nothing changed because the $2 billion gained in that fiscal year did not appear in the next fiscal year. All he did was shift the amount around.
We have the same problem with the freeze that the government has imposed on all departments, ministers, agencies, and Crown corporations until March 31 on account of the deficit. In most cases, the expense will be postponed until April 1. That is not how we should administer our affairs. I wonder why a government would need a bill to control its spending. Why? It is as if I went to see a lawyer or a notary to draw up a contract stipulating that I could not spend more than $100 a week. Why would I need such a contract? This shows that Canadians have reason to be cynical about us. The government has the power; of course it can cut spending. It is the government's prerogative. If it cannot do it, it should let someone else take over.
I remember that the former Auditor General worked with the Auditor General of the United States on a proposed financial statement to change the system, that is, the way we report to the people on the activities of the Government of Canada. That was in 1985, when I was a member of the public accounts committee. With the Auditor General of Canada, we even met the Auditor General of the United States when we went to Washington to discuss the system. It is now 1992, and nothing has changed. The government has tabled a bill which I think is useless, so useless that it is hard to find reasons why I will vote against the bill. It is a big nothing, a bill that should never have been tabled. How can anyone vote in favour of a bill that does not do a thing? Today I think we are wasting our time and taxpayers' money by debating a government bill to legislate spending limits.
I see here in the House the former President of the Treasury Board. He had the power, and his successor has the power now, to cut spending. They do not need a bill to control expenditures. What they need is the political will and the courage to do so. What is the point of this
bill? It will just encourage Canadians to be even more cynical about politicians, because we are wasting time trying to give the impression we want to control spending. We do not need this bill.
I am sorry to say so, but the government is incompetent. I see the Minister of Immigration who is laughing. It was his department, Madam Speaker, that appointed commissioners-I am not sure of their exact title-to control refugee claims. They earn a salary of about $92,000, and to do what? We could have dealt with these problems differently. It would have cost very little and we would have this tremendous backlog of people who have been waiting for two or three years and meanwhile have started a family here and are obliged. Today we have people who do not know from one day to the next whether they will have to go back to their country of origin or will be allowed to remain in Canada.
We should not spend time debating a bill that will not solve a thing. After all the government has the power, as it did before and will have in the future, to spend or not to spend. It just takes enough political will to decide. I hope the minister of immigration will be able to help reduce spending and will look at the whole refugee system, because despite the millions of dollars that have been spent we still have the same problem we had in 1985-86 when the legislation was passed.
Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up. I wish to thank you for your patience.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I would just like to participate for a few minutes in the closing portions of this part of the House's consideration of this bill.
The bill deals with the government's proposals for so-called ceilings and restraints on government spending.
I would like to suggest, as others have done, that the bill is simply window-dressing. It is government electioneering a year and one-half ahead of a likely election.
The bill does not come to the heart of the problem. I would like to illustrate that by looking at two points.
Clearly the issue of government spending is an important one for all Canadians who pay taxes. We want to see that our taxes are well spent and efficiently spent.
February 19, 1992

Therefore, the government needs constantly to be managing the Public Service and the government services as efficiently and effectively as it can.
To that extent there exists Treasury Board, Auditor General, and committees of Parliament designed to keep an eye on public spending.
My own personal experience is that in many respects most government departments operate veiy efficiently and very well.
Clearly, in anything the size of the federal government, there is room for improvement and there constantly can be more. This bill really does not address that issue. It is window-dressing.
The bill fails to address the real problem in terms of the government's pushing of public spending as an issue in its response to the Reform Party agenda on this issue.
Government spending should properly be understood in most cases to be spending on needed public services. The issue of so-called overspending by government is invariably a right-wing Conservative agenda designed to reduce, as far as possible, the public sector in this country at the expense of the private sector. We have seen over and over again, in terms of tax policy, how successive Liberal and Conservative governments have begun the shift from the corporate sector to individuals, to lighten the burden on those who can most afford to pay and pass the burden on to those who cannot. They also do it by constantly cutting back on public services of various kinds. They once said you do not need a bake sale to buy a tank or a submarine. But you do have to have bake sales for so many public services in this country. It is a question of priorities, and this government and its predecessor Liberal government, have constantly given the social sector in this country the most difficult time squeezing out any kind of money at all for very needed social services, often at the long-run expense to the public treasury.
Over and over again those who look at the issue of crime prevention have come up with the point that if money was spent at the beginning to prevent crime you would not have to spend so much on penitentiaries. That same analogy could be used on all kinds of public expenditures in this country.
Government Orders
As the public considers this bill it is important for it to understand the underlying hypocrisy of the government's position in suggesting that it is promoting control of public spending, when in fact over and over again it fails to put a reasonable priority on public spending and to rein in unnecessary and valueless private spending.
In the debate we constantly hear the attack on public spending and yet if we look at over-spending around our society, we see that over and over again there is unnecessary private consumption compared to the requirements of so many in our country and around the world.
Let me complete my contribution by focusing the House's attention on one other area. This government and its predecessors have failed to challenge the very assumptions of their own policies. While the government looks in the comer to try to save a nickel, it is still spending billions of dollars over here without challenging the assumptions of that spending. I refer in particular to spending in the area of defence.
For over 40 years both the Liberal and Conservative governments of Canada have spent billions and billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars in maintaining forces in Europe. Now in the early days those expenditures were entirely necessary and valuable and were supported on all sides of the House. But as early as the sixties the government and the defence people had come to the conclusion that spending was no longer necessary for military or defence purposes. It is now well recorded that the government of the day seriously proposed withdrawing our Canadian forces from Europe back in the early seventies, but backed off because the American government did not want them to.
That issue has come up over and over again, but as early as the 1980s and certainly by 1985, according to all intelligence reports, it was very clear that if there had ever been a Soviet threat to western Europe that threat was withdrawn and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had changed its defence strategy into a defensive one. That was clearly documented and recorded by at least 1985. There is a lot of writing in the field that suggests there never was such a threat, but clearly by 1985 that was established. By 1988 and 1989 there could be no more doubt about it whatever; the threat had disappeared.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
Yet this government continued to spend over a billion dollars a year in maintaining Canadian forces in Europe. That assumption was never challenged by the government. Only last year did the government finally make a decision to make a significant cut in our forces in Europe, and that cut is not to take effect until 1994 and 1995.
Even so, the government persists in maintaining 1,100 troops in Europe beyond 1995. The defence committee was recently in Europe and the evidence we received from our own military people was that 1,100 troops could not provide any useful, constructive military presence in Europe. Eleven hundred is simply a meaningless number.
They have no support, no logistics. There is no place for them. There is no strategy for them and they will obviously have no military role. Yet, the government even now persists in spending the taxpayers' money in that way.
I suggest that the government should realize that the real overspending is in its own programs and its failure to critically analyze the assumptions that underlie its policy. Its Pavlovian reaction to anything the Americans say should happen and its support of NATO over recent years, despite the fact that circumstances have clearly changed, suggest that this government's priorities are all wrong.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate briefly in the debate on Bill C-56.
I listened with great care to my hon. friend from Victoria. It seems to me that the NDP talking about spending control has all the credibility of an arsonist talking about fire control. I nevertheless listened with great interest to his remarks.
I think this spending control act is very important. It is not only a constriction on government spending but is a very important signal to the people of Canada that this government is serious about bringing the finances of this nation, and hence the economy of this nation, under control.
This act was part of the plan for economic recovery enunciated in the 1991 budget. It is there to make sure
that spending is restrained and that the budget announced annual program spending would be limited by law.
Last summer, on the day the Minister of Finance announced this program, I had the privilege of representing him at a meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, attended by 80 to 100 business people, the people who are involved in creating employment in this country, small business people for the most part.
They were very pleased to see that the government was putting its money where its mouth is, that it was going to put the constraints on itself in such a way that it was not just up to the government to maybe do what it says or maybe not.
We will do what we say. We have done what we have said. Now we are legislating it so that there will be no doubt whatsoever where this government stands.
That legislation was presented in draft form on that day in July. It was then, in this draft version, brought forward to the House of Commons finance committee for review in the hope that it might be able to make some improvements to the bill. Indeed, the bill now before Parliament reflects that review. The committee tightened and reviewed the legislation.
I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that Canadians are unequivocally telling governments to keep spending under control. My friends in the NDP might remind their colleagues in Ontario of that. This new law provides assurance that higher taxes cannot be used to pay for higher spending. New programs will have to be funded within the total legislated ceiling.
There have been suggestions by some members in this debate that the spending limits in this bill are different than the ones announced by the minister. I want to assure the House that is not the case. The minister accepted the advice of the Standing Committee on Finance.
It recommended that we restrict the number of self-financing programs and do not exclude any incremental funding for the self-financing programs, incremental funding to what was included in the February 1991 budget, but exclude all spending related to those self-financing programs. This has been done.
The limited number of self-financing programs has been reduced from 11 to four: Unemployment Insurance programs, the Crop Reinsurance Program, the Agricul-
February 19, 1992

tural Stabilization Account and the Gross Revenue Insurance Program.
By excluding the February 1991 budget projections for these programs from total program spending subject to the spending limits we have reduced the over-all limits. We have not increased the limits. These revisions do not change the substance of the draft legislation. The same level of program spending is being controlled now as before. In addition, the new provision to offset any overspending through reductions over the next two fiscal years makes this bill even tighter than the previous one.
Some programs were exempted simply because it did not make sense to the government to put spending control limits on things that could not really be controlled: things like interest on the national debt; urgent and critical emergencies to which the government had to respond but for which it could not properly budget; self-financing programs such as UI and the farm income protection act; and incremental funding for management initiatives that in fact are put in place to reduce the deficit.
Therefore, the government is putting itself on the line with this bill. If spending exceeds the limit in any one year the amount of overspending must be made up through cuts in following years.
The Minister of Finance is not allowed to present a budget that is inconsistent with this act. The annual public accounts will contain a statement by the Minister of Finance indicating compliance with this act and the Auditor General will report to Parliament on whether or not the act has been complied with.
Indeed, the Minister of Finance will be required in the 1994 budget to recommend whether or not the act should be extended beyond the end of 1995-96 fiscal year.
There is a very clear signal going out to Canadians with his piece of legislation: This government is serious about spending control and this government intends to make the most effective use of every tax dollar raised for the benefit of the taxpayers.
Government Orders
In conclusion, I would like to say that there have been discussions with the various representatives of the parties. I believe you will find that I have unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the motion for the second reading of Bill C-56, an Act
respecting the control of government expenditures be amended by
having the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Finance
rather than Legislative Committee E.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to put the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that Bill C-56 will be referred to the finance committee, because the latter has already examined this issue and even travelled to the United States to see how things work down there. You will remember that the committee tabled in this House a report to which I will refer in my comments.
One must seriously question if it is really necessary for a government in a British parliamentary system to propose in this House a measure to control public spendings. One wonders, or at least takes a critical view of the proposal and is somewhat sceptical.
You may ask yourself whether the Conservative government is trying to make Canadians believe that it manages the affairs of the country in a sound manner. It is obviously not the case because we have been in a terrible recession for over two years, we have a great number of Canadian workers who are unemployed. We have had high interest rates that have caused tremendous problems. On top of that recession, the government brought in some 33 new taxes. The last one was the GST which is among consumers the source of tremendous problems both at the family and regional levels.
The present government bragged, when it was elected in 1984, that it would put order in the financial affairs and the administration of the country. If this were already the government's stated goal in 1984, a goal which it repeated on numerous occasions, I wonder why it did not come up four, five or six years ago with a bill that would have put before Canadians the measures proposed in Bill C-56. Why did the government wait for

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
so long? Why did the government hesitate until almost the end of its mandate to present a bill which, in my opinion is not very clear and has no policy statement telling us where we are going with this legislation. Therefore, it will be very difficult to interpret this bill, and the wording of some of its sections leaves something to be desired.
That is the reason why I said earlier that I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Finance will be able to look at this bill, because I trust those people. With the approach that they will take, the members of the Committee will be able to examine the proposal with an open mind and possibly come back to us with proposals for amendments.
It is easy to table this bill because all those who know the workings of a parliamentary system are well aware that we have here a government, with a Prime Minister and a cabinet elected by the people, which has the power to do exactly what Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government's expenditures, allows them to do. The system is built like that. It is not an American system; it is not the Congress. It is a system based on a parliamentary majority where the government is empowered, and even has the right, to limit expenditures or to inform the Canadian population of the reasons it may want to bring in some budgetary restraints.
In the United States the legislative power and the administration are rather clearly separated. There have been problems. On occasion, it has been necessary to use legislation to solve conflicts; I am thinking of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act and the one that came after, the Budget Enforcement Act, on the implementation of budgetary measures. The Americans wanted to solve a dispute between the administration of the country on the one hand, which is for the most part controlled by non-elected people appointed by the President and the legislative power on the other hand, which is controlled by elected people. Such pieces of legislation were necessary to solve the problem. But it is not our problem in Canada and I wonder why this government must force upon us a measure which is almost American and which, according to me Madam Speaker, is irrelevant in a Canadian environment.
Let me refer to the report prepared by the finance committee after a visit to Washington during its study of the government working paper before the tabling of this bill; I read from paragraph 35.
Budget control legislation is a distinctly American approach to problems arising in a quite unique legislative environment. Just because the American system might need such controls does not imply that the Canadian parliamentary system would necessarily benefit from the same approach, despite the fact that both countries face similar fiscal problems.
In other words, the American solution is not necessarily the good one for Canada. I don't understand why we are losing our time studying a bill which is useless since, in our British parliamentary system, government can do exactly what is suggested in Bill C-56.
We only have to recall for example that not so long ago the Minister of Finance announced that it would be impossible to respect, presented, last year's estimates. There will be a 1.5 billion shortfall. The minister did not have to consult the House or anybody else, before making the decision to announce this shortfall, this accumulated deficit. No, he had the right to do it and he did.
The Minister of Finance has decided to freeze all discretionary expenditures until March 31, a saving of $200 million apparently. Did he come and explain to the House that he was doing this to comply with a bill introduced to control government expenditures? Not at all. He decided on his own authority, probably after consulting with cabinet, that he was going to do that. So they did. They did not need a law to do it. They had the power to do so.
If government is serious about controlling its expenditures, we should know what is really in its mind. It should tell us why it is introducing a bill such as this one. I do not understand it. I have read it. I have gone over it and found things that are absolutely unacceptable. I shall come to that immediately because I am running out of time.
Section 8 of the bill says, and I will quote because it is relevant to the annual report the Auditor General of Canada is about to table in this House. It actually creates the obligation for him to do certain things. Here is what section 8 says, and I will tell you my concern as part of my comments:
February 19, 1992

8. In reporting to Parliament in respect of the accounts of the government for a controlled fiscal year, the Auditor General of Canada shall express an opinion as to
(a)	whether this Act has been complied with in respect of that year; and
(b)	whether the statement referred to in subsection 6(1) fairly presents information in accordance with stated government accounting policies.
From this wording it is obvious that this whole thing is pretty unclear. The Auditor General will express an opinion on the government's accounting methods, but this provision does not provide for what we call a continuity factor. Who can give the Auditor General the assurance that the accounting methods used that year are at least the same from one year to the next? Nobody.
We compare bananas, cucumbers, carrots, and tomatoes. The same problem comes up every year with one exception and that was last year or the one before that when the Auditor General did not comment on or express reservations about the government's accounting procedures. It is the job of the Auditor General to come out every year and say that the government does not keep its books in accordance with recognized accounting methods widely used by experts in the industry, in the private sector as well as in the public sector, by governments. Something about continuity should be included in section 8 to ensure we are talking about the same thing.

It says here; "whether the statement referred to in subsection 6.(1) fairly presents information in accordance with stated government accounting policies".
We have had disagreements before between the public accounts committee and the government on the accounting methods that are used. This year it used $2 billion to reduce its deficit. We are not saying that it was correct or incorrect. We are just saying we have great difficulty understanding the facts as they are given to us in politics and given to the people of Canada and assessing those facts in a credible manner so we understand where we are going.
Government Orders
This government is doing things which are not correct in terms of accounting procedures and practices. It should correct them and that should be an amendment to this bill. Article 8 would see a continuity factor put into this and that the accounting methods used are at least the same from one year to the next.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I am happy today to be able to contribute to this debate on Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures.
I am prompted to rise to my feet today because of the simple fact that I believe Canadians are being led down the garden path, so to speak, by the government on this bill. There is no doubt throughout my constituency and in other parts of Canada as well that Canadians are frustrated, angry, and cynical. All these emotions are aimed at the present government and stem from the fact that their income security, personal security about the future, and confidence in the future of Canada have reached an all-time low.
The people of Canada I have talked to in my constituency and elsewhere have indicated a very strong desire to see something happen that will give them confidence in the future. They want confidence to believe what governments tell them. We now have a population that is very cynical about the way governments operate. They do not want to believe the things governments say to them. They have been given every reason not to believe the things they have been told. Frustration, anger, and cynicism flow out of individuals whenever they are together in coffee shops and in other places where people gather to discuss matters of interest and concern to them.
This bill talks about controlling government expenditures. In fact, that is something that many people in my constituency talk about. They talk about the government controlling expenditures because they see the media reports about the government spending money on things that have no relationship whatsoever to the ability of the individual within my constituency and elsewhere to live a better life, to have a stronger quality of life. They see the government spending money in ways that are not directly affecting them personally, when they are losing their farms, their jobs, and the opportunity to send their children to school. They are losing control of their own

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
lives. It is that loss of individual control that has led to directing those energies against the government.
Obviously, as I read it, this bill is an attempt to convince the Canadian population this government is serious about taking actions that will not cause them any more difficulties. There is an awful lot more at stake here. When we talk about the ability of governments to give the population of the country a quality of life and a confidence in their future, there is more to it than simply controlling government expenditures. There are two sides to every coin and governments can raise money and they can spend money. If they control spending it is one thing; if they allow revenues to disappear that is another matter. I could elaborate to some degree about the way this government has allowed revenues to slip away and how it has taken other revenues out of the economy, the GST for example, that could be utilized for other purposes and applied them to its own purposes within government.
The hon. member who spoke earlier from the government's side, from Nova Scotia, talked about New Democrats as being big spenders. I think we have to look at history to be able to understand what has happened in this country with spending.
We recall that Tommy Douglas was a sound and strong premier in the province of Saskatchewan. He inherited a very large debt and managed a government that left office without a debt in the province of Saskatchewan. Allan Blakeney, another New Democratic Party premier, managed the province of Saskatchewan for 11 years with 11 straight balanced budgets. When he left office in 1982, the province of Saskatchewan had a surplus of close to $200 million at a time when the economy was strong and continued to remain strong.
For nine subsequent years the Conservative government in the province of Saskatchewan managed to take that surplus through some good times and later some poor times and turned it into an almost $5 billion debt in a province where the annual revenues add up to less than $5 billion. In fact, the revenues available to the province of Saskatchewan equal just $4.5 billion. Obviously a $5 billion debt is beyond the ability of the people of that province to finance adequately.
In this last year we have seen the people of the provinces of Canada turn to the New Democratic Party to get them out of messes that have been created by others. As I mentioned, in the province of Saskatchewan the people left a mismanaged economy, a debt created by the Conservatives, and turned to the New Democrats to get them out of the mess.
In Ontario, the people, frustrated by Liberal deficit, turned to the NDP to manage that province properly.
In British Columbia, the people turned away from a Social Credit managed government and a Social Credit developed deficit and asked the New Democratic Party to clean up the mess.
I think that it will not be too long in the future that the fiscal mess created by this government will also be one that the people ask the New Democratic Party to clean up. I have every confidence that the New Democratic Party will be able to solve many of the problems that have been created by the present government.
When we talk about specific priorities, there is one in my own constituency that I have to talk about one more time. I have raised it in this House on numerous occasions. It is one which I have to raise again under this bill. It is the northern tax allowance program. This program recognized the inability of people who lived in northern and remote communities to have the same access to government services and resources that people in the more urban communities had access to.
In my own constituency a large number of people have asked for and received in the past the northern tax benefit. In some of those communities they received it for one year and then had it taken away from them by this government, after being told that they qualified and made the applications, people in the rural municipality of Beaver River, the rural municipality of Loon Lake, the towns of Loon Lake and Makwa.
A very unfair thing has happened to the people in those communities, people who deserve to have a benefit because of their so-called isolation from the other parts of Canada.
We recognize that everyone in Canada pays taxes. Anyone who has an income in this country above a certain level will pay taxes. We recognize that in return for those taxes the government provides a certain amount of service and a certain expectation about service. The people in communities such as Beaver River, et cetera, have an expectation about government services that can be supplied to them. They have recog-
February 19, 1992

nized that because they do not have the same access to those programs that people in Saskatoon and Regina have the government has an obligation not to charge the same tax that is charged to the people in Saskatoon and Regina.
What the northern tax program did was provide some of that funding to those people in recognition of the fact that they were not as close to the services and to the quality of life that governments can provide. Mind you, they do have access to many government services and that is why they continue to pay the taxes they do.
No one is saying that they should not be paying taxes, but there has to be recognition that the taxes that are paid by northern residents should be somewhat less than are paid by other residents of Canada.
I am asking for a fair program to be instituted once again by this government, a fair program that understands and recognizes the needs of the people in these communities. At no time does a program which is going to deal with expenditures and not revenues deal with the matters affecting the constituents who live inside the boundaries of my constituency. These are people who are frustrated, angry, and cynical about the actions of this government. They have every reason to remain so as long as this government continues to take steps that do not deal with the problems directly affecting them. Farmers see the government providing funds to them, but the funding is inadequate because they continue to lose their farms and move off their farms into larger communities.
While this bill is attempting to address matters of concern to people of Canada it is missing the point entirely. If this government were serious about dealing with the fiscal problems, it would deal with the revenue side and it would deal with the other problems Canadians are experiencing.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-56 respecting the control of government expenditures. As a member of the House of Commons finance committee I spent many hours with other members of the committee hearing testimony concerning this bill when it was in the form of proposed legislation. Our committee went to Washington in a very worth-while endeavour to
Government Orders
examine the experience the United States has had with spending control legislation.
The work of that committee on this proposed legislation was an example of how parliamentarians can work together in a very non-partisan way, despite the differences among us on the fundamental principle of whether such a bill should be enacted in the Canadian parliamentary system. We studied how it worked in the United States under their system and we looked very carefully at the proposals before us in coming up with a set of unanimous recommendations on how the bill could be made to work better in Canada.
I want to emphasize, particularly for those watching, that this report I am referring to was not a Liberal Party report or a New Democratic Party report but a report of the House of Commons finance committee unanimously agreed to by all members of that committee, a majority of which were from the Conservative Party. Despite the fact that an all-party committee made unanimous recommendations on this report the government chose to adopt very few of them, and none of the most important ones.
First, I would like to express my concerns about whether this has any place at all in a parliamentary system. This is where we ran into the contradictions between our system and the U.S. system. Let it be understood that similar legislation in the United States, although it may have a place in its congressional system, has not worked.
The original attempt at deficit control legislation in the United States, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, projected a balanced budget for the current fiscal year. The President recently brought down his proposed budget for the coming year and it projects a U.S. budgetary deficit of $399 billion for one year alone. That figure is just a little bit shy of what our total accumulated debt is and somewhat more than 10 times our projected deficit at the federal level in Canada.
If spending control legislation works the United States is not an example of it because it has failed to work there. Experts we met in Washington described the most recent version of it, the spending control act of 1990, as the incumbent re-election act. They regarded it very cynically as merely a means to take the pressure off incumbents by allowing them to go home to their districts in their system and say: "Sorry, we can't get you the new spending project you're looking for because of

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
the spending control act". Nevertheless, the deficit in the United States continues to mount.
So we in our committee first of all acknowledged that the debt that the Government of Canada faces is a significant problem, and there was all-party agreement on that.
What we said was that what needs to be attempted is to achieve an objective of reducing our debt as a ratio of our national income.
Focusing merely on the size of the deficit is really quite misleading. It is like any family that needs to be concerned about the level of their household debt; it is only a problem if their income is insufficient to pay their debts as they become due. And so the committee focused on that point.
On the assumption that the government was intent on bringing this legislation in, which clearly was quite accurate an assumption, we then looked at how the legislation could be improved.
The first point we focused on was the fact that there cannot be an attempt to achieve a reduction in the debt as a ratio of our national income if only government spending is looked at. Instead, one has to look not only at spending, but also at revenue.
This proposed bill has a loophole that you could drive a truck through. This bill permits the government at any time to reduce taxes, reduce the amount of revenue that it brings in, even on the eve of an election without in any way infringing the provisions of the Act.
At least in the U.S. system any proposed tax reduction that any member of Congress wants to make must be offset by a reduction in spending somewhere else in the plan.
This government has brought forward a bill that enables it, just before the next election campaign, to introduce spending cuts without in any way affecting this proposed Bill C-56.
Our committee unanimously recommended that tax expenditures be included in the control plan.
The second thing we suggested is that Parliament should be able to suspend this bill in the event of an economic downturn upon the presentation to Parliament of a report by the Minister of Finance indicating that a downturn or recession is about to occur.
In other words, if things are going really badly in the economy it may well be necessary to increase spending for a short term in order to respond to that. All that we suggested, again unanimously, was that Parliament be consulted and enabled to lift the provisions of the act.
Another recommendation we made was that this Act be tightened. One of the things that we suggested-I know I am running out of time, but I want this to be clearly understood-we suggested that cash transfers to the provinces be removed from the base which this act controls.
Now let me explain the implications of that. This bill provides for certain controls on total government spending. Included in those amounts being spent is the amount that is transferred to provincial governments under programs for the federal assistance in post-secondary education and health.
Over the past few years we have had experience of governments reducing the amount of these transfer payments, and that has been very controversial in the House of Commons.
By leaving transfer payments in the spending control base, the government can increase spending in other areas while reducing transfer payments to the provinces and still meet the requirements of the spending control act.
In other words, the government could fail to address its underlying deficit problem by transferring the problem to the provinces by cutting back what is available to them under the EPF arrangements and still not have offended Bill C-56. This to us constituted a very important loophole. There are many other loopholes. We discussed some of them with the Auditor General and his staff when he appeared.
February 19, 1992

Let me give one further example to indicate why I have concerns about controlled spending for five years. The effect of it is only to control spending some time after the Auditor General's report for a previous year is received. In the last years of the controlled spending program a report will necessarily be received too late for anything to be done because it will be outside the statutory period.
My reaction to this bill is that it may have good intent but is of questionable pertinence to the parliamentary system and so riddled with loopholes as to be laughable even to those who would want to support it.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-56, an act respecting control of government expenditure.
Here we have a government that is scrambling by producing a bill that is nothing short of smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more than another effort by this government to confuse Canadians into thinking it is really a government of good fiscal managers.
Are not governments really supposed to be in control of expenditures? Do they really have to pass a bill to convince themselves and others? Is this not something they should already be doing? Canada is in and has been in a recessionary period for almost a year.
First the government refused to use that famous "R" word and once members did learn how it was difficult for them to imagine that their own high interest rates at that time and high dollar policy helped create this made-in-Canada recession. Since then the government hit Canadians with the GST a year ago. Consumer spending and consumer confidence was shattered and that prolonged the recession.
Since this government came to power a tremendous cynicism has shrouded Canadians. It took over $160 billion in debt in 1984 and increased that debt to more than $400 billion today, in 1992. It has collaborated with the policies of the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates high and our dollar at a high level, only reducing them recently.
The high Canadian dollar is discouraging exports from Canada. One wonders what deal this government made
Government Orders
with the U.S. government to keep our dollar rate so high.
We have seen cutbacks in transfer payments to the provinces, especially with the cap on the CAP for the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. Does the government not realize how many jobs have been lost, particularly here in Ontario?
Does the government not know that in Toronto alone the jobless rate and the number of people on welfare is at an all-time high, the highest in the history of that city? Does the government not know that if we in Canada are to continue to compete in the global market we must maintain a high education standard and must ensure that retraining programs are in place for those who lost their jobs?
Here we have a government whose policies have decimated our fishing industry by callously ignoring its own people and giving preference to foreign fishermen.
Where in the world is the heart and the soul of this government?
Our Canadian farming industry is on its knees begging: "Let supply management remain in place, let this government defend its farmers at the GATT".
Now this government wants to pass legislation which would confine ministerial spending to the cumulative amount.
In other words this government cannot control its own ministers to live within its own budgets. It has to pass legislation to make sure they do.
These ministers have been shown to be incompetent. We know that on this side of the House. The Prime Minister knows they are incompetent. This begs the question as to why the Prime Minister allows them to stay. I say get rid of them. If you do not have trust in your frontline cabinet officials and if you have no trustworthy persons to replace them with, then for goodness sake let us call an election.
The Prime Minister presents a bill to legislate his ministers to keep them in line. In our parliamentary system of governing, budgetary controls are enacted. One would think that if a system of government is powerful enough to control its own fiscal policy, it could control its own spending.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
This bill is nothing more than another sneaky measure to fool the people into thinking government members are responsible people.
It is hardly likely the Canadian people will elect this government again after what they have seen of it, especially since the election of 1988. They have seen the effects of the free trade deal; the GST; the government interest rates; its high dollar rate; its cutbacks in health and education and research and development; its negative impact on the CBC, VIA Rail, and Canada Post; the government's unravelling of the very fabric of this country; the closing of air bases in parts of Canada that were simply decimated by it.
This bill is to apply for five years starting in the fiscal year 1991-92. It is so desperate that it is an attempt to try to win back public support. This bill could cause the government to spend beyond the limits for each year set out in the bill. If this bill is intended to have a real impact, it would mean a new government elected would be unable to proceed with the programs for which it was elected. It would be unable to move immediately to carry out those priorities.
Of course a new government could amend legislation. But if this can be done, let me ask again: What is the point of the legislation in the first place? What is the point of proposing this bill if its life does not go beyond that of this Parliament?
This legislation does not exclude from its coverage its restraints and its limitations, programs like the old age pension and family allowances. What happens under this bill if the government's forecasts about the amount required for the old age pension is wrong? What happens if more of the population becomes older and lives longer than forecasted, creating greater need for expenditures under the old age security system? Is the Conservative government saying in this bill that it will cut back on the old age pension, even if there are older Canadians who expect and need these payments?
Liberals are concerned about issues of government expenditures and deficits. I want to make this abundantly clear. However as I have said at the outset, this proposal, this bill before the House is really nothing more than cosmetic. It simply puts into legislative form what this government has been doing anyway and that is working to live within its own budgetary projections.
I want to point out to those Canadians concerned about government expenditures and government activities that this bill does nothing to address their concerns, the concerns of Canadians about this government's ways and excessive taxes. In short this government is proposing legislation to do what it already has the authority to do. The proposal is simply an attempt by the Conservative government to hoodwink Canadians into thinking they are a great bunch of guys and gals on the other side of the House. They are finally coming to grips with the negative effects of their own economic incompetence and mismanagement.
This government ignores Canadians. It ignores the businesses that have shut down and want more than cosmetic measures from this government. They want a government that is concerned with the good management of itself and this country's affairs, one that helps rather than harms their basic confidence. More than this bill, Canadians want an election to give themselves a new and better government.
I am sure all Canadians, and not just my colleagues in the House and I, are continually distressed with the measures and the actions this government is taking, especially this bill which is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Canadian taxpayers into thinking that the government is a good fiscal manager and that it is concerned about the economy and budgetary controls.
I am pleased to speak against this bill on behalf of the constituency of Nepean.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-56 on behalf of the constituents of Scarborough West.
When I look at bills the very first thing I do is try to analyse what is going to affect the people of Scarborough West. I try to read the bill as objectively a way as I can and try to determine how to explain the contents and the decision making that went into putting forward a bill like Bill C-56.
I like to put myself in the position of the people in the coffee shop discussing this piece of legislation. When I do so-and I am trying to be fair-it conjures up an image to me. The image this entire bill conjures up is somebody in front of a low table on which there is a pea and the halves of three walnut shells. That person wants you to watch where the pea is, watch it be moved around
February 19, 1992

and then decide under what shell the pea should be. That is called the old shell game. Another name for it is the con game.
Why would that kind of an image be conjured up in my mind when I look at Bill C-56? Let's start with what it is supposed to do. It is called: "an act respecting the control of government expenditures". If we look inside we see that the very first section says:
This Act may be cited as the Spending Control Act.
They are three very simple words that I think most Canadians would probably interpret in the following way. Spending means paying out money; control means controlling the amount of spending being done. I would think that most constituents of Scarborough West when looking at the spending control act would say: "My goodness, we have finally got an act that is going to get government spending under control and ensure that spending is done in a controlled fashion".
When the Minister of Finance was responding to recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance in December 1991, he referred directly to one of the comments made in recommendation No. 1 of the finance committee, which was specifically that "all members were not in agreement that a spending control act was either necessary or desirable".
What did the Minister of Finance say to that criticism? What he said is very relevant, I feel, in discussing the methodology of Bill C-56. He said quite clearly: "The government and most of the witnesses appearing before the committee strongly feel that continuing to exert firm control over expenditures is essential to ensure that the deficit is reduced and that public debt as a percentage of the economy declines".
Here is the interesting portion: "The spending control act will provide assurance to Canadians that Parliament shares this view and will demand discipline from government". I stress those words: "will demand discipline from government".
When we look at this bill we ask: Does it in fact demand discipline from any particular government? We do not have to go very far before we begin to see what is really happening and where the shell game begins. We see the spending limits, and most Canadians will be happy to know that the spending limit for the 1991-92 fiscal year is a mere $97.2 billion. The following year it
Government Orders
will be just $100.9 billion. The year after that it will be $104 billion. It is increasing each year. The year after that, 1994-95, it will be $107.4 billion. After that, it will be $111.25 billion. Constant increases. Do not forget, this is called the Spending Control Act. Yet, the spending is going up.
Section 3 addresses what will happen if we underspend. Presumably most Canadians are hoping that if this is the Spending Control Act spending will be controlled and that amount will not be met in the spending of the government.
The act provides that where the minister announces that it appears the spending limit for the preceding year will exceed the program spending for the preceding year the minister may allocate all or part of that excess to the particular year. The spending limit for the particular year shall be increased by the amount so allocated. We have to read that about 10 times before we can make any sense of it. We are moving the shells around and trying to figure out where the pea is.
What happens if spending is going to be increased and we go beyond the limit, because this spending control bill allows the government to spend beyond the limits it has set? It says, and I am sort of compressing it because the wording is unbelievable, the minister may propose program spending for the particular year that exceeds the spending limit for the particular year, if the minister allocates the excess to the two next following controlled fiscal years in such proportions as the minister shall determine.
The spending limit for the year 1992-93 happens to be $100.9 billion. Should the minister decide that expenses will be beyond $100.9 billion he will simply advise us that it is the case and the increase, whatever it may be, will be carried forward into the upcoming two years.
Where is the spending control the spending control act is talking about here? Is it doing anything more than moving the pea around underneath the shell on the table? The answer is no. The minister can do what I have just read anyway. One would presume that any responsible Minister of Finance would want to ensure that he gets the best value for every dollar spent. Naturally, if the minister can get the same services for less money, that is to his or her credit. I would hope that would be one of the things the Minister of Finance would be striving for.

February 19, 1992
Business of the House
Should it happen that the minister does come in under budget lo and behold we have a little extra money. Hopefully that would be used to pay down the debt or for whatever else we Canadians think the money should be used for.
If it should happen that the minister is wrong and he or she has to spend more money than was originally allocated the minister can take that into account in any future budget. The minister can already do what the so-called spending control act is putting into words.
What is the purpose? Why have another act? Why take up the time of the House of Commons? Why take up the time of committees to examine an act which is merely putting into words what the minister can already do, as any good finance minister should do, as any reasonable person in their own home does?
You have a certain amount of money. If you manage to buy the things you wish to buy and have a few dollars left over you can apply it to the Visa bill, put it into the bank, or do what you want with it. On the other hand, if you have made a miscalculation and end up spending a little bit more money, then you adjust for that the next month.
On a huge scale the Minister of Finance is doing what we in our homes do each and every month. We do not need a piece of legislation to tell us what we need to do. We need some common sense. Common sense is something that is very prevalent in the riding of Scarborough West. The constituents of Scarborough West ask, through me: "Why do we need a bill that already tells us what the minister can do?"
It is for cosmetic purposes, as our critic the hon. member for Windsor West has already said. We are just putting a little make-up on the government to make it look good. We are going into an election year. Things do not look veiy good for the government right now. It is going to try to put a happy face on disastrous policies. That happy face will say: "We're going to control spending". We do not have to go beyond the third section of the so-called spending control act to see that it is nothing. It is a shell game. If the government overspends, it will overspend. If it underspends it will do what it wants anyway.
For that reason the people of Scarborough West, using their common sense, know they cannot support this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House;
1.	On Thursday, February 20, 1992 the Speaker shall adjourn the House immediately after Oral Question Period; and that on Friday, February 21, 1992 the House shall adjourn immediately after Routine Proceedings.
2.	That no later than 1.45 p.m. on Thursday, February 20, 1992, all questions necessary for the disposal of:
(A)	the second reading stage of Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures
(B)	the second reading stage of Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources
(C)	the second reading, Committee of the Whole, report and third reading stages of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan
shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, provided that any division requested shall stand deferred until 6 p.m., Monday, February 24, 1992 and provided that, if the House shall have completed the said business before the said time, the sitting shall be suspended until 2 p.m.
3.	That no later than 10.55 a.m. on Friday, February 21, 1992, all questions necessary for the disposal at second reading stage of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, shall be put forthwith and completed without further debate or amendment, provided that any required divisions shall stand deferred until 6 p.m. Monday, February 24 1992.
February 19, 1992

4.	That Private Members' Business be cancelled on Thursday, February 20, 1992 and Friday 21, 1992 and that all the items be permitted to retain their position on the order of precedence.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, we agree.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, discussions have occurred and it has received unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 before us amends the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
We all know that we face difficulties in the agricultural industry on many fronts but we do have a pretty efficient and a well-recognized industry, not only at home but internationally. We feed ourselves with a smaller percentage of disposable income than any country in the world. We produce in surplus for export markets and when we do sell into those markets our reputation is very good.
When we look around at what is likely to be the situation in the future, we find we will have to be more and more adaptable as time goes on. We think, and a lot of producers and producer organizations agree, that one of the ways to best accomplish this is to have the wherewithal, where it is possible, and to some extent the decision making for how we adapt, in the hands of the producers that are involved.
Government Orders
The government said in the throne speech:
We guarantee our future not by running from global competition,
but by meeting it head on by equipping ourselves to compete with
the best.
In many ways that is what this bill is designed to do. It is enabling legislation. It is designed to provide the opportunity for producers to put in place what has come to be known as a check off, to use the money for research and promotion, for things like the advertising that we see on a regular basis. The Beef Information Centre in Toronto that advertises beef is an example. The money will be used for consumer education, domestic and foreign marketing efforts, as well as research into production of a product, processing of a product, distribution, and marketing.
There are many examples of why we should do that. Essentially we are taking what has come to be known as the Farm Products Marketing Act and changing its name because it will have a broader scope. The new title will be the Farm Products Agencies Act. The bill changes the name from the Farm Products Marketing Council to simply the Farm Products Council. At the same time we will be putting a new section 3 in the bill that will provide for the establishment of levies or check-offs so that they can be set up nationally, as I said, for promotion and research into various products.
There is pretty wide support for this, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Fruit Wholesalers Association, the Fresh for Flavour Foundation, the Western Grain Research Foundation, the Canadian Honey Council, and the Canadian Nursery Trade Association all support this. All of these groups have expressed interest in a national check-off system.
These groups have indicated that they would spend a portion of the funds on primary production research projects. This type of national check-off is consistent with pillars in the agrifood strategy that came out in the paper two years ago called "Growing Together", one of them asking the industry to be more self-reliant and more market oriented.
In saying that, I want to emphasize that this in no way indicates the government has any intention of backing away from support for the industry, either in some of the things we have been doing directly or in the kind of money that has been spent in the past on research. I want to knock that one in the head as quickly as I can. Anybody who wants to look at this as a signal that the

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
government is intending to back away and use this legislation as a way of doing so, that is simply not the case at all. Quite the contrary. What you will find is if you can raise some producer money yourself, either from the private side or governments or a combination thereof, you can use it, as it has come to be known, to lever additional money.
I would also suggest that if you are a barley producer and have the ability to raise funds for research and advertising and do it at a very basic level, and you want to get involved with a check-off, to spend a little bit of money on each tonne or each bushel that is marketed in this type of a way, you are going to have a pretty good feel for what in fact this money should be spent on.
On that basis I would suggest that you are going to get pretty good use of the money as opposed to collecting and running it through various sets of committees and bureaucracy, not to mention the fact that they all cost money to run. You will have less diffusion of objectives coming from the producer if it is done by a system of raising money directly from producers themselves.
Some of the activities that could be supported by check-offs include market research, new product development, consumer education, advertising, and promotion. There are examples of that already in place. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, as I mentioned, has for a number of years through their provincial associations, sponsored and run the Beef Information Centre out of Toronto. We see those ads on a reasonably regular basis on television. That is the kind of thing that would be envisioned. The Canadian Horticultural Council and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association through the Fresh for Flavour Foundation promote fresh fruits and vegetables but they find, I am told, that funding is not always adequate.
The Americans have a check-off in place for their cattle industry. Some of us have followed this. They have had, I think, two national referendums to get one in place. It has been established now for a number of years and their estimate is that for every dollar they spend on advertising they get a $4 return. It is not to say that is always the case but there is pretty good evidence that the money spent in this way is useful in promoting what we
have in this country, which is some very healthy and wholesome food.
I believe that we have, for several reasons, some of the best conditions for growing wholesome food that is very pure. We find this all the time in our grain markets, for instance, where our customers recognize Canada as one of the prime areas in the world for producing food in a very wholesome way.
Just as an example, I had a chance in the last couple of years to talk to people from Europe who had visited the Peace River country and found that in some cases they could not believe what they were seeing, an area very rich in soil, in climatic conditions and in environment, which had not been farmed very long and therefore not had a chance to be polluted by pesticides or chemicals. Because of that they thought there was an opportunity to market products out of that area in an environmental way simply because of the purity of the environment the food is produced in. But to do that we have to get our message out and this is the type of legislation that could be used.
As I said, it is enabling legislation. It can provide for either a mandatory check-off or what would be a mandatory check-off with the ability to have money refunded. It will be run and looked after by the National Farm Products Council, as it will be known when this legislation is passed.
In summary, this is legislation that has been asked for by farmers themselves. It is, as I said, enabling legislation. There is nothing compulsory about it. Producers would be able to organize themselves and ask the government through the National Farm Products Council to put this type of legislation in place. They would, at the same time, need the concurrence of their various provinces.
There is evidence from what we have been doing up to now that this kind of check-off system works. There is evidence internationally that it works as well. There are new products that are available now to satisfy consumers' needs. Food is no longer simply a means of sustenance. It has become in many cases a way of life that involves many other things than just the product itself. By providing producers with an opportunity to become directly involved in spending some of their own money to support themselves in some of these areas is very useful
February 19, 1992

and I look forward to the support of the House in this matter.
In conclusion I want to move an amendment, pursuant to Standing Order 73(3). I move:
That the motion for second reading of Bill C-54 be amended by
having the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture
rather than the Legislative Committee.


Mr. Foster:: The minister is simply moving that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture rather than to a legislative committee. We have no objection to that on our side.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, this has been discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and we are expecting the bill. We have no objection to it going there, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if there are questions and comments on the minister's statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not for the first two speakers. There will be when you get up.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we would have been glad to hear from the hon. member but I guess if the rules are being strictly enforced we will have to accept your direction in that regard.
Bill C-54 provides amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and essentially changes this act by adding a new section to it which provides legislative authority to have check-offs for agencies established by the government, by an Order in Council, for national check-offs. These check-offs involve interprovincial groups, as well as check-offs for crops being marketed from the international realm into the Canadian marketplace. It is legislation that is very similar to some legislation now in place at the provincial level which establishes agencies, that are very different from the agencies provided for National Farm Products Marketing Agencies.
The bill changes the other legislation to remove the word "marketing" and puts in "National Farm Products Agencies Act". It is legislation that a number of organizations, including the beef producers, honey organiza-
Government Orders
tions, and the Horticultural Council of Canada, have supported.
It has one very special feature to it and that is that these check-offs would not only apply to producers within Canada but to products coming into Canada. In some commodities where we do not import it would not be a very big feature.
For commodities such as fruits and vegetables which we do not produce in this country, perishable fruits in the wintertime, and so on, it would make provisions for a check-off. Those check-offs could be used for promotion of that product or they could be used for research.
I think the number of agencies asking for this indicates that they want it.
In sending this legislation to the standing committee we have to be sure of a number of things.
One is that the government is not planning to off-load their responsibility for research in this country onto the producers of the commodity, whether it is the beef producers, horticulture crop producers or whatever. The federal government historically has had a national responsibility for basic research, for fundamental research, for research that is transmitted and made available to producers.
Clearly, in the discussions which will take place in the standing committee, we will want to have those kinds of assurances. Perhaps they could be written into the legislation or perhaps there is some other mechanism to ensure that those safeguards are there.
We do not want this government which has drastically reduced the amount of support for research, I believe some $40 million between 1989 and 1990, to shirk its duty in that responsibility. We do not want it to off-load it on to the producers or the provinces, as it did with some of the safety net legislation. They have a responsibility to carry out that research.
The promotion itself is something that is up to producers. Clearly, there have to be mechanisms in the legislation to make sure that the majority of producers want this and that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that there is a referendum in the provinces that produce the commodity, or on a national basis to ensure that

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
whatever is being done a majority and a good solid majority of the producers support that promotion.
It is my understanding that this legislation can be used by the existing supply management groups if they want to have check-offs. I believe they now have mechanisms where certain types of check-offs or funds come out of their national organization for promotion but I do not think it is used for research very often. So that adds another provision for those groups.
A number of organizations have indicated their support for this legislation, I understand the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Fruit Wholesalers Association, the Fresh for Flavour Foundation, the Western Grains Research Foundation, the Canadian Honey Council and the Canadian Nursery Trade Association. Clearly, there are those groups that support the legislation.
As I understand the legislation, there would be provision in it for co-operation between provincial and national organizations running check-offs.
It is interesting that a number of these organizations that are supporting this legislation really have been very reluctant ever to become involved in a national farm products marketing agencies act under the existing legislation which provides for supply management and cost of production and all the rest of it.
This bill before the House today needs to go to the standing committee to make sure that there are safeguards with regard to how it will be used.
Clearly, some groups like the National Farmers Union have expressed concern that they want to be able to appear before the standing committee.
They see it as a regressive tax on farm production because the majority of those producers of a commodity would be able to vote and have a levy which could be used for promoting that product nationally or internationally.
They are concerned that the government will off-load its research responsibility.
Those are legitimate concerns which need to be aired and examined.
The Canadian Pork Council is concerned that the check-off system would result in a costly additional bureaucracy and institutional arrangements.
It seems to me that those are the kinds of concerns that need to be explored and analyzed. We need to see if there are amendments that can be made to the legislation to ensure that those kinds of problems do not exist with this check-off legislation.
Clearly we would want to see that this legislation would be supported by the majority of producers. We should examine whether there is some way that the vast majority of the producers would support the legislation. The check-off could be very arbitrary and harmful to low income producers or smaller producers. I think we need to look at that aspect in the committee when it is being examined.
It is my understanding that this legislation can be used for the supply management sectors. They do have some provision, of course, for this kind of promotion under existing legislation but here they would be able to impose levies which could be used for the research project.
Those are a number of concerns that we have about Bill C-54.
It is my understanding that this legislation can be implemented on a basis in which it would be mandatory or could be refundable. That is another aspect that has to be clearly identified. There are voluntary check-offs now for beef producers and on some other commodities. We would like to know just how the legislation would operate in that regard.
Those are a number of the factors which we think need to be considered when we look at this legislation in the standing committee.
I want to say a word or two about the original legislation, the act that we are amending here today, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
That legislation was set up in 1971 by the Parliament of Canada. A number of national farm products marketing agencies have been established: the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, and the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency.
At the present time, there has been a report and an examination. I understand that there will be a vote next
February 19, 1992

spring on the support that exists across the country for establishing a national apple marketing agency.
The reason I raise this is because that legislation was established some 20 years ago. It is really companion legislation to what was done under the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is under attack in the report that was issued by Arthur Dunkel, the secretary general of GATT in mid-December of last year.
That legislation has brought order out of chaos in several pieces of legislation in many farm sectors where farmers are able to produce and market a commodity and have some idea what the price will be.
It really was revolutionary legislation because in our country and in most of the western world the farmers' bargaining power is very little. In most commodities there are large international trading corporations which practically control the price of the commodities.
The National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, which was brought in in the early 1970s, gave producers the power to bargain in the marketplace with those large powerful retailing agencies, the international commodity companies.
Out of that has grown a very vibrant, progressive, effective farm supply management system where our poultry, egg, and dairy products are marketed on the basis of the cost of production, the average cost of production of the most efficient two-thirds.
It is amazing, as we look around the world, how much more efficient those producers have become. I do not have the exact figures in my head but the ones I remember are that Canadian dairy producers have become, during that 20-year period, about 70 per cent more efficient. For American producers it is about 42 per cent and for Great Britain it is around 25 per cent. We have a healthy, vibrant, rural agriculture.
There was great concern expressed during the free trade debate back in 1987-88 as to whether those supply management marketing agencies could survive the free trade agreement. Clearly they are very much under the gun today because of that.
I recall one meeting we had in Fredericton, N.B., where various groups, the local co-operative, the dairy farmers, the poultry producers, the egg producers came
Government Orders
before our committee and said: "If you want to see what the market economy can do for agriculture in New Brunswick, just go across the border in Maine where you will find practically no agriculture".
Most of their poultry and egg commodities are being produced in Georgia and Alabama and in southern states where there are no energy costs. Most of their milk is being produced in New Jersey or farther south.
We have in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in Ontario, and in parts of Manitoba and British Columbia a very vibrant, healthy, rural economy. It is something we have put in place. It is unique in the world. We produce the commodities that we need. We do not flood the international market. We continue to provide for the amount of access that historically has been the case from other countries such as the United States for poultry, turkey, eggs, or whatever was in place.
This system has meant prosperity, a continuous supply of farm commodities to the consumers at reasonable prices. Historically it has not increased any more than the Consumer Price Index and has increased at a price lower than those for commodities not produced under supply management. This is a legacy the Parliament of Canada has put in place under the legislation we propose to amend today.
There have been two very serious challenges to the whole system of marketing by the free trade agreement. When the government negotiated the free trade agreement it did not get any import controls for dairy commodities. The United States had an historical protection called a waiver which it got from the GATT negotiations back in 1954. It gave it complete control of imports.
As Minister of Agriculture John Wise stood in the House and said that the free trade deal did not threaten the supply management marketing boards of this country. I do not know whether he did not know or whether he did not want to face the reality of it, but clearly the FTA did so. There was no provision in there for import controls for processed dairy products like yogurt and ice-cream or any of the other processed dairy products. The historical arrangement under article XI of GATT provided for fresh farm produce but certainly did not provide for processed dairy products.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
Mr. Wise made the pronouncement in January 1988 that there would be no problem for our dairy and poultry industries; he would simply put these dairy products on the import control list. He was immediately challenged by Senator Lloyd Benson from Texas who said there was no provision in the free trade agreement to regulate import controls and if the government did it the United States government would immediately challenge it.
About 11 months later the government put ice-cream, yogurt and a number of cheeses, butters, powders and so on on the import control list as of January 1, 1989. Immediately the United States challenged it and a GATT panel was struck. Nine months later, in September 1989, lo and behold the member of the senate finance committee of the United States was right that there were no import controls under the FTA and the decision of the government to place ice-cream and yogurt on the import control list was struck down by a GATT panel. Three months later, in early December 1989, the government agreed to the decision of the GATT panel.
That was when we got into the GATT provisions and that is why when the government went to the GATT it asked for not just the maintenance of article XI but the strengthening and clarification of article XI. The strengthening was to make it apply not only to fresh raw farm commodities like milk, chicken, and eggs but to any commodity that contained more than 51 per cent of that fresh raw farm commodity. That is where we are today. The government has been at the GATT table since 1986, the Uruguay round which could well have been the Vancouver round. The Prime Minister was determined that the meeting had to be in Montreal in 1986 so the decision was that it would be the Uruguay round because he would not support the Vancouver round approach.
During the last five years we have to look at what progress the government has made in pursuing its position to strengthen and clarify article XI of the GATT. The government should get busy in the next eight weeks and persuade the United States Congress and President Bush to accept our position. Let us be frank about this: very few countries oppose our position. Perhaps Holland and Britain, but most European countries are not very upset with the strengthening and clarifying of article XI. Most of the Cairns group apart from perhaps New Zealand is opposed to our position.
The government says in the House that 102 countries are opposing our position. That is probably not right. Probably a few oppose it, but our main problem is with the United States that wants access to our dairy and poultry products market in Canada because its industry, especially the dairy industry, is in total disarray. Literally thousands of dairy producers go broke daily or weekly or monthly because they have a system that simply does not provide them with an adequate return.
The final eight weeks of the GATT negotiations are critical. In my view there is one window where the Prime Minister should get busy and persuade the European countries to support his position. Most of all he should persuade George Bush to support his position. If that happens we will continue to have a supply management system.
What happens if the GATT negotiations break down totally? We go back to what is left from the FTA which is a disaster because the Americans already have access to our ice-cream and yogurt market. One more reference by the United States to a GATT panel for butter, cheese and powder, the major dairy commodities, would probably render the same solution. That would be extremely disastrous for our supply management system. Once a precedent were set for dairy products it would probably apply to poultry products and eggs as well.
The second alternative is if the government at the end of the day agrees to the tariffication system or there is agreement and the tariffication system becomes the order of the day. There are so many unknowns in that regard, but clearly none of the supply management groups believe the tariffication system will allow for the long-term operation of the supply management system.
We have increased access. We have the violent fluctuations of 100 per cent and 200 per cent in the value of commodities, and the value of commodities we would be referenced to would be United States commodities. In no time the tremendous capacity of United States producers to flood our market and put producers out of business would be evident.
We have an excellent system. The legislation that provides for this system is the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and the Canadian Dairy Commission which operates in a very similar kind of way. We are going to see 25,000 people on the Hill on Friday of this week, and they are not just farmers. They are the rural suppliers, people from the co-ops, people from the fuel
February 19, 1992

companies, farm equipment suppliers, all kinds of groups.
Yesterday a representative from the Chamber of Commerce-I think he was in the Fraser Valley-stood up and told the Prime Minister: "This is not just an issue for the dairy and poultry industries of Fraser Valley. It is for our entire community".
These are the people who keep the economy of rural Canada going. You take them away and get less successful, or less prosperous industries. Their buying power, their impact on the community is lower. They gave the figure that for every $1 million worth of supply management commodity that is marketed in this country, some 14 jobs are created. There are 38,000 supply management producers, farmers, and farming businesses across this country. They employ some 22,000 people directly.
If you go into the processing industry, the processors of milk, the processors of dairy commodities, novelties, ice cream, yogurt, and all these products, or if you go into the poultry sector, the processing of those, you are talking about over 95,000 jobs in this country. These are not jobs that are all in downtown Toronto. These are jobs that are spread out through rural Canada, through Ontario, Manitoba, certainly in the prairies as well, in B.C., and the maritimes. This is an important sector of our economy. It would be impossible to exaggerate the impact that the Dunkel report would have on rural Canada. It really deals with the food security of our country.
The time will come, in my view, when most of the countries of the world, like the United States, will have vast vertically integrated food production systems. There are producers of eggs for instance in the United States who produce as many eggs as our whole production in Canada. They are usually located in the southern states where they do not have high energy costs and they have very low labour costs.
We do not want that system. We want a system that meets our needs and creates jobs, where we have a better environmental arrangement. When we go into factory operations we have all kinds of environmental
Government Orders
and health problems. We want to maintain that kind of system.
The basic legislation which we are amending today to provide for check-offs and for research is that basic legislation which has provided that very secure, stable, progressive, and efficient production of agricultural commodities. It is a pity that all sectors could not have it. We simply cannot operate on that basis with major export commodities because you have to operate at a world price. Even at that we do have orderly marketing for wheat and barley by having the Canadian Wheat Board and similar kinds of marketing agencies for wheat and commodities in eastern Canada.
The genius of the National Farm Products Marketing Act which we are amending in this legislation today to provide a whole new section has been that it provides a very stable, secure system for food production in this country. This system can become more efficient and provide employment, food security, a vibrant rural life in Canada.
We have seen a devastation of our manufacturing sector in this past two or three years. In my constituency there have been literally thousands of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector. We certainly do not want to see that happen as a result of our downgrading the supply management system for dairy and poultry farmers.
If the Dunkel report was adopted, as has been proposed, every one of those sectors claim they would not survive the six years. In the case of poultry, they talked about going from 2,400 poultry producers to some 32 massive, vertically integrated production units, probably located in central Canada with the western part of our country and the vast rural areas of Atlantic Canada completely shut out.
The motion that was put by my party last week when we had the special debate on the GATT negotiations and on supply management called on the Prime Minister to personally get involved in those negotiations. We do not believe that the negotiators, regardless of how good they are, and I believe that they are capable people, have had much success. They have been there for five years in the Uruguay round in Geneva.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
When the Dunkel report came out it did not mention the strengthening and clarifying of our supply management, article XI. Therefore, it is up to the Prime Minister to use the power and prestige of his office, as the motion that was unanimously adopted by this House asks, and that the Prime Minister become personally involved, that he gamer the support of the other countries that favour our position: Japan, Israel, Norway, Switzerland, and Korea. I believe he should be getting a joint declaration.
There was a declaration by the negotiators which they took to Mr. Dunkel, Secretary-General of GATT, back in mid-December. That motion by those negotiators does not have the same prestige it would have had if the Prime Minister sat down with the Prime Minister of Japan and Israel and the other countries involved and they issued a joint declaration.
We are a major trading country. Japan is a major trading country. Korea is becoming an important trading country. Israel has a lot of influence in the world.
"This is our bottom line. This is what we want. We do not expect to be able to flood the world with cheap surplus food. We are net importers of these commodities. We are willing to provide an increased access of 3 or 5 per cent", I believe was the government's negotiating position. We are willing to reduce any subsidies. There is very little subsidy involved anyway. But this was the position put forward but we want to have a strengthened and clarified article XI.
If the Prime Minister would take that action and then arrange to meet jointly, as a motion of the Elouse calls on him to do, supported by the prime ministers of these other countries who are just as adamant as we are, saying that this is our position, this is what we want to achieve out of the GAIT round because the GATT round does make some changes with regard to export subsidies, for instance to the United States Export Enhancement Program, the European subsidies and so on, which will be beneficial to the grain and oilseeds sector.
If we sat down with the leadership of Europe, with the President of the United States and said: "This is what we have to have in order to maintain rural Canada, the family farm, the basis, the most secure and stable sector of our agriculture," I believe that we could be successful.
I see that as a very narrow window to have a strengthened and clarified article XI.
If we go back to what has been left over, the ice cream and yogurt decision from the free trade deal, that is very, very dangerous. The U.S. could move in easily on us. The tariffication proposal also is unacceptable for maintaining these marketing boards which were established under the original Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
We want to see the amendments go to committee for consideration, discussion, and examination of the concerns that have been expressed by some producers, although a great many of the agencies have expressed their support. I hope that the Prime Minister and the government will act now because the time is late for maintaining those agencies which are provided for under this original legislation. It would be impossible to exaggerate the importance to rural Canada of maintaining those agencies, those producers, those jobs and that processing industry. It is very important to Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 74, the hon. member now has 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my remarks have to be limited.
The bill that we have before us, C-54, is a proposal to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts of consequence thereof. We will also be amending the Customs and Tariffs Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The legislation that we are amending has been around almost 20 years and was an attempt, and I think a fair attempt, at providing farmers with the marketing tools they need to become self-reliant and market oriented individuals in a world market.
I am not particularly happy with the amendments that are being proposed today. What we have is equivalent to offering a student a pencil, with these amendments when we know computers are available. That is essentially what the government is doing with this bill. It is understandable knowing where the government came from.
Members of the government opposed the implementation of this act 20 years ago. They fought it as long and as hard as they could and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in those days it was possible for private members to hold up bills for a long, long time. You could speak forever instead of being limited to 20 minutes, as I am now. You could continue the debate ad nauseam. As long as any member wanted to make a speech it could be
February 19, 1992

made. Now this debate can be limited to two days and it then goes off to committee. In other words, in the old democratic House, this legislation had a terrible time getting through.
As a result of democracy having more sway or full sway relative to today's circumstances, the opponents to the government's proposal were able to make considerable changes. We have quite a few pages in the existing National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act which are due to interventions on behalf of the Cattlemen's Association by the Conservative Party of Canada.
Essentially the upshot of it was that the national products marketing legislation that we have is very limiting. It is so limiting that same Cattlemen's Association has had to come to the government to get it to make amendments to the act so that it can do a few minor things it would like to do, namely raise funds for promotion of products and for some research.
I point out that those marketing agencies and marketing boards that have been established under the act have both of those rights within the existing act. They can in fact raise levies for marketing and during the course of that marketing they can do promotion and market research. I understand some of what is being proposed in this act would extend the terminology, the definition of research, beyond that used for market research to actual production research.
This act has functioned in Canadian Confederation because there are similar acts in each of the provinces which permit the establishment of marketing agencies or marketing boards within each province. This particular marketing agencies act permitted those agencies to come together under a federal umbrella and act for all of the producers of that particular commodity across all of Canada.
The government is proposing here today to set up a companion section in the act which would permit the establishment under very similar terms of agencies whose job would be simply to take funds from producers by way of a check-off and to permit the producer group to administer those funds for what they call promotion of the product. I think that is a rather inefficient way to do it.
Government Orders
I hear of trips by the cattlemen's commission in Alberta, for instance, which has done this on a provincial basis overseas. I hear of some of the other commodity groups making similar trips. They are very good junkets for the board of directors and perhaps some of the management people who have been hired by the agencies, but they do not really do a very effective job of promoting the Canadian product.
Put yourself in the position of a would-be-buyer. You are approached by a bunch of Canadian beef producers who give you a very good spiel on the benefits of Canadian beef. It is clean. It is raised in a proper environment, free of all sorts of agents that might exist from more industrialized countries. You are all set to buy and when you tell them so, they say: "Well, gee, we do not have any beef. We do not really get into that business. We produce it and we promote it, but golly, we cannot give you any because we are not in that part of the business. You will have to deal with one of our packing plants".
They will say: "When we get home to Canada, we will tell this packing plant that you are interested in Canadian beef". They will report to their farmers and their ranchers that they have done a great job of having promoted Canadian beef in another foreign country, but no sales have been made and nothing has been completed. Those agencies that are established as marketing boards, however, do have the option and the opportunity to complete the sale. When one of the pork boards or combined force of the pork boards goes overseas to talk about the benefits of Canadian pork they can complete the sale and have it within their power and their ability to deliver a product to the people with whom they have created an interest.
In terms of straight efficiency and furtherance of a market oriented approach, the government has missed the boat quite badly with the kind of amendments it has put here by forcing a second tier in this particular legislation. If it had wanted to be helpful to producers, it would have taken away the prohibition on the establishment of such marketing agencies as exists now for poultry, eggs, turkeys, and hatching eggs, by lifting the requirement that when a producer group forms marketing agencies across the country in each of the provinces it has to work very hard to get itself together, put a plan together, then picket or lobby the House of Commons

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
and the government to force the government to open up the National Products Marketing Agencies Act in order to include its particular product.
Apple producers are in that position now. Seven or eight years ago we had the tobacco people in here. Unfortunately, the tobacco people had expended so much time, money and effort just getting their little one word amendment to the act that they had no more energy or money to pursue the process after they succeeded in getting what they wanted.
There are some problems with only going as far as the government is proposing to go with these promotion agencies. As I said in the beginning, it is like offering people a pencil when you know there are computers. It is not veiy a high-tech solution to providing farmers with the necessary tools they need to do a good job of marketing and promotion. But this is all the government proposes to offer.
There are some questions as to what the effect will be, given this limited offer that has been proposed. The Minister for Grains and Oilseeds opened the debate for the government. He said: "For instance, barley producers could use this legislation if they want to promote barley". The minister and I had a little discussion after and he admits that is not really quite true right across the country. That might apply to parts of Ontario that lie east of Thunder Bay and, perhaps, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but it does not apply in the Wheat Board area which is from Thunder Bay west.
Those producers of wheat and barley fall under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the proposals we have before us explicitly take them out of the authority of this particular act. If they want to provide for such checkoffs, they would have to apply under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In fact, the Canadian Wheat Board does an excellent job of market promotion and research and funds them from the moneys it has available as the sole marketer of Canadian wheat and barley for export.
Likewise, those people who are in the pork business have the ability to raise funds for market promotion and research under the various provincial marketing boards
that now exist. That is not a restraint on the abilities of that particular commodity group to function.
With the proposal we have here perhaps we will see the pork council succeed in convincing the minister who is really the only one who needs to be convinced in these matters. With the approval of the marketing council, they should be able to institute a national check-off over and above the check-off that the provincial pork marketing boards have at that time. These check-offs would either be mandatory or voluntary, at the choice of the initiating group. If it is decided to be mandatory then all producers who sell or import that particular commodity would be subject to the levy. In order to catch the imports, the Customs Act is being opened up. The agency that is struck for promotion would have the ability to go to the customs officials and ask for documentation to see whether the voluntary reporting by an importer complies and fits with the actual amount of the affected good that was imported.
The whole inclusion of imported product also raises some questions. If we are going to be extolling the virtues for instance of Canadian beef, and we are doing so, can we in fact do that honestly if we are also including the beef that is imported and collecting a levy from it? We do not identify that now. If it goes through a Canadian processor, it wears a Canadian grade and is viewed by consumers as being Canadian beef whether it originated here or not.
If we talk about Canadian beef, will that be GAITable or will we have to describe it as generic beef? I know that producers are going to be putting up most of the money for this, but there was some mention in the minister's speech about matching funds, which raises the whole question of where those other funds will come from. I presume that some of it could come from a provincial or the federal government, in which case it would be GATTable.
The whole question of the effectiveness of beef producers raising money to promote beef, while poultry producers raise money to promote poultry, while hog producers raise money to promote pork, and the turkey producers are doing the same thing, raises in my mind
February 19, 1992

the whole question of how effective is all this advertising in promoting an increase in the size of the stomachs of Canadian consumers.
It seems to me that the chief beneficiaries of a lot of these programs are advertising agencies and the various media that carries the message.
Those are some questions that we have to try to find answers for in committee. Another unanswered area of questioning is the whole area of the use of these funds for research.
The minister made it quite clear that he was not talking just about market research, that he was talking about production research as well. While there may be pet projects that producers might be happy to be financing, generally speaking, the publicly sponsored research in this country has done a terrific job for consumers. The kind of research that has been put forward by both provincial and federal governments has tended to reduce consumer costs at a much higher rate than the cost to the consumer through their taxpaying pocket. In other words, it has been a very good deal for consumers because the benefits they get from each research dollar far exceeds the cost of that dollar.
Production research virtually always ends up in showing producers new ways to produce more.
I have made many speeches in this House discussing the problem "producing more" causes in food production. It is very natural for producers to want to produce the veiy most they can, to achieve the highest yield and the fastest growth rates. However, achieving that forces the price down because market economies do not treat food as anything particularly special, they simply look at what the farmers produce as a surplus. The value of all the products then goes down to the surplus value, which is usually very low.
To be using, even more directly, financing the assurance that we are going to have lower prices is not a prospect that most farmers look to with obvious glee. I think there will be some people we may get an opportunity to hear when we take this to committee who will have done some more research on that. They could perhaps give some advice to the committee and to the government.
Government Orders
The range of this legislation might be restricted to market research because the original intent of this legislation was to aid and assist with marketing so that farmers could connect themselves more directly to consumers through marketing.
It provides the necessary tools to set up agencies like marketing boards. It could provide the product, get it efficiently and quickly to market, and make certain that it was processed in a way the consumer could utilize it. It could also provide the agencies with enough flexibility to do market promotion and basic research on new markets.
That establishes the product outside the current countries in which we now market the product. Marketing boards can be an excellent method of market development. My main regret about opening up this legislation is that the government did not open it up in a way that would allow all commodities to have fairly ready access to it as a marketing tool.
The extension of the new sections being proposed to put forward promotion and research agencies needs a lot more study. I am quite dubious about the overall effect of this. It may be quite justifiably viewed by a lot of producers as something about as efficient as another GST because it will be a tax on their production.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I listened quite closely to the New Democratic member from Saskatchewan. I would like to ask him a question.
I would like to know if there are consumers on the National Farm Marketing Council and if he feels they are an effective voice? The increase in income to the primary producers has been very modest and stable over the years while retail prices have increased dramatically. Would the member not agree that consumers should be on the boards of directors of the major food chains?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any impediment to consumers being on the National Farm Products Marketing Council.
One or two are named to that council. It is the prerogative of the government in power at any particular time. One of the functions of that council is to ensure that the consumer interest is protected along with the farmer interest. Both sides have to be represented on the council.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
The hon. member asked whether I thought it would be a good idea to have consumers represented on the boards of directors of the chain stores. I would say certainly, but that is not something we have any power over in this Parliament. That is something determined by the rules and regulations of each corporation. I would think that as we move into the 1990s more corporations would structure their boards so that specific consumer representatives will show up on their boards of directors.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mackenzie for a very fine speech. In his usual inimitable way he has done a good job of analysing the situation and the question before us.
I am rather intrigued by the differentiation between production research and marketing research. It is certainly an aspect of the whole field that had not occurred to me before. He emphasized marketing research for the obvious reason that production research could almost be self-destructive. I am probably expressing his opinion a little too strongly.
The marketing research side conjures up very intriguing and, what one would hope would be, original television commercials as we have seen in the marketing of dairy products, particularly those wonderful ads we see of the asparagus and the butter and so on. I am looking forward to the marketing research people producing innovative commercials.
I would like to ask the member if he could comment on possible conflicts between what is GATTable and what is not GATThble. It sounds like he might get into some sort of biblical genealogy but I am sure it is not.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we only run into the problem of GATTable promotion assistance when we get into the question of sharing the cost to which the minister alluded in his speech.
He mentioned that having promotion funds available to a group made it much easier for them to find matching grants and matching funds. Under the proposed GATT rules those matching funds and matching grants will be more acceptable if industry was helping to finance them rather than the government.
There could be some difficulties which would cause governments to place more of the load for promotion and market development on producers. There is hesi-tance among a lot of farmers and producers to get into this type of self-taxation because as soon as we have the ability to raise funds to do various things we have a fairly high suspicion that government will let us and get out. This would end up being a further tax on ourselves benefiting all Canadians, particularly in the area of production research. The benefits fall almost entirely on consumers in Canada rather than on the farm producers.
Therefore it is a much more justifiable expenditure for the Government of Canada, on behalf of those consumers, to have paid for the initial basic research to begin with.


Mr, Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments by the hon. member for Mackenzie because he is a veiy active member of the agriculture committee and this bill obviously opens up a number of avenues of concern.
There are a number of areas which we have to be concerned about. One is that the government is essentially putting in place a mechanism to off-load its research projects onto the producers of farm commodities.
The other is what provisions or safeguards will there be for the small producer who really is not in the mainstream but maybe has a small plot or a small operation and has a very local market. So that is a matter of concern.
It seems to me that we are going through much hardship in many sectors of agriculture. I cannot remember in the 22 or 23 years I have been a member here that we have gone through such anguish as we have in the last six months.
Clearly, with the dramatic downturn in farm incomes in 1990-91 and now the tremendous uncertainty with the supply managed sector and the outcome of the GATT negotiations we really have to have better mechanisms of informing and advising people of the overall benefit of agriculture in terms of jobs, rural economy, food supply, and long-term benefits to the country.
Perhaps that is one sector on which agricultural producer need to be working in unison across the whole spectrum of agriculture. Producers perhaps should work with governments as well to try to communicate to urban Canada which represents probably 96 per cent of the population even though I believe that the 4 per cent who
February 19, 1992

per cent who are directly involved in agriculture their influence involves maybe 10 times less.
Remember there needs to be a better means of communication whether it is through a check-off or whether it is through marketing agencies or government to communicate the rural message to Canadians generally-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I think if governments were really interested in having a better voice coming from the rural community, something that would be a fairly unified voice, a long time ago they would have provided for an ability to permit farmers right across the country to organize along the lines that the Quebec farmers were permitted to do.
There they simply permitted farmers to comply with the Rand formula. As soon as 50 per cent plus one of the population who were farming signed up to become members of the over-all organization, they could then automatically pay dues for all of the others. It would make life much easier for governments and for urban Canada to hear the true voice of farming.
Because we have failed to do that and government is not anxious to hear one single voice for farmers, we will continue to hear a wide variety of voices and opinions. Governments live very well with this system.
If they get advice they do not like from one major group they can always go out and create another group with three or four farmers who will tell them exactly what they want to hear.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, I am pleased to be able to join in this debate this evening on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
One of the first things that we have to find out is what this bill does. It changes the name of the act to the Farm Products Agencies Act. It removes the word marketing.
Now we have to understand that it really does not prohibit any of the former activity or enabling portion of the previous act but it broadens the act out so that it can play an increased and different role in the agricultural industry.
Government Orders
As we know, the bill as enacted is going to allow the formation of agencies within the commodity groups and with the agricultural community.
Those agencies will have the power, once they are formed and after they are requested, to collect levies from the production of the particular commodity or product they are involved in as producers.
They will be able to use those moneys that are collected to promote the marketing of the product, the consumption of the product, the benefits of the product and education regarding the product.
The moneys could be used for research and development with regard to the growing, the processing, the marketing and all of the other benefits of it. That is being done in different provinces by different groups at the present time to quite an extent within Canada.
The benefit I see of this bill-I will get to some concerns about the bill in a few minutes-is that it allows those levies also to be collected on those products that are imported into the country. We do not have that now, and that is a problem the industry has.
It is not a new concept in agriculture. Other countries have it. The United States has it and uses it very effectively. I guess if I were an American producer, I would be very pleased that it was there. We are not on a level playing field until we get a similar situation here.
For example, we all know in the last two or three years, the American concern and the countervail that the American pork producers have been effectively placing on Canadian pork exported into the United States.
At the very same time that that product was being exported into the United States, the United States was collecting a levy on the Canadian product going in there. It was collecting that levy and using those Canadian dollars to work against the Canadian producers. They do that on beef as well.
I guess what I am saying is that we import from other countries. We import particular cuts of pork from the United States as well. We eat a lot of bacon and we do not have enough bacon in Canada. The particular portion of the pig that that comes from, pork belly, we have to import from the United States.

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
I guess what I am saying is that this will put us in a better position. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If other countries are going to charge us levies on products that we ship in there and use those moneys to promote their own product, then we should he in the same position.
There are considerable benefits. The question might be raised from this: What will this do? This act, as we know, allowed a number of years ago the putting in place of the Canadian milk supply management system, the egg, the chicken, the turkey and the broiler hatching egg marketing agencies, the supply managed ones.
This will not affect them, but I will tell the House and I will tell those who are watching that unless the Prime Minister is able to deliver on what he has said to the producers as recently as yesterday as far as the strengthening and clarifying of article XI of the GATT in the Uruguay round, unfortunately, I think there may vety well be greater volumes of dairy, egg and poultry products coming into Canada from outside.
It is very clear that a system of tariffication will not give Canadian producers, consumers, and processors the protection or the food security that we have at the present time.
Even though all of those boards at the present time are collecting levies, they are using them I think primarily for promotion at this stage, but also for some research. I asked the dairy farmers this afternoon if the levy taken off their milk production was used for research at the present time, and they said that some of it was.
If that very unfortunate situation takes place that this government agrees to sign a GATT agreement that has a tariffication clause in it as the producers have been telling Canadians so clearly in the last number of weeks and months, those levels of imports will rise.
I will tell you we had better be able to have a check-off on them if that unfortunate situation happens.
As I said, this legislation will not have any great effect on the present act, other than strengthening it and enabling it to do a bit more.
The biggest benefit is the level of levies and the fact that levies can be applied to imports coming in. Research and promotion organizations or agencies would be funded by these levies and they would be run by producer groups.
The legislation is so worded that the Governor in Council could ask for a referendum among the producers of a certain product. If there was a majority of producers and importers together, each importer and each producer would have one vote, then the agency could be set up and they could go about their business and decide how they wanted to do it.
I must stress that this does not put any of these agencies in place. It is like so much of the legislation that we pass in this place. It is enabling legislation.
As I point out very clearly to constituents in my riding and to people when I am talking to them at different places, it is another piece of legislation where I, as a member of Parliament, would like to see the regulations to a greater extent than we do before the legislation becomes law.
We pass enabling legislation. We think that yes, it is a good idea, and then it goes into the hands of others who are not elected to this place and they write the rules. They write the rule book. It can be interpreted in a different manner from what we think it should be or may be when we see the legislation. That is one of the grave dangers of this place.
I know it is another subject, but I certainly would like to see this place improved somehow so that once enabling legislation was passed and before that legislation went into place the regulations come back before us as members of Parliament.
We are the ones who take the phone calls, we are the ones who take the flack. Every once in a while, if we are lucky, we are the ones who take the praise for legislation that has been passed.
But it is not very often we hear the praise because someone will put a specific little nitty-gritty clause in there because that is the way he or she particularly interprets it. It can be difficult to enforce and it may very well not be realistic as well.
February 19, 1992

I just want to give some examples of where this could be of some benefit to the industry out there. For a number of years I was a director on different boards in the province of Ontario when I was actively farming.
At that time one of the boards I was on was the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board and we had a check-off. It was allowed through provincial legislation. We had a check-off. And herein lies one of the dangers, and it has been raised by my colleague from Algoma and by the critic on agriculture from the New Democratic Party as well.
The danger of this type of legislation is that it allows a government to say to a particular producer group, if it requests and lobbies and pressures for more research or development into the production methods or marketing methods or processing of its product: "Well, you have the power, the power is there for you to put a collection agency-if you want to call it that-in place, and you draw that money out of your own producers, because we are not going to use any of the taxpayers' money to provide that or to do that for you".
We must recognize that it does put in place an [DOT] opportunity for governments to withdraw funding from research and development, promotion, or marketing, or whatever roles that governments have played in the past.
We do not need any more of this in the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry is one of the major ones in the handful of wealth creators that we have in this country or that any country has.
I get very upset when I look at the expenditures and I see that the present government, for example, in the fiscal year 1989-90 withdrew $40 million from agricultural research and development. That is not the way we should go if we are to sustain and promote that industry.
I will give another example. At the present time Ontario apple growers are conducting a program called "Orchard Crisp". They are marketing and promoting Ontario apples under that program and it has been very effective. We also know that six out of ten apples eaten in Canada are imported.
Government Orders
I will just back up a little. At the present time, when Canadian producers decide to promote a product, they can only get support from their own growers, from a provincial check-off or maybe some provincial and federal funding, if they are lucky, to assist them in that regard. If they are promoting apples, for example, the consumers cannot, even though it is on the label, easily distinguish between apples coming in from the United States or somewhere other than Canada. So a promotion to eat apples assists everybody, whether or not they are Canadian apple growers, and it is paid for by Canadian producers.
This legislation would allow for a check-off for imported apples. Therefore we would have a situation when they are promoting apples where all apples eaten in Canada would have contributed to that check-off and the production would have contributed to that check-off. That is a benefit.
Ontario berry growers, the producers themselves, have a similar program. I would hazard a guess that 50 per cent of the strawberries we eat in Canada in a year, in a 12-month period, are likely imported. However, when Ontario berry growers or other Canadian berry growers promote strawberries and encourage people to make desserts and jams and jellies, they do it at different times of the year other than the peak of three, four or five weeks in June and July. The imported berries they buy have not contributed to that and I think our producers pay an unfair share. We would be on an equal basis with other countries in this regard because other countries do the same with what we export to them.
For the most part, farm production organizations and boards are in favour of this legislation. They have raised some concerns. I have raised a couple of them, but I also have a couple of other questions. I am pleased the bill is going to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. There are some things we have to clarify there.
The term GATIable has been mentioned by previous speakers. We hear that term or the words acceptable at the GATT a lot right now. Could an agency established under this legislation for a particular product be accepted because of what it does with those moneys? Would it be accepted at the GATT by other countries?

February 19, 1992
Government Orders
Another concern we have to clarify in committee is: Could a research and promotion agency be established for a particular product in one region of Canada, or would it have to be a commodity specific at either the provincial or national level?
Another question we have to clarify is: If an agency were regional specific, would it be possible for other Canadian regions to benefit from the research paid from the levies on that small producer group? Those are a couple of the concerns I have.
Another concern I have is: If a sector of the agriculture commodity after a vote or a plebiscite or whatever agreed to have a check-off, how would it affect smaller producers? I know the logistics of this could be and would be addressed in regulations, but I am thinking in particular of a veiy complicated industry such as the horticultural industry where there are large producers and small producers. How would the size be established at which we began to have a check-off? Many horticultural production units are only one, two, or three acres in size. They do not sound like very large operations in Canada compared to some of our other types of farming, but they may very well produce a sizeable amount of fruit or vegetables. The logistics would be checked off.
A good example, and the minister raised it earlier, of how this type of thing can work is the National Beef Information Centre. I just want to touch on that because I am pleased and proud to have a family owned facility in Wellington, Ontario, in my riding Prince Edward-Hastings in Prince Edward county that has worked with the National Beef Information Centre to get the Canadian patents for a new product called beef fingers.
I know all of us in the House realize that cows do not have fingers, but we also have to remember that we have eaten a lot of chicken fingers and chickens do not have fingers either. I guess we can see what research has done: the National Beef Information Centre and these entrepreneurs in my riding have developed fingers on cattle.
It is an excellent product. I had an opportunity back in August to sample some. I am pleased to say that it is going to be a success story. There are investors coming forward wanting to get involved. Strips of pure lean Canadian beef are going to be used for that.
This is a case where a check-off has helped and can help. It is a good example because a lot of promotion has been done and will be done in the future.
I thought I would take a minute as well to talk about marketing boards. Being one that has been involved in different types of marketing boards, I thought it might be worth while to explain to the House and to explain to the Canadian people a bit about the different types of marketing boards.
Quite frankly we all have to admit unfortunately that too many consumers out there do not realize the importance of farm boards. When they hear the words "marketing boards" too often the dollar sign flashes in front of their eyes and they say: "Yes, they cost me money". I want to make very clear that they do not cost producers money. For the most part they do not cost the taxpayer a very great amount of money at all. However, they do provide the farming community-and when I say "the farming community", I mean the whole agrifood community: the producers, the suppliers, the processors and the trucking industry-with a tremendous service.
There are different types. Yes, we do have the supply management boards where we say to the rest of world that we will not provide surpluses, produce surpluses and ship them into their markets. Therefore we feel we have the right to limit the amount that they ship into the Canadian market. We also have other types of marketing agencies. There are the ones that I refer to as the pooling types. A good example of that is the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board where producers of wheat in Ontario deliver their wheat to an elevator and the price is pooled. There is no price set. Whatever the price is over a 12-month period, it is pooled and every producers gets the same amount per tonne of grain. There is no pre-set price. The world sets the price and the market sets the price.
There is another type of board where the product is assembled for sale. They simply have producers of such things as hogs take them to an assembly yard where they are marketed and offered for sale.
I am pleased that this bill is going to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. There are some questions I think we need to clarify for Canadian producers and Canadian consumers. I look forward to that discussion and debate in committee.
February 19, 1992


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has discussed some of the commodities that have been using marketing boards. He mentioned that he is a pork producer, or has been a pork producer. I wonder if he would care to comment on the problems some of the commodity groups have had with the concept of this kind of marketing legislation which we are amending here today.
Would he be comfortable freeing up this legislation, while we have it open already, to permit the establishment of national marketing boards for other commodities, without each of them having to come to the House to convince the government it should be a named commodity and should be included in the legislation? Is he comfortable with that approach?
I ask this question because I understand from watching the proceedings back in the 1970s that the Canadian cattlemen seemed to be almost paranoid about any legislation on the books which would permit 50 or 60 per cent of the producers to opt to use a marketing agency for the marketing of their commodities. For some reason they were absolutely afraid of what might transpire if democracy prevailed and 50 or 60 per cent of producers decided that they wanted to operate under this kind of legislation.
I am wondering if he could give us his opinion as to whether this legislation could be expanded, while we have it open, specifically the requirement that the government must name the product before producers can set up an agency under the marketing side of this act.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point.
We have to recognize what has gone on and what is going on in the Canadian agrifood industry at the present time. The production sectors have given any economic viability to the agrifood industry over the last number of years. Those production groups have been dairy, eggs, and poultry. They are the five that are there at the present time.
My first response to the request by the apple producers in Canada was that it was a very realistic and very mature request. I do not know how anyone can oppose that. They are saying to the Canadian consumer that they do not want to comer 100 per cent of the apple
Government Orders
market. At the present time there is a level of importation into Canada. They are prepared to live with that. They do not want to roll it back.
I used to produce a number of hogs per year. It was extremely difficult for me to do any budgeting. Four or five years ago I can remember the day when I was happy if the price of pork for the producer hit $2.20 per kilogram or $1 per pound. This is on a dressed weight basis.
Six weeks ago it hit $1.02. If you are working in a factory, have your own plant, or are working in an office, how would you react as an employee or a producer of anything, whether or not it is connected with agriculture, if that fluctuation was there?
The reasonable level of profit this type of legislation has allowed to the dairy, egg and poultry sectors has also allowed those sectors of agriculture to play a very major role. They have been able to be environmentally sustainable. With that reasonable level of profit-and it is not an exorbitant profit, by any stretch of the imagination- because of the security of their income they have been able to budget, to practise proper soil conservation, land conservation, and to buy the pieces of equipment which allow them to do that.
We do not have to say it very often in this House because we know it: Two-dollar wheat does not allow the Saskatchewan farmer to farm the way he or she knows they should farm because they simply cannot afford to do it.
This type of legislation allows that to happen. It allows the proper agencies to be put in place to improve not only the lot of the Canadian farmer and all of the spin-offs to related industries but also benefits the Canadian consumers in the long mn because it allows us to keep a Canadian food security policy in place.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, two quick comments and a short question for the member for Prince Edward-Hastings who spoke very well.
First, I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I have an interest in speaking on this bill. Judging by the time tonight my chance to speak on this bill will likely be another day. I am looking forward to speaking on this bill and participating in the debate on this interesting and important issue.

February 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
Second, and I want to make this point because I have not had an opportunity today to raise this matter. On the day the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade are travelling to Europe to discuss the supply management sector at the GATT I want to say on public record that I very much support the strengthening of article XI. I hope that the government will take all the steps it can to protect the supply managed sectors of our farm economy and ensure that when the negotiators return and the GATT talks are over the thousands of producers of poultry, eggs, turkey, and other supply managed products have a secure future in Canada and can operate as they have in the past.
My question to the member for Prince Edward-Hastings relates to this legislation, specifically because he mentioned the National Beef Information Centre. I am very much aware of the activities some of the breed organizations are involved in. For example, in my comer of the province of Saskatchewan the Hereford breeders are very active in their work and are very anxious to promote the Hereford product as opposed to other beef products. I am aware that there is tremendous competition amongst the breeders of the various breeds of cattle.
I am wondering if the hon. member has looked at this legislation closely enough to be able to tell me if there are opportunities for breed action in terms of the check-off or if the money for check-off all go to beef, whoever that happens to be?


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake has raised a good point.
My interpretation of the legislation at the present time is that it would be the Cattlemen's Association or the Beef Producers Association and this legislation would not allow it to break down to an individual breed organization promoting a breed. It may very well be but it is a valid point and we should clarify that in the committee. I am sure we will when it goes to the standing committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36 the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia. (p. 6615)
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with and interested in the proposal that has been put forth by the hon. member for Davenport, that a royal commission study be initiated to study the pricing of pharmaceuticals in Canada.
Clearly, Canadians need and deserve a system in which pharmaceuticals are available at a price that is not going to cripple the ability of the provinces to provide services and not going to cripple the consumers as well. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated many times here in this House that he is committed to work with the provinces to make sure that we do maintain and keep reasonable prices for consumers.
Drug pricing in Canada is a complex issue and it covers many jurisdictions. Federal jurisdiction is confined to the factory gate prices of patented medicines. The provinces have jurisdiction over retail prices and dispensing fees for patented and non-patented medicines.
I am really concerned that a royal commission into drug pricing would become bogged in jurisdictional disputes on what belongs in the federal responsibility versus what belongs to the provincial responsibility. No one in this House wants to derail a process of looking at the prices of drugs within this country. That could be the effect of a royal commission.
Perhaps all of our efforts here in the House would be better used to study drug pricing and direct them toward the areas where the Government of Canada has sole jurisdiction. One such area is in the regulatory system that tests new drugs before they are made available to the public. Canada has a regulatory system that ensures safety, efficacy, and the quality of drugs that are marketed here in Canada. Our system is one of the most stringent and demanding in the world and it has been in
February 19, 1992

place for some 30 years. There is a price that Canadians pay for maintaining, as I said, one of the most stringent and demanding regulatory regimes. It often takes our drugs a lot longer to reach the marketplace than in other countries. Regulatory processes also add to the costs of government. They add to the costs of doing business and they add to the price of the pharmaceutical products.
There are many questions that can be raised about the Canadian drug regulatory system, questions that clearly fall in our jurisdiction, the federal jurisdiction. How does our system, Canada's system, compare to those of other national regulatory agencies? What can be done? What can be done to create an international system where testing procedures in one country will be recognized in another country? With one of the most exacting and demanding systems for drug approval in all the world, could Canada become a leading international centre for clinical testing? Other countries could then recognize Canada and recognize our approval, only if it meets their own standards. In fact, since 1986 Health and Welfare has conducted a lot of certifications of World Health Organization vaccines for measles, polio, diphtheria, and in the last couples of years has extended that to include tuberculosis and tetanus. Drugs would be in the hands of consumers more readily if we had one system for qualifying and making sure that they were safe all around the world.
One of the questions we have to ask is on the optimum level of international harmonization. I know that sounds difficult. I think as the global community gets smaller and smaller, we are going to see various agencies from one country start to harmonize with an agency of another country. Let us see how Canada could contribute here.
Last October, we hosted the Sixth International Conference on Drug Regulatory Authorities. In 1989, we hosted the International Symposium on Drug Safety. We have joined the European Free Trade Association scheme for the evaluation of pharmaceutical reports. We support the expansion of the World Health Organization certification scheme and are committed to ensuring that drug exports from Canada are authorized for sale in Canada and that they conform to the good manufacturing practices scheme of the World Health Organization.
Private Members' Business
We already are harmonizing with meeting standards of many countries around the world.
What is our role in the international marketplace for medicines? Does the current regulatory regime add to public health intelligence? Can we adopt a system for categorization, for drug evaluation that would be based on a level of risk? Maybe this is the route we should go.
What elements of the regulatory program can be transferred from government level to industry or to health care professionals without compromising the safety or quality? These are all questions. They all fall under our jurisdiction.
A royal commission is not necessary to answer these questions. The Government of Canada has already embarked upon a review that is going to answer a lot of questions about the regulatory system here in Canada.
Last month the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced an external review of the Canadian drug approval system. It is going to be undertaken by Dr. Denis J. Gagnon who is vice rector of research at Laval University. The review will advise the minister on the regulatory model and drug approval processes that will best serve the Canadian public and that will take us into the next century.
It is going to review and look at the recommendations for the regulatory system released in 1985 by the Nielsen task force report. Valuable information can also be gleaned from Auditor General's reports and the report of the Stein working group on drug submission review. There are many pieces of information out there. In fact, when we look at the amount of information that is currently available here in Canada, we can conclude that a royal commission would really be duplicating the information that is available and adding a severe cost that is really not necessary.
Therefore, it is not necessary for this commission to travel across the country. All we have to do is review the information that is available right here.
Also, we have asked Dr. Gagnon to look at the policies and practices of national regulatory agencies in other parts of the world and the level and extent of international harmonization and how we can make it work and

February 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
what would be appropriate for Canada and what would be an appropriate role that this government might play.
He is expected to submit his report to the minister later this year. I know it is going to provide practical and specific recommendations to continue to assure the safety, the efficacy, and the quality of drugs. It is also going to minimize the regulatory burden.
We have to minimize it, absolutely. This is where a lot of our costs come from. But we cannot compromise our standards and we cannot compromise safety to protect the consumers. There is no need for this royal commission. Most of them, Mr. Speaker as you well know, run in the area of $15 million to $20 million, if not $25 million. That information, as I have already stated, is available here.
I feel very confident, and I know the minister will look forward to Dr. Gagnon's report.
Perhaps, as I said, the time has come for each country to take a look at harmonizing. If we recognize the standards and the safety factors of other countries, we do not need the burdens and regulatory agencies. Canada is one of the best and one of the most stringent, and indeed other countries could recognize us. A lot of the clinical testing could be done here.
I would like to conclude by saying that there is absolutely no need for royal commission at this particular point in time. I would hope the House would support the government's effort to review the whole drug regulatory system. We look forward to the results of Dr. Gagnon's report.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin in discussing this motion with the remarks of the parliamentary secretary who preceded me.
She said that this commission was unnecessary. If I understood her correctly, she really referred to two reasons. One is essentially that the information that would be sought by it is already available through the efforts, first of all, of the Gagnon committee, and second, it is available through the ongoing work of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board.
I would like to take issue with those points in this way. First of all, the Gagnon commission is intended, as she rightly pointed out, to study the process that we have in
Canada for certifying the suitability of medicines for distribution to the public.
What this motion by my colleague from Davenport attempts to get at is not precisely that point itself at all, although such a commission would consider the cost at the manufacturers level, which in large part, of course, is affected by the timeliness of the ability of a drug manufacturer to distribute to the public.
That is only part of the story. In essence, what we are getting at with this motion is an effort to study the costs of medicines throughout the distribution chain, not only at the manufacturers level. Likewise, her comment with respect to the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board similarly misses the mark in terms of what the motion attempts to accomplish.
The mandate of the review board itself is limited to two things. First of all, it is limited to reviewing the price at which the manufacturer sells to the wholesaler so that that board has no authority to review the final retail price or mark-ups between the factory door and the store shelf.
Second, the review board's mandate extends to reviewing the annual price increases of patented drugs so that at present, the board reviews the prices of about 3 per cent of the drug products approved for sale in Canada. There is a very wide margin in the amount of information available compared to what we would find by such a commission as is proposed by this motion.
What we have learned from representatives of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada is this. In general terms it seems that the mark-ups by the manufacturers range from 15 to 60 per cent; by the wholesaler in the drug distribution chain, 7 to 10 per cent; and by the pharmacist, 30 to 50 per cent. In addition, the pharmacist will charge a dispensing fee of 6 to 11 per cent per prescription. Now on request to determine how accurate these levels are, the research officers in the Library of Parliament who are very capable at finding information, came to this conclusion, and I am quoting from the Library of Parliament report: "The financial reward in dispensing a drug depends on both the dispensing fee and the difference between the buying and selling price for the drug. Some of the prescriptions will be filled under provincial drug reimbursement plans with negotiated fees and costs. The provinces will make these fees and costs public. The
February 19, 1992

degree of compliance by pharmacists with the program is unknown. Some provinces allow the pharmacist to levy a surcharge on the drug costs. Others allow the pharmacist to keep the difference between the actual drug cost and the formulary price.
"In addition, there are the private and the employee drug plans for which there are not readily available public data. The extent of a free market for the remaining prescriptions differs among provinces as has been described earlier. To summarize, there are not uniformly reliable data on the financial reward to dispensing drugs".
What would be an appropriate question, on the basis of that quotation, is what should be the concern of the Government of Canada with respect to this issue, given that the market exists? We do not do investigations into the prices of everything, and I think that is quite simple. The issue is simply based upon the fact that a very large proportion of our publicly funded health costs are incurred in the acquisition of medicines required by patients. Those costs are paid out of the public purse.
As we have seen from the research that we have been able to do, nobody really has a handle on how all of these costs are arrived at. We cannot pin down what the level of mark-up is stage by stage in the process. There is some question as to how competitive the acquisitions are. It seems eminently reasonable, therefore, in the face of that, that we should be supporting the idea of a commission undertaking or embarking upon a study into these prices.
I want to make clear that what we are dealing with here is not the issue of innovative drug manufacturers versus generic drug manufacturers; that issue is entirely separate from this particular issue. In either case, we need to deal with the level of mark-up that occurs through the system.
What can certainly be said in general terms is that if an imperfect market exists, prices will not always be reasonable in relation to costs. What we have in this case is a very imperfect market where the consumers of medicines are often unconcerned with the cost because they, in person, do not incur the costs and where the provinces have the difficulty of trying to either compensate users or force them to pay premiums over the costs of their drugs.
Private Members' Business
To refer to the Gagnon study relating to when drugs can be put on the market or to refer to the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board as providing the information that such a royal commission could obtain and make available as part of the over-all study that must be ongoing continually at both the federal and provincial levels with respect to health care costs, is fundamentally to miss the point.
I would like to conclude by saying that the proposals that the member for Davenport has made in his motion, that the House urge the government to launch a royal commission to look at the level of mark-ups throughout the distribution chain in the pharmaceutical industry, is an entirely reasonable one and one that I am pleased to support.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, this motion which I wish to support is, I believe, a very simple motion and I am surprised that we do not have the support of the Conservative side of this House. I heard the hon. member from the Conservative side saying that this is not necessary.
I just want to go back to the Liberal motion so that we understand what we are talking about. It is absolutely necessary to support it.
The motion says:
That this House urges the government to launch a royal commission into pricing practices in the pharmaceutical industry to determine the rate of mark-ups in price at each transaction, from manufacturer to wholesaler or distributor, from wholesaler or distributor to retailer, and from retailer to the public, in order to determine how such mark-ups affect the Canadian consumer.
That means we want to know whether the Canadian public is getting fleeced, is getting ripped off. I would like to see this royal commission because I have my own opinion and my opinion comes from the people I represent in my riding of Chambly. The senior citizens group from St. Mathias told me about the high price of their medication, as did the senior citizens groups from St. Bruno in the town of Chambly and St. Basile le Grande. If there is one thing these people tell me, it is that they are getting ripped off on the price of pharmaceuticals. The problem is that they cannot get a 10 or 15 per cent raise in their pension income because it is not there.

Private Members' Business
We are talking about the fact that pharmaceuticals are costing so much nowadays, but that is okay because the province is paying for them. They are free. I am sure my friends on the other side would say: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". Well there is no such thing as a free pill. The province is paying for it, which means I am paying for it and that you are paying for it.
I must say that as a consumer advocate I have seen certain patterns emerge among businesses. I do not think the pharmaceutical business is that much different. They get their foot in the door, get a monopoly on a product, and then they make sure that nobody else gets in.
That is why I welcome this motion. It is a Liberal motion but I think it is a motion that everyone can identify with. I do not think there is any question of partisanship here. It is a motion which gets down to the nitty-gritty. Are we being ripped off or not in pharmaceuticals?
We must take a look at the cost of medication nowadays, particularly in view of patent legislation where I believe we have been sold down the river by this government as far as increasing patent protection and shutting out the generic companies is concerned.
I am sure the members on the other side will say: "No, that is not the case. By making sure that generic drugs which are cheaper do not get into the marketplace too soon, we are creating more investment. We are getting more money in R and D". I looked at that. Do you know what? The R and D represents about $200 million a year, maybe $250 million. Some companies in Quebec said: "Well, we may invest this year or maybe not. We are waiting for the Constitution to settle down". But it represents about $250 million per year or let us say $300 million. I will tiy to be as factually correct as I can.
Mr. Speaker, if you take a look at just one province, the province of Ontario, it has said that the patent protection changes will represent increases of approximately how much? This is not a quiz, but I see that my colleagues on the other side are silent. Well, let me help you. It is not $200 million. No, it will cost more than that. It is not $300 million to equal the R and D, but 450 million bucks. That is why we are going to pay more.
As I said, there is no free lunch and there is no free pill. In reality, it is not the provincial government that is paying, it is the taxpayers who are paying. That is what is scandalous about this whole deal.


An hon. member:: Where do you want the drugs made?


Philip Edmonston: Where would I like the drugs made? I do not care where the drugs are made necessarily as long as we are not paying more than our fair share for them.
I do not know what members on the other side know about drugs but I was a medic in the U.S. army and I remember the difference and cost of different drugs, generic versus the regular drugs. I will give you an example, Diazapan. Do you know what Diazapan is? It is Valium. You buy it as Diazapan it costs you pennies, you buy it as Valium which is the trade name and it costs you about 25 times more. It has been on the market for decades and they are still ripping off the public as far as the amount of money they are getting under the Valium label.
Let me talk to you about tetracycline hydro-chloride. Do you know what that is? It is an antibiotic and it is called Terramycin. The same rule applies. Do you want me to tell you about aspirin? Aspirin is not generic, Aspirin is actually a trade name. That is why if we mention Aspirin outside this House the drug companies are going to say: "Whoa, make sure that you say aspirin is a registered trade mark" because they do not want to lose their trade mark. Aspirin is acetysalicylic acid and it costs pennies but when it is Aspirin or Bufferin or Bayer-I could talk to you about all the Aspirin wars in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s but I will not waste your time-when it gets into that trade name then you are going to pay a lot more for the same product.
I would not care. I would not be up here speaking about this if this drug monopoly and drug pricing were not affecting the most vulnerable people in our society, but it is, and you know it when you go down and see your people who are in the senior citizens groups. You know dam well that is the case. It is not just pricing.
One of the first cases I had when I was elected here about two years ago was one dealing with a medication which used to control angina and they found out that it had an arthritic affect. So they took that same medication, renamed it and they boosted the price five times. I had to go on Market Place. I had to complain. I had to make a big issue of it until a drug company said: "Oh,
February 19, 1992

yes, you are right; it is the same product". Well let us bring it down to a reasonable price.
I believe fundamentally we are getting cheated. I believe fundamentally there is a need for this type of royal commission. When we talk about the $25 million it might cost, I just bring you back to the Auditor General's report against this government that complains that this government has wasted over $20 billion in not investing properly our pension funds, which it has. So do not talk to me about $20 million to $25 million. I want to make sure that we stop fleecing senior citizens on the cost of medication in this country.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on this motion because it gives me a chance to tell some of the members who were elected in 1988 and who are new here, as well as any Canadians who might happen to be watching, my particular perspective on the history of this whole drug issue.
Needless to say, I am opposed to the royal commission because in a sense the Prices Review Board is an ongoing royal commission looking at the prices of drugs charged in Canada all the time and it puts the companies to very strict examinations and presentation of information as to what they are charging. It is an ongoing body, very professional, and has had a dramatic impact on the price of drugs in this country.
As well, there are parliamentary committees and we have standing committees that can take up, any issue we want. So if the members of the opposition truly believe and can make a prima face case that there that there is a rip-off, there is absolutely no doubt that the standing committee on health can take up the topic and follow up on it. We do not need to hire maybe 10 people at $800 or $900 a day on a royal commission to do this type of a study.
What I am more astounded about is the continued opposition and the continued hatred displayed by the members of the opposition toward public corporations in this country because that is really the underlying current that they are getting at. [DOT]
If a company becomes public and large, they are inherently opposed to it. They are particularly opposed to manufacturing companies.
Private Members' Business
Look at all the decades that the Liberal-NDP coalition carried on that manufacturers sales tax, all the while knowing that every other country in the whole world had abolished manufacturers sales taxes against their manufacturing firms.
Canada was the only country in the whole world that continued that anomalous manufacturers sales tax. This is primarily because manufacturers are big companies and they just do not like them. The fact of the matter is, they do not like them.
What they are also getting at when they are opposed to those companies and those companies surviving is that they are attacking the research and development.
They are attacking our universities and the training of basic scientists who have to work there. I will talk about that further, particularly with respect to drugs.
There is no doubt that during the latter parts of the 1950s and 1960s that drug companies were charging a lot for their drugs. The rate of increase was higher than it ought to have been, but that was occurring around the globe.
So governments reacted. In virtually every other country of the world where they acted at all on it, a prices review board was brought in with the power to call the companies in, to subpoena their records, to examine the research and development they were doing and the cost of developing these drugs. That is very expensive; $200 million or $300 million is nothing to develop a new drug and it then takes from 9 to 12 years to even get it on the market.
Most other countries came up with a prices review board. Not Canada, not the Liberal-NDP coalition that ran this country for many years together, always hand in glove.
Oh, they would have a lover's tiff from time, to time, particularly around election time, to make sure the NDP could get a few elected, but when they got right down to it they were always sticking together just like that.
I sat back here a couple of rows in 1979 when they brought down the Clark government and there has been a continuing history of that.

Private Members' Business
What did they do? They abolished patent protection. There was no prices review board. They took away the patent rights.
So what did the companies do? If you want to invest in a drug company, are you going to start your company in Canada and make drugs, hire Canadian university graduates, our chemists, our physicists, our scientists, to develop these drugs when you could go to Switzerland, to Britain, to France, to the United States, anywhere around the world but Canada?
Of course, they did not come here; they went to these other countries. So research and development got smaller and smaller in Canada. It did not mean we were using less drugs. It meant that the drugs our people had to buy were manufactured by young people, workers and scientists in other countries.
It did not save us one cotton-picking cent, but what it did cost us was tens of thousands of slots in universities and science positions in universities where Canada could have been developing the drug so that everyone else in the world would be paying a small royalty to us. And it could have been self-sustaining.
Because of the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, the country that developed insulin, that should have been a leader right into the next century went into a Third World status in terms of drugs. That is what we inherited in 1984.
It was exactly the same with respect to plant breeders rights. They opposed it. The NDP is on record as having opposed it for years and years. The combination of the NDP and the many organized church groups who were totally off-base in their opposition meant that new varieties and new grain types were being developed around the world, but not in Canada.
By the time we come along and get the modest patent protection for drugs through, we are 10 to 15 years behind.
The same with plant breeders rights. By the time we got that through this House, our scientists, who for the first time could get some patent protection and therefore develop varieties and get a royalty, are 15 years behind.
In high technology companies, when you are one year behind you are a dinosaur. If you are 10 or 15 years behind, you have an absolutely huge burden to get over.
That is exactly what the Liberal Party left this country. Fortunately in terms of the third bill that involved patents they learned, and I must give them credit, by the time we came along to the Integrated Circuits Topography Act. I know that because I was the parliamentary secretary and ran it through.
They are these little chips. They are really like an apartment building. There is layer after layer of silicon with wires going between them, or some other connection. It is like an apartment building.
We have 25 companies in this country that build these integrated circuits. It is an enormous job creation place for our talented young people. It is a bit like an architect designing how the pipes will go up through apartments.
With no patent protection of course companies were not going to do it here. So we got a bill through the House, and I must say that both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party voted for that bill. Finally, they realized that in this country we have to do research and development. To get research and development we have to have patent protection. That is really a step ahead.
Let us not forget our history. This resolution is just a return to that typical attitude that they have that they are against anyone who is doing corporate work or anyone who is doing R and D.
Was it successful? Yes. The drugs in this country only take 6 per cent of total health care costs. The R and D being done in 1986 was less than $100 million. This past year it was $300 million.
Think of the young people who are working today, our scientists who are working who were not working even four years ago. They are going to use the drugs anyway. Finally, they can use drugs that were developed and manufactured in this country.
I am looking at a chart which shows that every other country offers many more years, almost twice to three times the patent protection that we do. It is very important that this resolution not be passed because it will reduce a very substantial and healthy business in this country.
February 19, 1992


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here in support of the motion of my colleague from Davenport:
- urge the government to launch a Royal Commission into pricing practices in the pharmaceutical industry to determine the rate of mark-ups in price at each transaction from manufacturer to wholesaler or distributor, from wholesaler or distributor to retailer, and from retailer to the public, in order to determine how such mark-ups affect the Canadian consumer.
I guess I have been somewhat shocked at the previous speaker's comments. I would like to say why I can support this motion.
The pharmaceutical industry in Canada is a substantial business. Its activities amount to $4.5 billion every year.
For certain products called patent drugs, the industry enjoys a substantial monopoly situation which could be strengthened and amplified if the present negotiations at GATT are successful.
The whole question of mark-ups in the price of pharmaceutical products affects the consumer. Markups in this industry also affect the taxpayer and the public purse.
Why is this a public issue? It is a public issue in two respects. This is an industry that is federally regulated. The cost of prescription drugs is covered by provincial health care plans with public funds.
It is so simplistic. As a result of this brief overview I find it very difficult to understand the previous speaker from the government side of the House. This affects the public purse.
We as Canadians have been very proud of our health care system that ensures that all Canadians receive complete and thorough medical treatment regardless of income or economic standing. But an important part of the picture is missing, a part that perhaps we should be less proud of.
Every Canadian can go to a doctor and every Canadian can get a prescription for whatever drugs are needed to heal the symptoms of illness. For some Canadians they can even go to the pharmacist and get those drugs free. But for many, depending upon a variety of factors including where they live, they cannot afford to get the drugs they need at all.
As I said earlier, drugs are a major industry. The annual revenue is $4.5 billion. This revenue is divided
Private Members' Business
between a number of sources: the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the pharmacist. At each stage the price of the drug gets higher and higher.
Estimates place the mark-ups at between 15 per cent and 60 per cent by the manufacturer; 7 per cent to 10 per cent by the wholesaler; and another 30 per cent to 50 per cent by the pharmacist.
For seniors and for people on low incomes, these drug mark-ups can incur a considerable hardship. The people who most often need drugs will be the ones who are least able to afford them.
At the moment there is one check to the seemingly uncontrollable increase in the price of drugs which is the generic drug industry in Canada. It is strong and it is Canadian owned.
The generic drug industry has been able to flourish in Canada because the patent protection period on new drug products is much shorter than it is in some other countries.
Now the catch on the government side is that the government now wants to extend the patent protection on drug products to 20 years. It says this will be an incentive to the industry to invest in research and development. Will this move be a good one for Canada?
At the moment, 92 per cent of the pharmaceutical industry is foreign owned. It is not even Canadian owned. There are even monopolies in the system.
The two largest Canadian manufacturers are Novo Pharm and Apotex, both producers of generic drugs. By extending patent protection on name brand drugs for 20 years this government will severely impair the current efforts of these two firms to expand, two Canadian companies I might add.
The foreign companies that control the brand name drugs will have plenty of money for R and D that they can take back home with them, while the Canadian companies will be forced to cut back. And of course this will mean loss of Canadian jobs and more people on unemployment insurance than we already have in this country.
Statistics show that those on low income, due to a number of factors, are the ones most in need of drugs. What a vicious circle this government is creating.

February 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
As one constituent of mine has said, and I am sure she will not mind my quoting her. Her name is Gwenda Noad and she says:
For many Canadians, the purchase of essential medications is the major item in their health care costs. It certainly is for me. The ability to obtain generic drugs provides substantial relief and I find it difficult to understand why this action is being taken which will in future years erode our ability to obtain low cost drugs.
Mrs. Noad, I also find it difficult to understand. It is simply an uncaring, unsympathetic government.
This motion is so obviously necessary that I am surprised it has not received unanimous consent in this House of Commons. All this motion asks is that we keep tabs on the pharmaceutical industry.
As my colleague from Davenport has said, the waters are so murky here that he was not even able to discover how far-reaching this problem is or how many Canadians it is affecting.
This government has said that there is already a system in place to monitor the drug industry. Bill C-22 created the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, but the mandate of that board is so limited that it renders the board ineffective.
It deals only with the mark-up between the manufacturer and the wholesaler. In any case, all it can do is review the prices. If this board thinks the prices are too high it is powerless to act.
Another argument against federal intervention is that this area of price mark-up falls too much under provincial jurisdiction.
I repeat here what I have said before, that I am proud as a Canadian of our universal health care system and I think most Canadians are too.
If one senior or one child in this country, anywhere from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland to Whitehorse, dies because that person cannot afford to buy drugs that he or she needs then that is one death too many.
This motion is simply saying: "Let's force the players to put their cards on the table. Let's let Canadians know
what the mark-up is on these products that they do not buy for choice, they do not buy for enjoyment". People buy drugs because they need them to stop pain, to ease discomfort, and to make it through a difficult day.
Drugs are not a luxury item. If we really believe that universal medicare is important-and I for one am proud that Canada provides health care for all its citizens- then let us make sure that all Canadians, rich or poor, have access to drugs and medication that they need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will now suspend the sitting until eight o'clock for the special debate.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 7.47 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
February 19, 1992

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eight o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House under the provisions of Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the situation in the Atlantic fishery.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's) moved:: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is about fish; more to the point, it is about people. I am grateful to the Speaker for entertaining my request and allowing this debate this evening. I have no illusions. This debate will not solve the problem which we face. What it will do, I trust, is focus some national attention on a national industry in distress and on a treasured way of life that is under unwarranted and vicious attack.
The debate this evening must also focus some minds and get the attention of at least some of those who are most responsible, and who must bear the lion's share of the responsibility for allowing a once proud industry to come so precariously near to oblivion. At the same time we must get the attention of those same people who happen to be in a position to do something to correct this situation.
I do not exaggerate; I do not overstate the case. The Newfoundland fishing industry is at a watershed. A way of life which has nurtured Newfoundland's sons and daughters for five centuries is slipping relentlessly beyond our grasp. If that is permitted to happen, Canada will certainly be the loser; all of Canada will be diminished by it because that will be nothing less than cultural genocide.
Chief among those who stand indicted of this doublebarrelled wilful act of destroying both a precious marine resource and a proud maritime people, is the Prime Minister of this country.
You see, this is all about political will or the lack of it. The factor which is most in play here is foreign overfishing, and I will have something more to say about that in a moment. The senseless, suicidal ravaging of the fish stocks off Newfoundland would have stopped long ago if the Prime Minister had taken on the issue.
As you know, this Prime Minister has a well-earned reputation of being a man who can grab hold of an issue and see it through to the result he wants. Thke for example the free trade agreement and the GST. He wanted these and he got them against all odds. Now many of us are suffering as a result, but that is for another debate. The point here is that the Prime Minister's commitment to a cause usually produces some results. His commitment and his agenda often prevail, and therein lies the crux of the problem in the present case. Foreign overfishing is not on the Prime Minister's agenda. He is not seized with the issue. Until that changes, the pillaging of Newfoundland's fish stocks by the Spanish and Portuguese will continue unabated and indeed will accelerate.
This year for example, foreign overfishing is up by 100 per cent while the local Newfoundland fish catches are down by 50 per cent. Do we need any more proof than those two statistics? Unless the Prime Minister focuses his mind on this matter, thousands of fishermen in my riding and elsewhere will sit idly on the wharf this summer and for a lot of summers to come. Plant workers will be forced to turn to welfare handouts. Fish plants by the dozens will close their doors forever and community after community after community will vanish off the map altogether.
Every single Newfoundland MP is on deck for this debate tonight. My friend and colleague from Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception is here. My friend and colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte is here. My friend and colleague from Labrador is here. My friend and colleague from Gander-Grand falls is here. They are here because they, like me, want to tell you something of the misery being inflicted on their constituents by this tragedy.
They are here because like me they want to inform you and the people of Canada of the situation. They are here because they want to implore this government to act while there is yet time to act.

February 19, 1992
I am certain my friend from St. John's East will also want to bring his concerns to this debate, and I look forward to hearing from him. I am especially pleased to see my good friend from St. John's West, the Minister of Fisheries in his place tonight. I understand that he will follow me in this debate. That is entirely as it ought to be because he is the Newfoundland MP among the seven of us who we want to hear from most on this issue.
Many Newfoundlanders are watching these proceedings on television this evening to hear from the minister of fisheries. As our sole representative in the cabinet he can do most to get the ball rolling to the immense benefit of his constituents and mine and all the others who have the privilege of sitting here representing the people of Newfoundland.
Therefore may I appeal to him not to miss the golden opportunity that is his this evening.
I saw him writing frantically a moment ago and I am sure that steel trap mind of his is working overtime this evening.
Is it too much to ask of him that when he rises to speak he resists the understandable temptation to score some easy debating points about lily white Tories and big bad Liberals? Newfoundlanders know that he is a first-class debater. He will know that the debate this evening is not about who can deliver the slickest line. It is not about one-upmanship.
As my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception said yesterday, it is about the worst of times in the cornerstone of the Newfoundland economy. It is about foreigners laughing all the way to the bank. As I have said it is about a way of life, his way of life and mine, and it is about cultural genocide.
What is the minister prepared to do to help stop it and pull us back from the brink? That is what I want to hear this evening. I believe that is what every Newfoundlander who is watching and listening wants to hear from our friend from St. John's West.
I do not want to suggest for a moment that the minister is out to lunch on this one. Far from it. It is true he sat on his hands for about four years from the beginning of the 1985 fishing season when the overfishing began until the end of 1988 before he opened his mouth to even acknowledge there was a problem, let
alone protest it. But true to form, when he got in gear he took on the file with a vengeance and that is to his credit. We lost four valuable years but we cannot retrieve that now.
Indeed it occurs to me in reflecting on my friend from St. John's West that in some respects he may be seen more as a victim than a villain or culprit in this whole sony mess. After all, he is the one who has been left dangling by the Prime Minister on this issue. After all, he is the one who wages what must be a very lonely battle in cabinet.
Part of my purpose here this evening is to try to make his battle just a little less lonely. Unless that minister can change the mind-set in cabinet, I have to wonder why he even bothers to hang in there. Having said that, I must admit there is a part of me that prays he will, but another part of me is prepared to admit to him that I would completely understand if he does not.
I said a moment ago that this is an industry of national proportions. It is that. We often think of the auto industry as a great national industry and it is. Let me do a quick comparison. The auto industry, principally in Ontario but somewhat in Quebec, represents in total, in terms of the auto plants and the auto parts plants, about
117,000	jobs at the moment. That is almost precisely the number of jobs represented by the Atlantic fishery in terms of men and women in the boats and the plants in the four Atlantic provinces.
To put it differently, in Ontario terms the auto industry represents just over 2 per cent of the jobs. In Newfoundland the fishing industry represents 21 per cent of the jobs. It is at once a very important contributor to the regional economy, but in terms of absolute size it is right up there in national job numbers with the auto industry. I am sure most Canadians would identify it as being one of our great national industries.
Newfoundland means fish. It has always meant fish from the time that Giovanni Caboto, John Cabot, shouted in his native Italian buona vista which is where we get Bonavista, the town of a proud name in the riding of my colleague, Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It has meant fish from the time he was moved to report to the King of England that the waters around Newfoundland were "teaming in codfish". From that moment on Newfoundland came to mean fish, so much so that the west country merchants of England succeeded in their lobbying at the English court in persuading the English king to make any permanent settlement in Newfoundland illegal. That lasted until the year 1829. Notwithstanding that, from the early 1500s Newfoundland
February 19, 1992

became something else. It was fish, yes, and it is fish today. It means that. But from the early 1500s it came to mean something else. It came to mean home for increasing numbers of people.
Today, five centuries later, it means home for well over one million people. I include the 560,000 to 580,000 who live there today, as well as about 600,000 who were bom there but now live outside the confines of Newfoundland.
The interesting question is: why did the first people settle in Newfoundland? The answer is very simple: fish. In other terms, why did they settle there? Because they were doing what Newfoundlanders have always done and continue to do to this day. They were going where the jobs were. That is what brought them to Newfoundland. They were going where the jobs were. Even if that meant defying the established tradition, defying the vested interest, the corporate agendas and the political agendas they went where the jobs are and that practice has not changed.
Why is it that there are 100,000 native-born Newfoundlanders living in southern Ontario today, 80,000 in the Boston area, tens of thousands in the Los Angeles area, thousands in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and thousands more in Cambridge, Ontario, and why do hundreds of my constituents make the trek from Terrenceville, Bay EArgent and other communities every year to spend six, seven, or eight months working on the CP rails in Saskatchewan or B.C.? Why is it that hundreds of my constituents and others operate the boats on the Great Lakes every summer for several months a year? It is because they are doing what their ancestors did 500 years before them. They are going where the jobs are.
It is part of this debate-if you are influenced by some of the editorials of the last day or so-so let us put to rest this cowardly, sick notion that my countrymen, my fellow Newfoundlanders, are a bunch of lazy conniving, nogoods who sit up nights trying to figure out ways to con a few more bucks out of the taxpayers of central Canada so they can keep their 10-42 lifestyle in which they work for 10 weeks so they can sit back for the other 42. Let us put that one to rest.
Let us also put to rest that gem of political wisdom, that bit of gibberish which seems to be consuming the energies of the Ottawa policy makers and some of the armchair experts at the universities which say that what is happening in Newfoundland has always been the case. Yes, the fisheries have been up and down, but so has the auto industry, agriculture, and the oil industry. It is always the case that consumer demand or foreign competition or the weather will create fluctuations in any industry. Mark my word that what is happening in Newfoundland today is absolutely without precedent. It has never happened before, never before.
While we are at it, a third red herring that we should dispense with is the one the minister unwittingly got involved in the other day. It is that the fish have discovered a new game, a Newfoundland favourite. They are out, they are playing hide and seek. You cannot find them because they hid away on us. That is the latest one. Scientists could not find them. The fish have gone AWOL, absent without leave to use the military term.
Another quasi-military term comes to mind. They are not AWOL they have paid the supreme sacrifice. The scientists are looking in the wrong place. They ought to be looking in the bone yards, in the fish offal piles in Spain and Portugal, or on the dinner tables of western Europe. If the scientists want to find the fish that is where they are. The scientists have probably been looking in the wrong places.
Those scientists should also check the ice-pans of the north Atlantic and they will find there what the ever-increasing seal population has left because it cannot digest the codfish it has killed. Yes, seals are part of the problem. However, do not let that issue, while it has to be dealt with, distract you from the much larger culprit, which is foreign overfishing.
In conclusion, there is a solution and it is a clear solution. I never said easy but I did say clear. It is clear what must be done and done without delay. Before I come to that let me note that at least in theory there is a less complicated and a more desirable solution. Simply put, that solution would have the perpetrators, basically the Spanish and the Portuguese, of foreign overfishing stop their piracy. Tb that end, the minister to his credit and some of his colleagues have repeatedly taken the message to the European community that overfishing is taking a dreadful toll on our industry and our way of life.

February 19, 1992
My friend from St. John's East and I did likewise. We went over to Brussels, Madrid, and Lisbon and talked to all the right people and gave them the same message, as has my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls. We appealed to their common sense, their humanity, their pocket-books, and their enlightened self-interest. None of it worked, and it is not going to work.
The time for friendly persuasion, for gentle talk, and for after dinner cocktails is over on this one. It is absolutely over. It is not going to work. It will not work. Anybody who keeps saying so is dreaming in Technicolor. We acted in good faith and for a thank you we got kicked in the teeth.
The time has come to do what it is necessary to do: to look after our own backyard. Clearly the only solution is to set in motion the necessary train of events to extend Canada's jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence. I would have wanted a minute or so to elaborate on this point, but the minister needs no education in what is involved in extending the jurisdiction. A number of things can be said about it, maybe at another time, but for the present I appeal to him, when he rises to speak, to address this particular situation. It is at the crux of the problem and of course in tandem is the political will of the Prime Minister to do something about it. These are at the crux of the problem and hold the answer to a solution which will redound to the minister's benefit, will save a way of life, and will save a very great national industry.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. It was a very good effort. There is quite a bit of it that I can certainly agree with.
We are speaking tonight about a serious problem. I must say that I have become disturbed in the last few days with the attitude that seems to be taken on the mainland of Canada in newspaper editorials and the like with reference to the situation in Newfoundland. It is most dispiriting.
We have had several hard blows in the last 10 or 12 days. One was the threat to the Hibernia project which is a chance for Newfoundland to diversify, to get high-technological development and to use the resource off our shores to which the Government of Canada has given tremendous assistance. To see almost general cheers go up in editorial boards across Canada, painting this as some kind of terrible megaproject the Government of Canada should never have been involved in and this effort to develop in Newfoundland and Labrador this undeveloped area as a besmirching and ignoble thing that the government did, is most disturbing.
I saw two asinine editorials in the Tbronto Globe and Mail, which is supposed to have the intellectual leaders of the country in its editorial ranks. I have sent them a letter today which I hope they are going to publish dealing with their pusillanimous, silly and ill thought out points they made in their alleged editorials. It is not just the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is across the country.
Timing to the blow to Hibernia, in my opinion it is going to survive. I have survived hundreds of disappointments with Hibernia and I am going to survive this other one. We are going to overcome it, no thanks to mainland editorial opinion.
In addition, we have this blow with respect to the state of the fish stocks and the northern cod. Newfoundland members understand what the northern cod means to Newfoundland. It is difficult for mainlanders and those not bom in Newfoundland perhaps to understand this.
The province was settled because of the presence of the northern cod. The area we are talking about, 2J-3K-L, extends from the end of my district in Trepas-sey, up around the Avalon peninsula on the north-east coast of Newfoundland, up through White Bay, up through Labrador to the north of Labrador. This is the area we are talking about. This is the principal fish. The reason why Newfoundland was settled was the presence of the northern cod.
To get this in context, Newfoundland is not finished. Because the northern cod stock is in danger does not mean to say Newfoundland is gone or that this is the whole fish stock of Newfoundland. This is a serious problem. I am not denigrating that, but the idea is getting around that the whole fishery of Newfoundland
February 19, 1992

is gone, that the whole fishery of Labrador is gone, and that the whole fishery of Atlantic Canada is gone. That is not the case. There are many other species of fish in Atlantic Canada and around the shores of Newfoundland. The south coast fishery is not the northern cod. The gulf fishery on the west coast is not the northern cod. This does not affect crab. It does not affect other species.
What I am terribly worried about is the negative reporting of the last few days. Who is going to invest a cent in Newfoundland if we allow this impression to continue that all is gone in Newfoundland and Labrador; we are finished; we have had it; there is nothing left; there is going to be no economic activity.
What can we expect of the banks? They are already pusillanimous enough. They already do not want to invest in the fishing industry. I ask hon. members to keep in mind that yes, this is a very serious problem we are discussing here.
We are not discussing the end of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not discussing the end of the fishery in Atlantic Canada, but we are discussing a serious threat to one of the main fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery that attracted settlers to Newfoundland and Labrador, the reason why there is a rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is of course a very serious matter.
TUming to the northern cod, 90 per cent of the jobs from the northern cod are in Newfoundland. It is 46 per cent of all the available cod quotas. It is 21 per cent of all of the groundfish that might be caught in Newfoundland; 85 to 90 per cent of it is caught and processed in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am advised that 63 per cent of all Newfoundland fishermen and 69 per cent of all of the plant workers of Newfoundland and Labrador are located in 2J-3K-L.
The present crisis we are still dealing with started really at the end of 1988 when CAFSAC, the Canadian fisheries scientists, had taken over from the NAFO Scientific Council. It had done the work on the estimates of fisheries stocks up to 1986 and turned it over to Canadian scientists. At the end of 1988 the scientists advised us that there was a major change in their prognostications with respect to what the cod biomass
was for the northern cod. That is when our problem started.
In that year the total allowable catch for the northern cod had been set at 266,000 tonnes by the then minister. The scientists had recommended that if we kept to the fisheries management level of FO.l, the mortality rate based on FO.l, that we could take 16 to 20 per cent of the biomass of the fish stock in question, the TAC that year could have been 293,000 tonnes. The minister wanted to be on the cautious side so he had set a TAC of
266.000	tonnes.
At the end of that year, in December 1988, the scientists came back with a revision of their figures. They said they had concluded that the fish stocks, which had been brought to a low level by 1977 when a 200-mile zone was established, had not increased since that time by a measurement of five but had only increased by a measurement of three. Their estimates of the previous several years had been out. They said that if the measurement we wanted to apply for the following year was the management tool of FO.l, we could only take
125.000	tonnes of the northern cod.
In other words, this would be a decline from 293,000 tonnes that the scientists said was the proper TAC in 1988 to 225,000 tonnes in 1989. I do not think that any sensible government would have immediately gone from a TAC of 266,000 tonnes, which was the cautious figure we had set, to a TAC of 125,000 tonnes. It wiped out the industry overnight. It just about wiped it out completely overnight as a result.
The TAC was reduced for the year 1989 from 266,000 tonnes to 235,000 tonnes, which the scientific advisers said was a TAC that would not endanger the stock, that it would keep it at its then present biomass. It was safe to set that as a TAC. Dr. Leslie Harris and a group were appointed to review the whole situation. That is where the problem we are still dealing with originated.
Dr. Harris and his group did a very fine job and made their final report in February 1990.1 just want to set the record straight about what they recommended or did not recommend. The first recommendation was that in respect of the northern cod stock and as a matter or urgency there should be an immediate reduction of fishing mortality to the level of at least 0.30 and, at the

February 19, 1992
earliest feasible date, to the level of 0.20. Now 0.20 is the management tool FO.l. It allows us to take about 20 per cent of the then existing biomass.
Dr. Harris has always stressed that the scientific analysis is not sure enough, that we should be conservative and that it would be safe to go below whatever the scientist was recommending. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you-and I only have 20 minutes-that we have not set any total allowable catch in excess of what CAFSAC, our scientists, advised could be done. For example, in 1990 we set the TAC at 199,262 tonnes. In 1991 it was reduced again to 190,000 tonnes and a three-year plan was adopted so that in 1992 there would be a reduction to
185.000	tonnes and in 1993, to 180,000 tonnes.
In December 1991 I set the TAC for 1992 at 185,000 tonnes, which was in accordance with the scientific advice I was given. I was told by CAFSAC what would happen if we continued with our three-year plan. I will just read it:
The assessment suggests that the stock will increase faster than was forecast in last year's assessment largely because of the strength of the 1986 and 1987 year classes. It also implies that the FO.l target may also be reached in 1993.
They suggested that the existing multi-year management plan be maintained, and so I maintained it. That was December 23, 1991.
I wanted to have CAFSAC continue to look at the fall results of surveys and all the latest information to advise me again in February as to what they then thought in February to see if any changes were necessary. At the beginning of this week, as I made public, their figures have been revised and they now say that the biomass, instead of being 1,330 million tonnes as they thought it was in December, now looks to be 780,000 tonnes. The spawning biomass, which they had thought in December was in the area of 270,000 to 300,000 tonnes, was now
130.000	tonnes, in their view the lowest that it was in the last 30 years. The average spawning biomass in the last 30 years has been 290,000 tonnes.
The situation was far worse than was presented to me in the period leading up to December 1991. A decision has to be made as to what to do about this, and that is what we are debating here tonight. Obviously there is going to have to be some reduction in the total allowable catch for 1992 and there are going to have to be other measures taken. Apart altogether from the scientists, we
clearly have advice from the fishing companies and the fishermen that the fish stocks are not in the shape they should be in. We do not know what all the causes are.
Least year, despite the fact that the total allowable catch set was 190,000 tonnes, Canadians caught only
127,000	tonnes. The French caught 1,850 tonnes. The French are the only people who have any right to take a cod fish within the 200-mile economic zone of Canada. They have it because of a treaty entered into in 1972 and as the result of their past history in connection with St. Pierre and Miquelon and fishing in this area.
In the same period last year it is our estimate that the European Community took 47,000 tonnes of cod outside the 200-mile limit on the nose and tail of the banks. What is the nose and tail of the banks that people talk about? The nose and tail of the banks is a little area beyond the 200-mile economic zone where the continental shelf still extends. Down in this area is the tail and up in 3L is the nose of the banks. The codfish stocks are 95 per cent within the 200-mile economic zone of Canada and at different times during the year from 3 per cent to 5 per cent swim outside.
We have been unable to persuade the European Community, principally Spain and Portugal, to observe the conservation practices or the quotas allocated by NAFO, the international organization to which we and they belong which operates in this particular area of the northwest Atlantic. There has been a moratorium declared on the nose and tail of the banks by NAFO since 1986. However the European Community refuses to observe it. Last year it took 47,000 tonnes. Five or six years ago it took 61,000 tonnes out. This is our estimate, not what it is admitting and not what it reports as having taken.
I have not the time tonight to go into the Herculean diplomatic efforts we have made to persuade them to cease and desist and observe the quotas of NAFO. We have not been successful. I intend to have our Ambassador Gherson go to Brussels next week with some of our scientists to put before the Europeans the latest figures we have on the state of the northern cod, the results of the fishery of the last several years, and to request that they start to observe the moratorium declared by NAFO on the nose and tail of the banks with respect to 2J-3K-L cod.
February 19, 1992

Whether they will respond or not I do not know. I only hope that they will.
Our campaign with respect to this foreign overfishing is going to continue unrelentingly during 1992 both with respect to public relations work in the countries of the European Community and a resolution we have before the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development setting out what the rights of the coastal state should be with respect to straddling stocks that are both within and without the economic zone of that coastal state, because the present law of the sea is tremendously ambiguous and does not set out the rights of the coastal state.
My hon. friend, during the course of his remarks, said that the Prime Minister did not have the political will to deal with this question. That is simply not true. The Prime Minister, together with the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, in several guises as a minister, has spent many hours discussing this situation with the leading politicians and ministers of Spain and Portugal in the European Community and asking them to rectify it. That will continue and it will be stepped up during this year.
At the UNCED meeting in New York in March our resolution will be pressed and in Rio de Janeiro in June the same action will take place. We intend to ask for a conference of the countries involved in high seas fishing during the year. We have asked for a special session of NAFO to be held in connection with surveillance and enforcement matters, that will be held in March.
Today, I had the Ambassador from South Korea in to see me because certain non-NAFO countries are also fishing on the nose and tail of the banks, South Korea and Panama in particular. The Panamanian vessels are owned by Spanish and Portuguese owners; they are flags of convenience.
The South Korean Ambassador has advised me that as a result of meetings I had in Korea earlier, in excess of a year ago, and the representations we have made, the Korean government is withdrawing one of its licensed vessels from the area now and will be withdrawing another one by the end of the year or the first half of
1993.	It has instructed unlicensed vessels, which are vessels not licensed by the Korean government but owned by Koreans, to withdraw from the NAFO area
during the first half of this year. It has instructed third country vessels that have Korean crews to do the same. Some progress is being made with respect to that matter.
Our problem is not simply foreign overfishing. There is no point in our believing that just the cessation of overfishing is going to solve our problem. It is far more involved than that. We have to deal with the question of what is happening to the stocks of capelin which the cod feed on.
We have to deal with the question of seals, because whether they eat cod or do not eat cod they certainly eat capelin. If there are no capelins it is going to be very difficult to find cod. That is a question related to this issue, as well.
We have to get more information about the environment and environmental factors and how they affect the presence or actions of cod, capelin and other fish. We have to do more work on that. There are a lot of new initiatives which we have taken that we have to continue.
We have to try to look after those people who are going to be affected by possible fish plant closures or a possible lack of fishing activity. I intend to be in Newfoundland tomorrow to meet with interested groups on Friday and I hope and expect I will announce what steps we should take, commencing on Monday.
In dealing with this question you can be assured, and Newfoundland fishermen can be assured, that we are not taking steps which are going to directly affect the traditional inshore Newfoundland fisherman using traditional methods to catch fish, who is not a mobile fisherman and cannot move 50 miles, 100 miles or 200 miles to fish. I have that very much in my mind. That will be a principle of the action I intend to announce, hopefully next Monday.
In addition to the actions I will announce next Monday there will be other actions in the fisheries management areas announced from time to time. It makes it easier to understand the difficulty fisheries managers have when you see one of our scientists today saying, as quoted in the St. John's Evening Telegram, that: "The calculations of a scientist can be off by 25 per cent either way when they are calculating stock size." That is a fact. I have to try to manage the fishery being told one thing, which I recited to you in December 1991, and getting entirely different information seven weeks later.

February 19, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. Your time has now expired.


An hon. member:: He still has a minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent for the member to continue?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not trying to allege or suggest that there is anything wrong with the skills or qualifications of our scientists. It is just the nature of the beast that they are tackling. Present methods do not allow them to have a higher accuracy level than within these parameters which I have just quoted from the newspaper.
During the last several years we have put in place a number of programs, and will certainly be continuing the same kind of program, to try to help to diversify within the fishery and try to create employment and diversification outside the fishery.
A fisheries alternatives program is operated by ACOA. lb summarize, since its inception in 1990 some 575 projects have been approved at a cost of $41.9 million creating 1,547 new jobs in the rural areas affected by the diminution of fish stocks. In the province of Newfoundland there have been 485 projects approved and 1,356 jobs created to try to take account of and replace those jobs that have been lost. We have an economic diversification program under the Department of Fisheries to try to assist diversification within the fishery which will continue. Under that program $19.1 million has been approved for various projects in 1990-1991 and
1991-1992 which has enabled us to keep operating fish plants in Canso and Burgeo and at Grand Bank. Hopefully there will be others. This program has assisted us in starting a number of new businesses in rural areas of Atlantic Canada and of Newfoundland. This kind of program will continue to assist while this particular crisis is upon us.
Mr. Speaker, I did not know I had taken longer than two minutes. This is a very serious problem to cover in 20 minutes. I hope you will excuse me if I have gone a couple of minutes over.
I am pleased to be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at this time. What is the point of being Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when everything is going swimmingly and there are no problems because even then on all sides you are assailed because of the conflicting interests in the fishery. But I am pleased to have the opportunity to help my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this crisis. I will make every effort I can to resolve this crisis fairly and equitably and get all the assistance I possibly can from the Government of Canada in that direction.
I look forward to the help of my colleagues opposite in that task. Do not be too harsh in your criticism of the government, but keep the pressure on it for the future. What happened in the past or who made an error or a mistake or who was wrong-I can cite instances against the previous government and you can cite instances against this government. We have to keep our eye on the ball and see that the proper action is taken now to help our province through.
I am completely non-partisan in this matter. We have to keep our eye on the ball and see what we can do to help overcome the serious problem. It is not the end of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not even near the end. There are a lot of opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador yet and we have to counteract this terrible miasma of propaganda and ignorance that has spread across the mainland in the last 10 days since our difficulties with Hibernia and with this particular news.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George - Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a pleasure to participate in this debate tonight on behalf of the New Democratic Party and, in particular, on behalf of our critic in this particular field, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.
I find it a particularly important debate tonight because it is a debate about people, it is a debate about their livelihoods, and it is a debate about people in their communities.
People throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, Atlantic Canada are watching tonight and hoping for some assurance from Parliament and from the Government of Canada that there is a message and a signal for the people of that area who have suffered so much. In fact, as important as this emergency debate is tonight, I wonder if the people of Atlantic Canada are not getting a bit tired of being the subject of yet another emergency debate and if it would not be such a bad idea
February 19, 1992

if maybe for once Atlantic Canada was not on the news because the news has not been good.
When we see the news from that particular region about the number of lay-offs and job losses we know how much that is hurting. We had the Hibernia project mentioned as well as Sears Canada in Halifax, 656 part-time jobs; Stone Consolidated; Dominion Textile in Yarmouth; Rio Algom, the list goes on. It is because of the approach, dare I say, we have had from previous administrations and this particular government in allowing the so-called free market to dominate. That free market is really supposed to determine with an invisible hand just what direction the economy is going to go. Piled on that are the problems in the forest industry. Tonight we are debating the fishing industry but piled on that are the problems from this government, the goods and services tax, free trade, and now the mention from the Government of New Brunswick about user fees in health care. The bad news piles up.
Perhaps people were hoping for something from the minister. I must say that I think there is some disappointment in his comments tonight. We were generous in allowing him some extra time. We are hopeful that his announcement on Monday will go some distance to giving some good news to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada. We did not get any news tonight, we got a recitation of the problem. I think what the minister owed us tonight was a sense of his awareness and to give some assurance to the people on the east coast that the Government of Canada is concerned about their future.
We did not get that tonight so I think there is probably some disappointment. It raises the stakes, if you like, and the minister is very good at that. He is raising the stakes to see just exactly what kind of news he gets or he can provide on Monday. Let us hope it is some good news.
All we have to do is look at the importance of the fisheries resource in Atlantic Canada, and in particular the northern cod resource in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about some $700 million worth of industry in 1991. The fishing industry supports some
31,000	jobs in Atlantic Canada, 90 per cent of them in Newfoundland. The minister, in talking about it, said that is what made Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, we in other parts of the country understand that. It is the three "F"s I have talked about here-our farms, our
forests and our fish. We come from communities that have relied on the three "F"s. Tonight we are talking about fish but tomorrow it will be about forests and the next day, on Friday, it is going to be about farms.
That is why this debate is so important, because in those people's homes tonight we are talking about their livelihood and their future.
I congratulate the member for bringing this debate forward tonight and I want to outline on behalf of our party, the New Democrats, the program we have developed. It is a quick, four-point program, and I would like to see how the minister measures up against that when he makes his announcement on Monday.
Of course all of this comes from the decision or the recommendation that the catch is going to have to be reduced dramatically or we are in serious trouble. We are in serious trouble now. We are not talking lightly. We are talking about a possible watershed, the future possible shutdown of an industry, and thousands and thousands of jobs.
This recommendation to the minister is not new. In 1988 the Canada-Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Agreement had this to say: "That with few exceptions the fishery resources of the Atlantic have reached their maximum utilization and in some cases there is an indication that over exploitation is occurring". That comment was made in 1988.
In 1989 scientists indicated that their previous estimates of stocks strength were overestimated. They recommended a dramatic reduction be made immediately-
In 1990 Dr. Harris, who has been mentioned before, in a study commissioned by the government, confirmed what the scientists had discovered. Indeed, he stated publicly that "the reduction in the total allowable catch should move from 265,000 tonnes to 90,000 tonnes".
The crisis in the fishery was best expressed in a draft document circulated at the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Council meeting on Monday. In 1991 the TAC for northern cod was set at 190,000 tonnes. Only 127,000 tonnes were actually caught. The inshore fishery was "the worst since 1976, with only 67,000 tonnes caught". Further evidence regarding the government and the previous government, when I referred to the 1983 Kirby report that had been mentioned previously, identified what the problem was.

February 19, 1992
I know tonight there is an attempt to set a tone that we were going to be non-partisan and not point figures. Fair enough. We will not point fingers but some have to accept responsibility.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans mentioned yesterday about 2,000 jobs-and that is a conservative estimate and about the future of how many people's jobs will be affected by this decision and by what he is going to say on Monday.
In fact, the First Ministers' Conference of 1989 was told that the collapse of the fishery could result in some
6,000	jobs that would be lost. In the case of Ontario, if we were to use the same measurement, we are talking about a loss of some 115,000 jobs.
The government's own Employment and Immigration Advisory Council in 1990, its vision and view of the Atlantic fishery said: "Hundreds of Atlantic communities will lose their only industry. Thousands of families left without adequate incomes will be forced to rely on welfare or to uproot their lives for the dubious promise of mainland wealth". That is from the government's own report.
Let us in the short time we have tonight take a chance to review the four-point plan that our party, the New Democrats, is suggesting. I know the minister will take notes on this and I hope we can measure that against his announcement on Monday.
I preface that outline with the comments that were made just yesterday by our party's leader in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Newhook, who called on the Prime Minister to take a personal initiative in the face of this worsening situation.
It has been mentioned earlier how the Prime Minister when he has a problem at hand gets directly involved. In some cases he just calls George and they straighten out the problem.
Look at the problem we have now. It is time for the Prime Minister to take that personal initiative, to take hold of this problem and address it immediately, and for this government to address the problem of the northern cod fishery immediately.
What are we taking a look at in the four point action plan? The first point, and perhaps the most important point, is that this government should move immediately to assume fisheries management jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks effectively terminating foreign overfishing. We have a main reason for that.
We are talking about the conservation of a resource. It is an environmental emergency. Measures should be taken. We take up and accept the offer and the suggestion made by the minister of fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador that this minister should give the international community its notice that as of January 1, 1993 Canada will take charge of that particular area.
That is the message that should be delivered in Brussels. This country has a moral obligation to restore not only the fish stocks but also to ensure the future viability of Canadian fishing communities.
If Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, they must not be asked to bear the burden while foreign fleets continue to operate with impunity.
We should treat this as importantly as Canada has treated the debate about Arctic sovereignty. This government has not done the best of jobs in taking care of our sovereignty in the Arctic, but it has done virtually nothing to take care of sovereignty in this particular area. That is most important. That is the number one part of an action plan to resolve this problem.
The second point is that we must define the priorities for the future and what kind of fishery we want. Will it be corporate based or community based? If we choose the latter, we must move in conjunction with industry, labour and the provincial governments. The minister has mentioned that, putting in place the long-term strategy to achieve that objective and developing new fishing technologies which are not destructive of the ocean's ecology. A strategy which has as its premise of sustainable development.
February 19, 1992

There are fine words in the government's green plan about attempting to deal with the fish stocks.
I do not know if the minister has read the green plan. Perhaps he should take a second look at it to see that even the goals in this plan are upheld, because if we continue at the pace that we are going, they will not be. We will be in even greater trouble.
The third part of the action plan is to ensure and to watch that those communities, those people in those homes who are watching tonight at the very least, at the bottom line as Mr. Newhook said in his comments, get assistance to take care of those people who may lose their livelihood. Let us hope that that is not the case. As a bottom line, that is government's job as I see it.
In recognition that the offshore fishery could be shut down with job losses reaching between 3,000 and 6,000 people, the federal and provincial governments must be prepared to bring forward programs, perhaps on a level not seen before, of ensuring that thousands of families are not forced to go down the road in search of a future.
There is an old adage about how in war we always seem to be able to find the money, the energy and the effort. During the recent gulf war this government mobilized some $650 million for a six-month period. Under the adjustment program of this government we are talking about a figure of some $584 million over five years in five provinces.
If this is not a national emergency, it is one the government must put the same effort into to mobilize economic resources and government resources to ensure that the people in those fishing communities in particular are guaranteed and do have a future.
Those people want to make a livelihood in the fishing industry. They want to live in their homes and their communities, and they want to have a future there.
The fourth point in the New Democratic action plan is an important one. It is a point that is especially important given some of the debate now on the Constitution. It relates, of course, to the questions around the economic union and some of the necessary rules and
regulations that may be needed to protect some of those resources themselves.
We suggest close examination of that particular part of the constitutional package that will give some of those provinces some ability to ensure that they can manage those cases themselves.
In proposing and making suggestions tonight, we spent some time laying out some thoughts so that we have something to measure against what the minister will have to say on Monday.
We have taken this debate seriously enough to consider and lay out some suggestions and not to use the opportunity just to point fingers and blame Conservatives who perhaps duly should have that blame.
In conclusion, in this very important debate we are having tonight about just how important this issue is to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Atlantic Canada we must take a look at the people and their future there. That is my interest in this debate because it is an interest that I think is from coast to coast to coast.
How do we deal with those people who live in resource communities, dependent on our farms, our fish and our forests, if we continue to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water, we will always be or seen to be certainly under Canada-U.S. free trade?
We have talked about the fisheries resource but there is another resource. Perhaps it is the most important resource of all. I am talking about the resource of our people in Atlantic Canada.
As an example, I spoke tonight about young people. Of the pages who serve us in this House tonight, there are some nine who are from Atlantic Canada. I talked to a few of them tonight about their future. Do they have a future? Will they go back home to Atlantic Canada?
I think that is a message that we hope they will take in earnest, that they will go home, back to Atlantic Canada and help develop that area. I know that is a difficult one for them. It is a difficult one for all the young people of Atlantic Canada and it is difficult for everyone in those communities.
I encourage and hope that the minister, when he makes his decisions on Monday, has those communities

February 19, 1992
in mind and makes sure that he makes the right decision for the people of Atlantic Canada and the right decision for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.


David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, just to forewarn the Chair that under Standing Order 43(2) members of our party will be dividing their time accordingly, 10 minutes each for the remainder of the debate.
I hope that the Chair will recognize that my colleague from Newfoundland was the individual who moved the emergency debate and I hope that the rotations will be in accordance with that.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and participate in this debate this evening.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making possible this emergency debate on a topic that is critically important to the people of Atlantic Canada. Indeed, as has been said by some other members here, this should be a problem and concern for all Canadians.
I want to address five points in my remarks tonight. I want to talk about what has happened. I want to talk about why it has happened. I want to talk about who is to blame for what has happened because we have heard much about that. I want to talk about what we can do about it and a little bit about what we should not do about it.
Quite clearly, the single most important fishery stock on the east coast of Canada is in very serious trouble. In Atlantic Canada 35,000 jobs depend upon that stock and it is a grave, serious situation, particularly for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also I should say for other provinces in Atlantic Canada, including my own and including the province of Quebec.
But we should not over-dramatize the situation. Not all fishery stocks in Atlantic Canada are in trouble, not the whole fishery in Atlantic Canada is in trouble. Indeed, many of our fisheries have never been in better health than they are right now and let us not over-dramatize the situation. Let us focus on what, in fact, is the problem.
The scientists have said that they miscalculated. In 1988, at the time when the TAC for northern cod was at
266,000	tonnes, they came to the minister of the day and
said: "Minister, somehow the numbers are not correct". They urged a vast and an immediate reduction.
The minister immediately reduced that stock to
235,000	tonnes and called upon a special task force to do a serious study of the situation to try to assess what it should be.
Dr. Harris and his colleagues reported and in consequence of that report the stocks were further dramatically and substantially reduced by the minister of the day. I might say it was not with the overwhelming approval of my hon. friends opposite, many of whom criticized the minister of the day and said: "You are putting people out of work". The minister of the day knew that.
Once again the scientists have come to the minister of today and have said: "You have to reduce that stock immediately by 25,000 tonnes over the next few months". In effect they have said: "Close the offshore northern cod fishery until June and then we will have a look at it and see what is going to happen".
That is a serious situation. It is going to directly impact at least three plants in Newfoundland and possibly one in my own province of Nova Scotia. It is going to mean up to 2,000 people, plant workers being laid off. It could mean up to 400 trawlermen being laid off. We have already just last week had 1,000 people laid off by FPI at Catalina. It is a serious situation and we have to ask ourselves: How did we get in this situation? I have heard my hon. friends opposite.
The hon. gentleman who opened the debate tonight said the whole thing is the Prime Minister's fault. Is it not interesting? Everything that happens in this country seems to be the Prime Minister's fault.
Last year the fishery in the Newfoundland was devastated because of ice. I suppose that was the Prime Minister's fault as well. Let us take a look. There is all kinds of blame to be shared by those who are less interested in solving the problem and more interested in determining who is to blame. Let us look at who is to blame.


An hon. member:: The Prime Minister is.


Peter L. McCreath: There is climate. There is the food chain, seals, fishing technology, inaccurate scientific data, foreign overfishing and yes, maybe there is bad
February 19, 1992

management, but we will come to that and draw our own conclusion when the time comes.
Let us look at climate for example. Everybody knows that 1991 was the most extraordinary year for bad weather and ice conditions in Newfoundland's history. We heard the hon. member for Labrador yesterday talking about the community of Black Tickle where not a single fish was caught in 1991.


Roger Simmons: I recognize that my friend from South Shore was not in the Chamber when the debate began and when the minister of fisheries and I spoke, so he might not have captured the spirit of the debate. We are here looking for some answers.
Could I appeal to him not to turn this into a circus because it is a very serious issue affecting a lot of people in my riding and elsewhere.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not think that was a point of order. The hon. member for South Shore has the floor.


Peter L. McCreath: As I said, I certainly would love to avoid partisanship here, but I was at Question Period today and yesterday, so let us talk about what I was talking about.
I talked about the ice conditions and climate being part of this problem. We have to recognize that.


An hon. member:: Well do something about it.


Peter L. McCreath: I think my hon. friend from Burin-St. George's ought to talk to his colleagues over there.
Let us talk about the capelin stock. Cod fish feed on the capelin. The capelin stocks have been very low. As a matter of fact in the 1991 season, the Russians had difficulty finding any at all and they are the only people who have ever fished that capelin. The reduction in their catches had nothing to do with overfishing because they have never had a quota that exceeded 13 per cent of the TAC of capelin. Capelin has always been a variable stock but it has always been a harvestable stock and there has been plenty of it. Why the disappearance in 1991? Quite simply, we do not know. Perhaps it had to do with cold water. Perhaps it had to do with unusual distributions. The bottom line is that for whatever reason the capelin is
not there, and that has obviously impacted on the cod stocks.


Ms. Campbell:: Blame it on the seals.


Peter L. McCreath: Then we come to the seals. The member for South West Nova wants to talk about seals. It is interesting that scientists say they do not know what the score is on the seals and what impact they have. I will tell you the fishermen know. The fishermen in my area can tell you about seals and the fishermen in Newfoundland can tell you about seals. The fact is that in 1983 the Europeans destroyed our seal hunt. I cannot remember who was in government then but perhaps my hon. friends opposite can. The seal population at that time was about 2 million. Today it is 3.5 million because the seal hunt was destroyed.
It is said that the average seal eats 1.5 tonnes of fish per year. If you multiply that out it means that the amount of fish eaten by seals increased by 1.8 million tonnes per year, or 3.6 billion pounds of fish. That has to have something to do with why cod fish stocks are down.
Fishing technology is another possible factor. The fact of the matter is that our fishermen are a lot better than they were because they have better technology. It is not that the fishermen of today are any more skilled than the fishermen of days gone by. They have better equipment and can find the fish a lot easier than they could then. So naturally their harvesting effort is a lot more productive. This has to be a factor in the situation.
Then we can talk about scientific advice. If you are in government it is an easy thing to blame the scientists for wrong advice. It is true the minister can only act on the advice he is given and if he is given bad advice it may well lead to bad decisions. The fact of the matter is that it is not fair to blame the scientists. This is a very difficult challenge. This government, through its commitment to dealing with this problem, has more than doubled the amount of money made available for science in studying the northern cod stocks. The bottom line is there will never be enough resources. The only way you can ever count the number of cod fish in the ocean is to drain the ocean and count them. It is not really practical to do that. You cannot blame the scientists. You have to recognize that it is always going to be an inexact science and at best it is going to be a difficult challenge.

February 19, 1992
Then we come to the next possible villain and we are getting down to the core of it here. We are talking about the impact of the Europeans in overfishing. There are two issues of overfishing that are significant. I am afraid that some of my hon. friends, having heard what I have heard in this House for the last couple of days, get very confused about the impact of foreign fishing in the North Atlantic on the northern cod stocks. There is fishing that goes on inside the 200-mile Canadian zone and there is fishing that goes on outside the 200-mile Canadian zone. The difference is that we control what goes on inside. We are accountable unequivocally and unquestionably.
We have had the destruction, or the apparent destruction, of the 2J-3K-L cod stock which is a trans-boundaiy stock. Where is the problem there? We hear my hon. friends opposite speak about the vessels that are licensed to fish inside Canadian waters. We have heard some suggest this is the source and cause of the problem. Let us take a hard look at it. How many tonnes of cod fish are Europeans licensed to catch inside the Canadian 200-mile zone? The answer is 2000 tonnes. This stock has declined from the point where the TAC was 266,000 in 1988. The minister is now being told to drop it somewhere into the low 100-plus tonnes, and we have 2000 tonnes allocated to the French. This is supposed to be the source of the problem. Well, no, not at all.
Our hon. friends talk about allocations of witch, plaice, and various types of flounder. This apparently is the source of the problem. That is not the source of the problem. Interestingly enough, the foreigners were licensed some years ago to come into our waters. It was in the period of 1981 to 1986 that the EC was given a long-term agreement which gave it access to 45,000 metric tons of northern cod over five years. In 1972 the government of my hon. friends opposite made an allocation of three million metric tons of cod fish inside the gulf to France in a five-year period.
This government had the wisdom to conclude an interim agreement to France that brought the rampant cod fishing by France under control to the point that this year France will probably catch less than 2,000 tonnes. My hon. friends opposite may wish to talk about foreign vessels fishing in Canadian waters as the problem, but the reality is it has absolutely nothing to do with the northern cod.
I might just say, as a digression, that foreign vessels inside Canadian waters are very much to the benefit of Canadian fish plant workers. Ask the people in Canso and Burgeo. One thousand Canadians are employed because of the deal made by this government to exchange silver hake and capelin for cod fish. That has put Canadians back to work. Is it the policy of my hon. friends opposite that those fish plants in Canso and Burgeo should be closed? It is the same with respect to silver hake allocations under joint agreements between Canadian and foreign companies which make use of resources that Canadians would leave in the water, provide a market for Canadians to sell fish back to those foreigners, and provide work for Canadian fish plant workers. No, the problem has nothing to do with the licensing of foreigners to fish inside Canadian waters.
However it has a great deal to do with illegal, rapacious, unenvironmental, and destructive fishing by Europeans outside the 200-mile zone on the 2J-3K-L cod stock. One need only look at the level of non-co-operation that has come from the Europeans. Although they are members of NAFO, each year they ignore the NAFO assigned quotas. They unilaterally give themselves a quota and then proceed to go out and catch every cod fish they can. The story is that in 1991 they caught upwards of 47,000 tonnes of fishery for which they were assigned a quota of absolutely zero.
I find it shocking that European environmentalists have the gall to talk about environmental problems in Canada, to talk about whether or not we harvest seals, to talk about how we harvest our forests, and they look the other way. I have talked to Greenpeace and parliamentarians in Europe. They look the other way at this environmental problem. We as Canadians should not be talking about what this government or the government in Newfoundland did or anything else. We can all stand united on the issue that this is outrageous and unacceptable.
The question is, can the Government of Canada do anything about it?


Some hon. members:: Of course they can.


Peter L. McCreath: My hon. friends opposite say of course they can. Well the government can meet with the Europeans and say this must stop. It can work with them co-operatively and try to persuade them, but the bottom line is that if it is international waters, it is their right to do whatever they want unless there is co-operation. My
February 19, 1992

hon. friends opposite have suggested we should ignore the International Law of the Sea Convention of 1973. We should throw away our 200-mile zone and unilaterally say that we are moving out and taking over, just as Saddam Hussein did with Kuwait. He said he was moving in and taking over. He had no legal right to do it but he did.
My hon. friend opposite from the NDP suggested we should unilaterally push it out. There is no international law that allows it. We face the possibility that the rest of the world will revoke recognition of our 200 miles and come in and take it all. Or maybe my hon. friends opposite say the solution is to send out the navy and start sinking ships. Is that what they are suggesting?
We have to deal with this in a realistic practical way. There are many people who can be blamed for this problem if you want to. If you want to ignore all those reasons I have given and blame the minister of fisheries or the Prime Minister go right ahead. But having done that ask yourself: How do we solve the problem?
I want to tell you the first way to solve this problem is by having a minister of fisheries and a government that has the courage to do the right thing and see that those stocks do come back. They must have the courage to face up to the fact that we are going to have to close down that fishing for some period of time. They must also have the courage and integrity to put programs into place that are going to help these people get over this time as they have done before, as they did last year with the ice problem and as they did when they brought in the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program with $584 million. To my NDP colleague that is a pittance, but it is a lot of money to us and has created jobs in my riding, in all of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and other parts of Atlantic Canada. That is the kind of proper, intelligent, courageous response.
I look to this minister to show leadership in dealing with the seal problem. We are going to have to tell the Europeans that maybe it is time we started shooting more seals. That is the only way to deal with the problem and if they do not like it that is their problem. We are going to have to get more aggressive with the Europeans.
Perhaps it is time for us to react in the Icelandic way and go out there and rough them up a little bit if that is what it takes. It is not the proper thing to do, but we have to protect the Canadian interests.
Now what should we not do? There are two things we should not do. We should not panic. We hear people across suggesting we should panic about this, that Atlantic Canada is collapsing around us and it is "woe is me" everywhere. This is not the case. We have a serious crisis and a serious problem with one fish stock that impacts greatly on Newfoundland and to a lesser extent on other areas. This government must deal with it and this government will deal with it, but we do not want to take the entire fishery. Let us not take the silver hake plan let us not take the turbot plan let us not deal with tuna or lobsters. Those things each have their appropriate place. They are developing as fisheries. They are going to create jobs for Atlantic Canadians in the future as they have in the past.
We have a problem with northern cod. We must deal with northern cod. Thank goodness at this time in our history we have the minister we do today. He is a man who is sensitive to Newfoundlanders and to Atlantic Canadians, a man who is intelligent and understands the issues and the complexities of the fishery. He is a man who has the courage to do what is right, a man who has the ability and toughness to stand at the cabinet table, a man who is not afraid of the opposition or the labour unions. He is a man who is going to solve this problem for Newfoundlanders and for Canadians.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speeches that have been made here tonight. I want to congratulate my colleague from Burin-St. George's. I also want to thank the minister for the information that he has passed on. The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley spoke a lot about the fishery. I am not really sure what he said.
I could have sworn that the last speaker from South Shore was speaking from this side of the House. He had a lot to say about the ills of the fishery. He hit the problem which has been skirted around for the last few minutes, but then he did not say what he could do about it. I have to remind him that he is on the government

February 19, 1992
side and it does have a responsibility for taking some action.
I do not take any pleasure in talking here this evening. Normally I do in this House. There are any number of subjects that I would rather speak on.
I want to put a human face on this. I want to speak directly to the problem and I want to suggest a solution. The human face is that I come from a riding which I boast is the biggest fishing riding in Canada. I have not been challenged on this yet. The fact of the matter is I have 57 fish plants. Two days from now on Friday evening the largest plant and one of the most up to date, if not the most up to date plant, is going to close. Eight hundred and fifty people are going to walk out that gate, 155 trawlermen are going to stop work, and they expect to go back in anywhere from two and a half to three and a half months. I hope they will but they are not sure. Their company is not sure and I am not sure.
We are talking tonight about the northern cod stock, 2J-3K-L, that forms a large percentage of the Newfoundland fishery, of the Canadian Atlantic fishery. Yes, there are variables, all kinds of them, plus or minus 25 per cent the scientists tell us. The Labrador current will change. The temperatures will change. The fish migrate.
I want to talk about one aspect. It is the aspect that causes me the most frustration but it is an aspect for which we have the figures and it is an aspect about which something can be done. I have made-I counted them tonight before I came here-20 speeches making that recommendation. You have heard me make some of them, Mr. Speaker.
These are the figures. The northern cod stock until about the 1960s was basically caught by the inshore fishermen. Because of technology and the size of trawlers and those kinds of things the catch of that particular stock of cod reached a peak in 1968 when 815,000 tonnes were caught.
I would remind the House that one tonne of fish works out to about 35 jobs. Every time I say one tonne, it means 35 jobs.
Last year we went from 815,000 tonnes to 127,000 tonnes. That is a reduction of 85 per cent. There are any number of reasons why this happened. I want to take one
aspect and that aspect has to be a large part of the problem.
We have talked about NAFO, we have talked about the European Community, and we have talked about overfishing. Two years after this government came to power an allocation of 9,500 tonnes was made to the European Community. It took four and a half times that amount, 30 per cent of what the Canadians took. The next year it had another allocation of 9,500 tonnes and it took 20 per cent of what the Canadians took, 35,000 tonnes. The next year it had no allocation and it took
26.000	tonnes.
What was the government doing about it? Up to now, nothing. The member for Gander-Grand Falls was complaining about overfishing. This government denied there was a problem.
Let me take you to the next year, Mr. Speaker. There was no allocation and they took 35,000 tonnes. What did the government do? It started to talk. It started to enter into diplomatic discussions. It started to send politicians off to the European Community.
Last year, and we you have heard the figures before, the European Community with no allocation caught
47.000	tonnes, the second largest in 15 years, a 100 per cent increase from the year before, while Canadian fishermen took roughly 50 per cent of what they took before, 127,000 tonnes.
The conclusion is that we have known figures. We do not need the scientific plus or minus 25 per cent. We know we have a problem and we know we have to do something about it. Time has run out. Time has stopped for talking, cajoling, coaxing and diplomatic missions. The time has come for the Prime Minister to get personally involved and for this government to do something about it.
The hon. member for South Shore said that you cannot just go outside the 200 miles and do what you want. I would remind this House that in my lifetime, the control of the ocean has gone from three miles, because that was the range of a cannon, and when a cannon became obsolete it moved out to 12 miles, because that was the range that high definition warning radar could pick up an average vessel in a certain sea state-I think it was sea state 3-and then it moved out to 200 miles
February 19, 1992

because people found that there were nodules, there was oil, and there were lots of fish out to that limit, generally speaking, the continental shelf of most countries.
Canada happens to be the second largest country in the world, with the world's largest continental shelf.
When the limit was three miles it was said that we would never be able to get beyond that. We are out to 200 miles now. Anybody who says that cannot be done does not understand international marine law, or does not particularly want to. The difference between international marine law and civil law-the Saddam Husseins and taking over another country-is that it has been recognized that unilateral action creates a precedent in international marine law and it can be done providing there are certain things that accompany it.
First off, there has to be a good reason and when you are looking at the livelihood of a section of your country, then I think that is a pretty good reason.
You have to be able to support it and enforce it. I would suggest that with the record that our navy had in the gulf war-it had 3 per cent of the force and it did 25 per cent of the interdictions- it is quite capable of enforcement. Then you have got to send your bureaucrats and your politicians out to speak out on this subject. Then, you have an action plan. You are doing something about it.
This is not the first time the minister has heard this. It is not the first time members have heard it. I have mentioned it 20 times in this House. Dr. Harris of the Harris report mentioned it in recommendation number 5. It was a Liberal policy platform, page 22, recommendation 10, in 1988. Premier Wells is now saying it; Mr. Carter, the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland, is saying it; Mr. Cashin, the head of the Fishermen's Union in Newfoundland, is saying it; and pretty soon everybody will be saying it except the government. When will it be able to say it? What is it afraid of? Why will it not do it?
In 1948 the Truman declaration was a unilateral declaration for the United States to take control of their mineral rights and fish out to 200 miles. It took a while for it to take effect. In 1974 a little country, Greenland, with a minuscule navy, took on the Royal Navy, the British Navy, and won its case in the International Court of Law, by a unilateral declaration because somebody
else was catching the fish that caused the livelihood of its people to shrink. Canada did it in 1977.
So we are not inventing something here. We are not doing something that has never been done before. We are suggesting a precedent that has precedents in law, can be done, has been done, and should be done.
As I wrap up my thoughts here this evening, I find it very hard to explain why the government that has a problem, knows what the solution is, is not doing it. I find it very hard to explain to the plant workers in the FPI plant on the border of Port Union and Catalina that this action is not being taken, an action that could ensure that they go back to work and that they will not be on unemployment insurance, and the other 56 plants in my riding, will not be taken.
With all the enthusiasm that I have, and I know that I am joined by my party in this, we are urging this government to pack up the nonsense, to get rid of the fuzz, stop the talking, and let us get on with some action to do something that is meaningful, helpful, and will help save the lives and the dignity of those people who are affected.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Speaker of the House of Commons for recognizing, at the request of the member for Burin-St. George's, that the situation in Atlantic Canada, specifically the situation confronting Newfoundland and Labrador, is indeed an emergency.
It is an emergency that requires the attention of the House of Commons of Canada. It is an emergency that can be defined as being in the national interest. It is an emergency that justifies the quite extraordinary, and Canadians should realize the unusual and rare decision of a Speaker to grant a request by a member for the holding of an emergency debate.
It is important to point that out because it seems to me that in very large measure what we, from Atlantic Canada, and we from Newfoundland and Labrador, have to face every time we debate this matter is the disbelief, the misunderstanding in many quarters and regrettably too often in this House, certainly sometimes across this country, that the fishing issue, the question of the 200-mile limit, the responsibility for conservation of the

February 19, 1992
fish stock, the responsibility for policing, patrolling and managing Canadian waters is not a regional issue.
It is not a Newfoundland issue. It is an issue of national interest and national importance. It is an issue that speaks to and defines in part the sovereignty of a nation. Tonight we are not speaking to fishermen, to plant workers who feel in great peril in their homes. Tonight we are speaking to our fellow Canadians and we are asking our fellow Canadians to bring the moral weight of their intrinsic sense of what is right to bear on a government that has refused to stand up and be counted for the fishermen and plant workers, for a way of life in Atlantic Canada.
Do members realize what it means when we say that the northern cod stock has collapsed as dramatically as it has, when we say that some 2,000 jobs in this industry are going to be immediately and directly affected by management decisions that are going to be forced on the minister of fisheries, when we say that it is the equivalent of an announcement from the province of Ontario that one-third to one-half of the entire auto industry had shut down?
Can we begin to even imagine the response and the reaction across this land if tomorrow the Premier of Ontario announced that one-half of the entire automobile industry of Ontario had gone down the chute?
This Parliament would find itself sitting around the clock day in and day out to deal with a national emergency, because that is what it would be. The economic consequences for Atlantic Canada, and in particular for Newfoundland, are no less when we say that the Atlantic cod stock, the northern cod stock, has collapsed.
There were 31,000 jobs in Atlantic Canada dependent upon the northern cod stock. The northern cod stocks make up 46 per cent of the entire cod stocks of the east coast of Canada.
In 1988, the quota for northern cod was 266,000 metric tons. By 1991, that quota was down to 185,000 metric tons and the fleet was only able to catch 127,000 metric tons. In the same year, the foreign fishing effort resulted in a doubling of the foreign catch. They are catching
20,000	to 47,000 metric tons.
The destruction, the wanton, deliberate destruction of the Atlantic cod stocks, in particular the northern cod stock, is every bit as great a criminal environmental action as the wanton, knowing, and greedy destruction of the rain forests. It is exactly the same because the nations that go out and deliberately overfish on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks, that wantonly destroy this resource belonging to all mankind for greed and profit in one year, are the same hypocritical nations that stand up in the world-wide agencies, in the UN, and cry about the destruction of the rain forests. Those are the same hypocritical nations, members of the EC, that stood up and banned the seal hunts off the east coast of Canada because they were people of great conscience. They are not people of conscience. They are people of greed and their principles can be bought and sold.
It is time that the Government of Canada understood that the destruction of those cod stocks is a national issue. It is in the national interest. It is time that this government is prepared to upset some of our so-called trading partners. It is time that we are prepared to establish linkage between good behaviour in the cod stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and a good relationship with Canada in other matters.
I will tell you what Atlantic Canadians feel. More than that, I will tell you what they know in their gut. They know that they are mere bits of plastic to be shuffled around on the world-wide Monopoly board. They know that they are expendable. They know that the government is fully aware of the criminal activity of nations fishing outside our waters and they know that the government is prepared to do nothing because this government has put the interests of Newfoundland, Labrador, Atlantic Canada, and the people on the east coast of this country secondary to other trade interests. That is the reality. That is a form of second-class citizenship that we will not accept in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Earlier tonight the minister of fisheries asked that we on this side of the House be generous in our response. I will tell him that in the area bordered by 2J-3K-L in my constituency people, some living two families to one house so they can save a few dollars, do not have any room for generosity.
February 19, 1992

In the small communities of northern Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the south coast where my colleague's constituents have seen their plants close, nobody can afford generosity for the member of St. John's West. It was that member who, for his time as minister of fisheries and before his time as minister of fisheries, stood in this House repeatedly and ridiculed the efforts of members on this side to point out that foreign overfishing was destroying the cod stocks off Newfoundland. Every time the member for Gander-Grand Falls stood in his place, or the member for Labrador, in all the years between 1984 and 1985 and said: "my God, open your eyes", the member ridiculed the representations of those members of Parliament. Since 1988 the member for Burin-St. George's, the fisheries critic, the member for Bona Vista-Trinity-Conception, have stood in their places and spoken up for Newfoundland and Labrador and the member for St. John's West has ridiculed their efforts.
I do not feel generous tonight. I do not feel generous. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador who suffered one blow after another in these last two weeks do not feel generous. They cannot afford to feel generous because they are preoccupied with putting bread and butter on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.
I concur with my colleagues. The government must finally prove that it has more than good intentions when it comes to the proper management of fish stocks, that it has more than a warm wish and warm feelings when it comes to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government must stand up and take the action required, the one described by my colleague from Bona Vista-Trinity-Conception, an action that is bom out of a will to unilaterally extend Canada's jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That is what this government must do. I will tell you what else it must do. It must acknowledge that the destruction which has been wrought upon this stock will not be quickly repaired. It must acknowledge that the management measures which will be put in place to restore this cod stock, because that is the minister's responsibility, are going to take three, four or five years.
It must acknowledge that people are going to be displaced from their livelihood for that entire period of time. As a result of the fact that those people are
innocent, they were not the managers of this stock, the government must commit itself to seeing that they survive this time of tragedy brought about by the incompetence, mismanagement and cowardice of the government opposite.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on a matter that is extremely important, since the problem facing the Atlantic provinces today is a problem that Quebec and the gulf must cope with as well.
I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
According to scientific data released this week by the Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee, northern cod stocks have dwindled considerably. The total biomass, estimated at 1.2 million tonnes in 1990, is reported to have dropped to 780,000 tonnes in 1991, while during the same period the spawning population fell from 270,000 tons to 130,000 tonnes.
Northern cod represents the most abundant ground-fish stock on the east coast. It provides a living for 31,000 Canadians working in the fisheries and processing sectors. Cod catches have been dwindling rapidly since 1988, and in 1991 inshore and offshore fishermen caught scarcely two-thirds of their quotas.
CAFSAC has recommended that the total allowable catch be substantially reduced. It will be cut by 25,000 tonnes for the first six months of 1992, which means half the volume taken during the same period in 1991.
The effects of a dwindling resource are already being felt. A lack of northern cod during the winter closed down one Fishery Products International plant in Newfoundland, resulting in 1,000 lay-offs and forcing 11 vessels to remain in port.
On Monday the minister of fisheries met with representatives of unions and industry and with his Atlantic counterparts.
Tomorrow and on Friday we will have bilateral talks with representatives of fishermen's groups and the provinces in St. John's.
Immediately after these meetings, decisions will be made and probably next week, measures will be an-

nounced by the government. The government's plan of action will be guided by specific objectives: first, to strengthen the scientific base and reinforce measures to deal with violations, in order to provide for better management and protection of this capital resource; second, to help the communities, fishermen, and plant workers affected by these events; and third, to continue the all-out campaign to stop foreign overfishing.
A number of unique programs have been set up to restore fish stocks, make scientific surveys, and intensify surveillance and enforcement.
The government has already launched a series of major programs to facilitate Atlantic Canada's adjustment to changing circumstances.
The government's latest initiatives include the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program which includes a plant workers adjustment program and a scientific program on northern cod, the Quebec fisheries federal development program, the Atlantic fisheries assistance program, and the compensation program linked to ice conditions.
AFAP, a five-year program with a budget of $584 million, was launched in May 1990. It includes a series of initiatives and concrete measures designed to ensure the lasting viability of the fisheries and help Atlantic Canada adjust to the drop in fish stocks and cuts in groundfish quotas.
Since the AFAP was implemented, operational activities have been started in many areas. Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, which I chair, will start reviewing the program's activities a few days from now. Yesterday, we had an initial meeting with opposition critics.
The Quebec fisheries federal development program was announced in the summer of 1990. The overall objective of this program is to provide for the lasting viability of the fisheries industry under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in this province. The program has four components which focus on marketing, processing, operations, research, and infrastructure.
There have been several major achievements since these programs were implemented. For instance, new
data were produced for evaluating stocks of northern cod, Scotian shelf groundfish, gulf crab and cod from the northern part of the gulf.
Considerably enhanced surveillance and enforcement has increased compliance with all fisheries regulations by Canadian and foreign fishermen. Compensation was paid directly to fishermen and plant workers affected by poor catches, ice conditions, and plant closings. Financial assistance was given to companies and individuals to enable them to diversify operations in the fisheries and other sectors.
Under AFAP, the federal government entered into agreements with the Governments of Newfoundland and New Brunswick, and it is continuing negotiations with the Government of Nova Scotia.
In 1991, as part of its measures to compensate fishermen affected by poor catches and ice conditions, the federal government injected $57 million into the economy of Atlantic Canada, part of which was taken from the AFAP budget. These two initiatives have helped cushion the impact of the worst ice and marine conditions ever registered throughout the region, and the impact of generally poor catches said to be due to abnormally low temperatures.
Under the compensation program for ice conditions, between May and October 1991, $18 million was paid to fishermen who were unable to leave port because of ice conditions. Mr. Speaker, since 1986, EC fishermen have exceeded by more than 400,000 tonnes the quota set by NAFO for cod stocks on either side of the Canadian 200-mile limit in the Northwest Atlantic.
In this respect, we have been very active before all international tribunals to support our case against foreign overfishing. The problem is not as easy as all that, unfortunately. Overfishing is significant, but what about the seals who feed on both capelin and cod? However, fishermen can rest assured we will do all we possibly can to deal with this situation.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of noise from the other side of the House. I hope that it is because of the position our government is taking for Newfoundland fishermen.
February 19, 1992



Let us look at the situation we have. I concur with my colleagues from Newfoundland when they say: "It is a problem for Newfoundland". It is. It is also a problem for Canada and myself as a Quebecer.

As a Quebecer, as a Canadian, as the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, I am with the Newfoundland fishermen today in everything that has to do with fishing in our area, the Gaspe peninsula, and everything to do with Newfoundland because they are our fishermen.

For the people who are listening tonight, as has been mentioned before this is not a political debate of the decision the minister of fisheries must make. We have to live with reality. I would hope the decision the minister of fisheries will be for the fishermen of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders especially but also for the east coast fisheries. The time has come many times over. If I understood the initial speaker on the opposition side, the first minister of fisheries was John Cabot. He did not have the social programs and the network that are in place now. We can blame former governments or we can blame the present government, but that does not do any good. The fishermen and the workers in the fish plants have to be treated not from the past but from today and tomorrow. We will do that. I have confidence.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you realize that there are two very difficult jobs in this great land, of course with all respect to the Prime Minister. There are two difficult jobs: that of the Minister of Finance who brings a budget down once a year and spends 11.5 months or whatever defending it, and that of the minister of fisheries who has the most difficult job in this land.
Again I say as a Quebecer and as a Canadian that we have problems in Quebec and in Newfoundland, but we must work together. The west coast has different problems. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the most difficult portfolio that anyone would ever want to have. I am honoured to be on the government side and to be able to work with a gentleman and a competent person in the name of John Crosbie.
Let us look at the problem we have in this debate, as I mentioned, and what has happened in the past. A
decision is going to be made: Do we agree with our scientists?

I said before that we are only 295 elected members in the House of Commons; however, we have 300,000 public servants who represent us, who administer our programs throughout Canada, in all the provinces and territories. But what is important for us, and I believe that the minister of fisheries pointed it out, concerning research and information-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Just a reminder. The Standing Orders do not allow mentioning members by name. Since it is the second time, I would remind the hon. member to refer to members by their riding or their department.


Darryl L. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with the research that has been done, with the people, the officials who work for us, of course, to save the fisheries in Newfoundland and the Magdalen Islands, these facts which have been presented to us must be respected. Where are we going?
The third problem is: What do we do after to keep these programs? How can the federal government get involved?

I was impressed this morning listening to the minister of fisheries from Newfoundland. He said: "Yes, we will bite the bullet for two or three years but it is a renewable stock". That is the type of co-ordination we must have in the east coast fisheries.
I will have the honour to be on the Magdalen Islands for three days this weekend to touch on all of the demands of the fisheries: lobster, crab, mackerel, codfish, and whatnot. We have to go back and listen to the scientific information to say what can be done and what we can do. The politicians in the past have created a monster. We have built bigger boats subsidized by both federal and provincial governments and we go back 40 years. We have built the boats, we have subsidized the fishing nets, and we have said: "Go and get it". Now we can catch in a week what used to take 10 weeks. That is the domestic side.

February 19, 1992
On the foreign side-and I understand the foreign problem with the Portuguese and the Spanish-there are measures to be taken. At the same time as we have increased our boats and our fishing gear they have also done that. When we talk about historic rights for foreign fisherpeople, they have done the same thing, but the foreign fisherpeople are not operating as they did historically because they are working with fishery factory trawlers. We must address that, and I know that our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is looking at it.
After we do those two things, the one dealing with history and the other dealing with the present situation and the foreign fishing, what we have to do is address ourselves to the people of Newfoundland particularly and to the spin-off for the rest of the east coast, the Gaspe. the Magdalen Islands, and the coasts of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Where do we go? The politicians have to get out of the game of playing politics with the fishermen. We should let them know what we can do and where we should be. Then, after all is said and done, let the fishermen decide themselves. They have to. Fishermen like our farmers, like our primary producers, must be together. They must know and they must have the assurance that we in Ottawa, in this great Chamber of perhaps controversy, will back up our people and our fishermen. I am convinced and I know that on behalf of my people from the Gaspe.

As Dr. Marin just said, what is happening to us, the people of Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands, is just the same as what is happening in Newfoundland. We will all work together to find a solution. But the most important people concerned in that, are the fishermen of eastern Canada.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Burin-St. George's for calling this debate and I want to thank the Speaker for having it, because this is probably the most serious crisis we have faced.
I have been in the Chamber for 20 years and I cannot recall a time when we have faced a more serious threat in our province. It is, as my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte on the west coast of Newfoundland and in part of my former riding has said already, not a regional issue; it is a national issue. My colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and others have documented the reasons for the decline in the cod stocks. They are clearly evident. As the catch for Canadian fishermen has gone down, the catch for foreign fishermen has gone up. Something like 47,000 tonnes is taken by the European Community, which is almost half the total catch taken by Canadian fishermen out of the total allowable catch. The evidence is clear.
There are some who say that possibly there has been some Canadian overfishing as well and possibly the Canadian offshore fleet is not completely innocent in this matter at all. Perhaps there has been some overfishing on the part of the Canadian offshore fleet, but whatever the cause is the European Community has to bear the main brunt of it. Clearly it cannot be laid at the door of the fishermen of Labrador because on the Labrador coast there is an inshore fishery. We are talking about boats of 20 feet and 30 feet and 40 feet. You can count on one hand the number of boats over 40 feet on the Labrador coast, in Makkovik in the north, in Inuit communities and farther south in Square Island, Triangle and in places like Battle Harbour, a name that is synonymous with the fishing history of our province, in Fox Harbour and farther down in the straits, in Red Bay, Lance au Clair and Lance au Loup, all of these are small communities with small plants and small boats and fishermen who make a small income.
They make almost no income at all at the present time as a result of the fishing offshore and primarily the overfishing by the European communities. That is all they know and that is all they want. They are there because the fish are there. That is what they know and that is what they want to do.
It is not their fault that we are in this situation at this present time, and yet they suffer. In Black Tickle last year, on the Labrador coast, there was hardly a single pound of fish landed. The year before, 2 million pounds of fish were landed in Black Tickle on the Labrador coast. They came there from all over. There were
February 19, 1992

probably 1,500 boats, not just from the island of Newfoundland, but from Nova Scotia and Quebec in that community.
There were two million pounds of fish landed two years ago, and last year, there was hardly a single pound. That sounds incredible. That sounds hard to believe, but it is the fact. It is a fact of life. What do those people survive on now that the fish are gone?
What they are surviving on is what we heard latterly from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tonight. He recited all the grants and all the programs that were available to these people. What it amounts to is a handout. What it amounts to is keeping people, and that is not good enough. That is not why they came there. That is not what they know. That is not what they want and that is not what they need.
What they need is not handouts from the minister, but action. What alternatives do we have? Very few, Mr. Speaker. We have the alternative of crab, which we are exploiting at the present time. We have the alternative of shrimp which, thanks to the Liberal government when it was in office, allocated to Labrador fishermen offshore shrimp quotas which are keeping them at the present time and created two small fishermen co-ops on that coast.
Those are alternatives. Apart from those, there are very few alternatives except for an industry that we used to have which was sealing. The Inuit culture to a large degree has been built on the seal. They use it for food and clothing. They have historically. What we suffered from in the sealing industry was overzealous environmentalists such as Greenpeace which told us that it was cruel and inhumane to kill seals. That population is gone. That industry, that door is closed to us.
The seal population has multiplied to the point where it, too, is killing the very cod on which we survive. Each seal eats a tonne and a half of fish. That is depleting the resource almost as much as the European Community.
That door has been closed to us. What has to be done? There has to be a cull of the seal herd. Seal can be used for food, and surely there are people in the world who need food. The seal population has to be culled. That is the first thing.
Second, there must be a limitation. The minister is going to take action next week. He has said here tonight, and we have to hold him to it, that he will protect first
those people who depend most on fishing, that is the inshore fishermen. I ask him to keep his word on that and to make sure that when he delivers the new quotas he bears in mind, first of all, those people who depend on the inshore fishery.
Third, he has to do what the member for Bona Vista-Trinity-Conception, my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, and my other colleague from Burin-St. George's have suggested, that is to extend unilaterally the jurisdiction of Canada to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
I can recall when the 200-mile limit was brought in. It was a Newfoundlander who negotiated that 200-mile limit. Don Jamieson was the Minister of External Affairs at the time that the Government of Canada brought in the 200-mile limit. Alan Beasley was our ambassador overseas. Between them, they negotiated on behalf of Canada and pushed on behalf of Canada, and fought to get a 200-mile limit. As my colleague from Bonavista- Trinity-Conception has said, before that it was a 12-mile limit. It can be done and it must be done. There is no alternative.
I have just come back from Europe and I can tell you first-hand that we are not making a dent at all. We are not getting anywhere in Europe. Quiet diplomacy has not worked. Discussion has not worked. The only thing that is going to work is unilateral action and a forceful unilateral action.
I am not one normally to suggest dramatic courses of action, but I am at the point where I would like to ask my colleagues to join me, to get on a boat ourselves to go out within the 200-mile limit to take action on our own to stop what is going on. Some dramatic gesture has to be made. The Government of Canada has it in its power, if it has the political will, to extend that jurisdiction and that must be done.
Fourth, once the jurisdiction is extended then the enforcement has got to take place. We have frigates and coastal defence vessels. They can be used to exert the will of the Government of Canada inside that 200-mile limit. These are the things that must be done.
I want to remind the government finally, as I said in the beginning, that the people on the coast that I represent are wholly dependent on fish. There is no alternative. That is why they are there and that is what they want to do.

February 19, 1992
In the minister's pondering of this in the next few days, I ask him to remember that this coast depends on fish and I ask him, when he makes his decisions, to act in their best interests.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to participate in this emergency debate. In doing so, I want to thank my colleague from Burin-St. George's who made the application under the provisions of Standing Order 52 for this debate, which I believe to be fundamental not only to the regional economy in Atlantic Canada, but indeed the entire Canadian economy.
It has been said by many in this Chamber that fisheries and particularly Atlantic fisheries is a regional issue. It ought to be stated here again that this particular issue goes well beyond the geographical boundaries of the four Atlantic provinces. This is a national problem with very significant repercussions for the entire Canadian economy. It requires the Government of Canada, which has sole authority under the Constitution for management of the fisheries, to take bold initiatives in order to resolve the very serious situation that we find ourselves in today.
I say national because I talk about jobs. I make reference to the social welfare of our citizens and, yes, I refer to the Canadian environment. Whether one lives in Newfoundland, British Columbia, or somewhere in between, all of us as parliamentarians, indeed as Canadians, must accept, must understand and must go to bat for an industry and a way of life that is in serious jeopardy.
I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from St. John's West, at the outset of my remarks, where he made reference to the somewhat ill-conceived mainland editorials which have appeared recently in our newspapers across this country. What arrogance. I make specific reference to the Toronto Globe and Mail which likes to refer to itself as a national newspaper. What hypocrisy at its best to say: "I will not read the entire paragraph because I only have a few minutes in which to speak". I say to them, Mr. Speaker, through you and to other members of this Chamber, that those of us in this Chamber, regardless of our political stripe, ought to say to those newspapers across the country which put down the poorer regions of this country and try to make out
that we want to live on the public trough for the rest of our lives is just not acceptable. The issue must be put, however, in the few moments I have left. What, where and who is running the fisheries in Canada. Is it the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? Is it the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Before I give that answer I want to put on the record what I believe to be some very obvious facts so that the reasonable Canadian will clearly understand.
In 1991, factory freezer trawlers inside the 200-mile limit were given 100 licences. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Halifax issued these licences to Cuba, France, Japan, Norway, Poland, the U.S.S.R. and Bulgaria.
Mr. Speaker, you are an intelligent individual. These factory freezer trawlers are not like the 18-foot rowboats that can be seen on the beaches in some of the more prosperous areas of Ontario. These vessels, I suggest, are anywhere between 300 and 450 feet whereas in Canada, a factory freezer trawler is roughly 175 feet.
We are not dealing with any pleasure boats. We are dealing with substantial floating fish plants. That is what they are. In St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1991 they issued 23 foreign licences, 9 factory freezer trawlers and 14 Faro Islanders, ships which are not factory freezer trawlers. They caught such fish as redfish, capelin, squid, Greenland halibut, silver hake, and numerous bycatches. So, I ask the question: Who is running the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? It is my humble suggestion that it is not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is the tail that is wagging the dog. The people who are administering Fisheries and Oceans are in the Department of External Affairs.
An hon. member shakes his head. Well, let him get up and participate in the debate. Let him show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Department of External Affairs is not running the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when you have that kind of fact.
My other colleague from the province of Newfoundland will participate later this night. He will provide additional evidence that any reasonable man or woman in this country will conclude that fisheries management is being run by the Department of External Affairs.


An hon. member:: What about Environment?
February 19, 1992


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite interrupts me while I speak. I did not interrupt him when he spoke. I want to say if that is not the case, why has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been such a silent individual, as was her predecessor, the Minister for Constitutional Affairs?
I say to this government through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is this cabinet, this Prime Minister, which have acted negligently on behalf of fishermen and the fishing industry in Canada. That is the crime. We have no Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have a few scientists. We have some able individuals who are sincere in their work. But the fact of the matter is that the decisions are being made by the Department of External Affairs and the Prime Minister of this country.
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce have not taken their responsibilities seriously-
They have not exercised their fiduciary obligations on behalf of fishermen across this country. They would rather be on the front pages of the newspapers, in The Globe and Mail, cutting the ribbons in the foreign nations of this country as opposed to standing up for the fishermen across this country. That is the problem.
And I say in conclusion that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, for whom I have some time and a good deal of respect, and I concur with my colleague from Burin- St. George's that the minister is a victim of a cabinet which does not care, does not understand, and has lost the political will to govern for a sovereign nation such as Canada.
They will be called accountable, not only for their acts but, more important, for their gross omissions in ministering one of the most important common resources to all Canadians wherever they may reside in this great country.
Shame on the Prime Minister, shame on the Minister of External Affairs, shame on the Minister for International Trade, and shame on the Minister of the Environment, as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the emergency debate this evening.
I do agree with the members across the aisle that it is very timely and very necessary not only to listen to both sides of the issue, but also obviously to point out what the government is doing in regard to a very great problem indeed.
The rhetoric in a debate that is as emotional as this tends to heat up during the course of the evening. I think we have seen some evidence of that this evening on both sides of the aisle.
But it goes beyond attempting to lay blame somewhere. We have done that historically in this House over the years, regardless of who the government of the day happened to be. I say that based on something that happened in this country just in the last couple of weeks that brought it to mind, in the sense of laying blame, who is to blame, how do we solve this thing, how do we get through it?
It has to do with our latest astronaut, Roberta Bondar, when she was actually interviewed on CBC television a few nights ago by I believe it was Barbara Frum.
I was really taken with that interview because she was asked what it was like to be in space and what it was like to look down on this planet of ours. I was really taken with almost the poetic sense with which she answered that question. She said: "You know, it is a feeling that you really can't explain, that you really can't articulate".
But she did a very good job in attempting to articulate it. She said she was really struck by the solidarity of this planet in relation to the rest of the universe when she was up there looking down. She was taken by the immensity, the size of Canada as a nation. I think we are now questioning whether Canada is number one or number two in sheer geographic size in this universe of ours at the present time.
What I am attempting to draw or paint is the sense that when we are talking about the fisheries we are talking about a finite resource. It is not an unlimited resource. It is certainly a renewable resource, but it is a resource that we really do not have a lot of control over.

February 19, 1992
If you asked a team of scientists today what is going on with the cod stocks you would have as many opinions as you would have individuals. There is no real easy answer to what is happening to the stocks.
This evening I give credit to members on both sides of the House for stepping us through some of the possible causes or reasons for a decline in the stocks. There is some commonality of thought in some of the expressions articulated here this evening.
There is no question the seal problem is a real problem. When you have a seal herd in excess of 3 million, each one eating approximately one and one-half tonnes of fish per year, it is obviously a problem.
That problem stems from the ban that was imposed on the seal hunt many years ago for maybe the right reasons, maybe the wrong reasons. There is no question that fishermen bear the brunt of a decision made many years ago. Basically the seal herd has grown unchecked in recent years and there is no question that it is having an effect on stocks.
We can look at the technology that fishermen today have at their disposal to locate and catch fish. We do not have to be skilled in the fisheries area to recognize that they do have the ability to catch more fish than they did just a few short years ago.
Take a look at the capelin, the feed of the cod. What has happened to that resource? Again, no one can tell us.


An hon. member:: We gave it to the Russians.


Gregory Francis Thompson: My hon. friend from Moncton is telling us that we gave the capelin to the Russians. He knows that is totally false.
That is the difficulty with this debate this evening. When you attempt to apply reason on this side of the House, you are always interrupted by a suggestion which is totally false, totally inaccurate.
Let us talk for a minute about giving fish away. I want to quote the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and what he had to say yesterday about what happened in this sort of give-away of fish in Canada.
Let us talk about what happened back in 1972. I am quoting the minister in his response to that question: "I wonder why Canada in 1972 committed such insanity by signing a treaty with the French under which they took
300,000	tonnes of cod in the gulf".
It was not our government that did that; it was his government at the time. That is only the start, the minister tells us. They are taking 4,000 tonnes more this year because of that treaty which has no termination date. So they are the authors of some of our misfortunes. They cannot crawl out from underneath that legacy because that is a reality that stares them in the face. It is the treaty that they entered into.
The minister went on to point out that the people who are criticizing us today are the very people who gave away 75,000 more tonnes of fish in 2G and 2GH.
When we want to get into name calling and laying blame nothing happens at the end of the day. It is just rhetoric on both sides of the issue. The reality is that we are into a real problem. It is not going to be solved by pointing fingers and laying blame.
The government of the day has been very generous in support of the fisheries recognizing the problems that we do have out there. Looking at the raw numbers, the federal government is putting about $3.15 into the fishing community for every dollar that it has generated by the fishery itself. It is an equation that is totally lopsided. It tells me that we are actually putting more into the fishery than we are getting out of it as a resource. Again, we can argue why that resource is not there. Maybe mankind itself has something to do with it.
I opened my remarks by suggesting it is a resource that not even the most talented, the most skilled of all the scientists can accurately predict. We have gone through these highs and lows. We have historically done that in this country.
Again, let us go back to the generosity of spirit. I know some of the members over there are saying, and I agree with them totally, that it is very difficult if you are living in one of those little fishing communities in Newfoundland to have any sense of generosity of spirit, generosity of heart, when you are looking at a resource that is almost disappearing before your very eyes.
That has to be acknowledged and it is being acknowledged by this government. Again, I agree with them. It goes beyond just the sheer geography of Atlantic Canada. It is a Canadian problem. We have to start addressing it from that point of view.
February 19, 1992

I do not think there is anyone in this House who would deny that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done everything within his power, within his capacity in the last number of years to make it a little easier for those fishermen who are being affected by that downturn in the resource.
I can step through some of the numbers. I suppose the most obvious one is the $584 million that the minister secured almost single-handedly for the downturn in the fisheries for Newfoundland.
This debate is going to grind on for a few more hours. I want to let the people of Newfoundland know that we have a feeling for them. We do not all live in Newfoundland but we understand the problem. We do want to be generous as Canadians.
I totally agree with the members that have spoken before that it goes beyond just being a problem for Newfoundland. It is a problem for all of us as Canadians, particularly at this point in the history of our country. We have to show a little more generosity than we have in the past.
We have it within our capacity to do that as a nation. I am very proud to be part of a government that does have that generosity.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches of opposition members tonight, and especially those members who represent ridings in the Atlantic provinces.
I will admit that tonight there is some concern in the fishing villages in the riding of Manicouagan.

Anxiety and uncertainty in the homes of fishermen on the lower north shore is a fact. There are several reasons. The first reason is that they heard at the beginning of the week that there was a report tabled to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by a committee of scientific experts, a committee of scientific advisers that has told the minister that the northern cod stocks are declining at a very rapid rate.
The minister received that advice earlier this week. As the responsible minister he has called to Ottawa a
meeting of all the people involved in the fishery in the Atlantic provinces. He has reported to them the findings of that committee.
The findings of that committee are of course not very bright for the future. They indicate to us what we have been fearing for quite a few years that the cod stocks are declining at a rapid rate and that if we do not address that issue rapidly we will face much more hardship in the very near future.
These fishermen and the members of their families in my riding are asking themselves tonight what will happen for the 1992 fishing season.

They wonder whether their wives, sons and daughters, and other members of their families will find work in the processing plants in their communities next summer. They have a perfectly legitimate reason to be concerned.
They are also worried this evening because since eight o'clock opposition members have been painting a picture of gloom and doom. And in addition to discussing the subject at hand, those opposition members are shouting and insulting government members because of information released earlier this week by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Instead of scaring fishing communities in Atlantic Canada, perhaps they should have waited to hear about the measures the minister will be announcing very shortly to provide some relief. As I was saying, the minister is about to announce a number of measures that will try to ease the situation next summer.

The purpose of the Liberal Party speakers tonight is to plant fears and anxiety in the heart of the fishermen and their families. One day they will have to answer for that. I say to the people of the lower north shore, I say to the people living in every community in my riding: look at the situation with cool heads. COSA, the Committee of Scientific Advisers, earlier this week informed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of findings that are based on a series studies accumulated over a number of years. The minister will address that issue. The minister is strong, and based on his track record he will implement measures that will take care of the situation and alleviate the hardship caused in the fishing communities because of that situation.

February 19, 1992
As for the minister's track record, I would like to remind the House and the people in the fishing communities that he was the one to introduce programs and measures that directly provide support, provide work, and provide funding in the fishing communities of Atlantic Canada, to help those communities take charge of some of the local operations, to help those communities get involved in developing their industrial bases, both in fishery activities and other types of activities as well.

I would like to comment briefly on the Quebec fisheries development program, designed under the direction of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and announced by him a little over a year and a half ago. The four components of this program provide fishing communities, organizations, and committees with the means to organize their own activities, diversify their economy, and become more actively involved in the fisheries as such.
The Quebec fisheries development program has a dynamic marketing component that will provide the processing industry with the means to reach new markets and sell fish species we have not been able to sell up to now.

There is a component in the Quebec fishery development program that addresses resource management. Programs have been put in place the last year and a half to ensure that us down the line we manage our stock better, that together with the fishermen, the communities, and the department we will provide better, sound management for our resource. There is also a component that addresses research by the scientists with the aim of providing us with data on fish stocks and information that we did not have before. For quite a few months I have seen concrete results from this program in the communities in my riding, I have seen an active role played by the fishermen. We will continue this.
Yesterday I had a meeting in my office with the general manager of the Lower North Shore Fishermen's Association. We discussed the issue. I will be visiting the communities at the beginning of March and will be in a position to talk further with them and assess with them what can be done to alleviate the situation. Those are
positive steps that we will take, as a government, to provide support and incentive to the fishermen to help them pull through this very difficult situation.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders have sustainably fished for hundreds of years off the coast of Newfoundland. They have fished and others have also fished off the Grand Banks, and so on. They have made a living, provided for their families, and built their communities.
The fish stocks survived those hundreds of years of fishing. They replenished themselves. They were a renewable resource, a constantly renewing resource, indeed one of the world's great protein sources.
Today those fish stocks are dangerously low and the livelihoods of Newfoundlanders and those in Labrador are threatened. There is a tragedy of enormous proportions in the decline of the fishing stocks off Newfoundland.
I think Canadians ask us to suggest solutions to problems and not to lay blame. They ask us to ensure that government action, on behalf of Newfoundlanders and on behalf of Canadians, is taken in the face of this tragedy.
However, we do have to remember some recent history on how we got into the situation the Newfoundland fishery is in, how that fishery got into the trouble it is in today. We need to understand why because it teaches us how to deal with the solutions in the future. It teaches us how not to respond to the problem we are facing.
The establishment of essentially two large fish corporations, Fishery Products International and National Sea, under a Liberal government meant treating the fish stocks as a resource to be plundered for profit, handsome profits in some years, a resource to be dealt with from the point of view of a corporate balance sheet and short-term profit considerations with no thought for the future. Indeed, it was short-sighted in the extreme as we see today with so many of Canada's resource industries.
Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, both federal and provincial, shared this view so that scientific advice to reduce the total allowable catch was ignored. It was assumed that there would always be plenty of fish, the big corporations' profits and projections were believed in the face of scientific evidence, foreign fishing went essentially uncontrolled for fear of upsetting our


HbBH
February 19, 1992

European trading partners, and big corporate freezer trawlers were encouraged to plunder that resource.
That approach, that rather typical Canadian big business resource industry approach, has taken us to the disaster we face today.
We in the New Democratic Party and those in the Official Opposition predicted many times over the last three or four years that this was a tragedy of enormous proportions and warned of the situation we are in. Scientist after scientist, study after study, warned against the tragedy that we are now facing. In a sense this is reliving an emergency because it is at least the third or fourth time we have discussed, in terms of an emergency, the disaster facing the fishery off Newfoundland.
The size and extent of the problem is enormous. However the problem is not beyond our ability and scope to deal with.
There are solutions. My colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley presented earlier a four-point plan to address in the short term and the long term, the problem of the fishery in Newfoundland. I will mention that in a minute as a way of getting out of this problem.
It is not sufficient to talk about retraining fishermen because what are we retraining fishery people for? There are no jobs in the communities where they live. They have every right, it seems to us, to continue to live in communities in which they have grown up, in communities in which they have a tradition stretching over hundreds of years.
They have a right to continue to be able to exercise their skills in a way in which they choose. With no fish because of the plunder that has taken place, because of the inactivity of the federal government, they need some assistance to survive until these fish stocks are hopefully replenished.
Over and over again, warnings came. In 1988 in the recommendations to the minister leading up to the Canada-Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Agreement, there were warnings about the impending over-exploitation of the fish stock.
In 1989 scientists indicated that stock strengths were over estimated. In 1990 the well publicized study of Dr. Harris, commissioned by the federal government, confirmed what scientists have been saying. He publicly called for a major reduction in the total allowable catch.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans predicted just last year enormous worker lay-offs as a result of the decline in fish stocks. We are seeing those predictions coming true, unfortunately, today.
We have seen some initiatives to try to deal with this problem, but those initiatives clearly have not been up to the task because otherwise we would not be where we are today. It is not enough to retrain. It is not enough to assist older plant workers to readjust.
We have to do something to ensure the replenishment of the fishing stocks which means we have to hold back on the exploitation of that resource and we have to do something to enable those who live off the sea to survive until those fish stocks replenish.
This is an ecological tragedy which compares to the devastation of the Brazilian rain forests. It is our own ecological tragedy in Canada.
Before I suggest the approaches we could take to deal with this problem, Canada has to ask herself what sort of fishery she wants. Does she want an offshore corporate fishery as we have had which led us to the situation we are in? Or do we want an inshore community based fishery which Newfoundland experienced over hundreds of years and which enabled the communities there to thrive?
It is clear we have to make a major shift away from the solutions posed by Liberal and Conservative governments to one which is more community based, which actually will create and keep jobs in the community.
We have to move immediately to assume fishery management jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Bank to effectively terminate foreign overfishing. We must immediately define our priorities for the future. We must define that we want a community based inshore fishery and not a corporate based fishery.

February 19, 1992
We need a fishery which is premised on sustainable economic development, which will keep that critical protein stock replenished and yet provide livelihoods for those who live off it.
In the process, there will be many jobs lost and many communities in severe economic difficulty. Both federal and provincial governments must be prepared to bring forward programs, perhaps on a level not seen before even in the difficult economic times we face, of ensuring that thousands of families in those communities are not forced to leave Newfoundland and Labrador to go down the road for a future somewhere else.
In other words, we have to maintain those communities in a viable way until the fishing stocks return. It is, as we know, not a solution to encourage those without jobs in the regions of Canada to go to Alberta or to Ontario for jobs because our economy is not providing jobs there either.
We must also ensure that proposals in our current constitutional debates which would see the end of any provincial trade protections and trade barriers be really carefully looked at in the context of the Newfoundland fishery. Newfoundland has regulations which require fish caught by Newfoundland fishers to be processed in Newfoundland. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, permits fish caught by Nova Scotians to be shipped out of the province costing, as Conservative MPs have indicated, at least 1,000 jobs.
We need to reassess what would happen if we broke down provincial trade barriers and we have to ensure that they are sustainable and remain in effect for Newfoundland so that the communities can be protected.
Basically we have to do two things. We have to ensure that fish stocks replenish. We have to stop overfishing by foreign fleets and we have to control the fishing done by Canadians. Second, we have to sustain those who live off the sea until the fish stocks replenish.
I think that the point about responding to the foreign overfishing by taking control over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is one which is not free of problems, but as the minister of fisheries indicated just last year, the discussions that have taken place with the European
Community have not been successful. He indicated that in spite of repeated efforts by the government to make Europeans realize the serious effects of combined overfishing by their member states, they have indeed continued to overfish and indeed, in recent years, have overfished to the extent of 100 per cent of their allowable agreed upon catch.
We have the problem of foreign overfishing, foreign governments, and foreign fishing organizations not paying attention to the seriousness of the depletion of the resource. We cannot, I think, rely upon moral suasion any longer. The government has to act to stop that overfishing, to take control outside the 200-mile zone and ensure that our stocks have an opportunity to replenish.
The New Democrat member of the legislature in Newfoundland, St. John's East, a former member of this House, has called upon the federal government to take control immediately over foreign overfishing off the Grand Banks. The Nova Scotia Federation of Labour has also called upon the government to extend fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile zone.
The provincial government has called upon unilateral action on the part of the Canadian government, and members of the Official Opposition have responded similarly.
We have all called for the Canadian government to take unilateral fisheries jurisdiction given that foreign fleets have continually overfished the stock. There is no question that this has to be done and has to be done immediately.
In closing, we have in Newfoundland a multi-faceted disaster, an ecological disaster, as we see the depletion of this incredible protein source, an ecological disaster of enormous proportions, an economic disaster of enormous proportions as thousands and thousands of families are thrown on to on unemployment roles, on welfare roles because of the inability to maintain the fish stocks because of their overexploitation and the ineffective management of that stock.
Of course, we see social disaster in enormous proportions as communities are tom apart, as people are forced to leave the province in search of some livelihood and last but not least, we see a cultural disaster as the culture of Newfoundland, the communities of Newfoundland are forced to suffer and some to close.
February 19, 1992

This multi-faceted disaster is one which the federal government must deal with. As I said, there are two ways in which this must be done. There is no choice any more. It is absolutely critical that steps be taken immediately to preserve and rebuild the fish stocks and we all hope that it is not too late to do this. We must also concentrate on the people who are affected and provide assistance to those who have lost their livelihood. The government must treat this situation as a national emergency. The survival of a fragile provincial economy that is so important to all Canadians is at stake here. It is our responsibility and obligation to preserve it.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I do not come from a riding in the Atlantic region which is directly affected by the disaster which has befallen the northern cod fishery, but it certainly is a matter that is of great concern to me as are all matters that affect the sustainability of our environment and our resources.
It seems to me that as we discuss a situation such as the disappearance of the northern cod, it reminds us of the continuing tragedy of man's intervention with his environment of the disappearance and endangerment of so many of our species. The cod situation reminds us and it scares us. It always seems to be too late when we get reminded and scared.
It is like the changes in our atmosphere, pollution, acid rain, global warming, and the ozone. Now finally the ozone has our attention and we are starting to talk about serious measures to stay out of the sun and protect our children.
So it is with the northern cod stocks and the situation in Newfoundland. It is a tragic and scarey situation.
My colleagues have spoken in great detail tonight about the measures which have been taken to address the fishery in Newfoundland over the past several years. There have been the constant scientific warnings and constant reductions in the total allowable catch. There has been tremendous investment in the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program to provide not only scientific capabilities to deal with declines in the stocks and find ways of hopefully replenishing them, but endeavouring to find ways to deal with the economic tragedy that affects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and all the fisheries areas of Atlantic Canada, along with the
malaise which we feel from the current recessionary circumstances in so many parts of our economy.
I would have to say that this government on balance has provided extremely sensitive, constructive, and at times courageous management of this resource. I do not think it does us any good at all to debate this subject in the constant harangue of who could have done this, or who should have done this, or who would have done this if they had been in power. It just contributes to the tragic nature of the whole situation.
I would be inclined to recommend to all hon. members that we finally take a situation such as this cod tragedy and constructively try to figure out together what has gone wrong, what the causes have been what the remedies are, and what we can constructively do to remedy and adjust to this significant situation.
It must be really hilarious to those Portuguese, Spaniards and others who are over-fishing just outside our 200-mile economic zone, to look in on this House of Commons today and yesterday and see the theatrics, the opera, and the high drama of television being performed without any significant contribution or consensus developing about what has gone wrong and what we can do about it.
I do not think I can add anything of great detail to the specifics of the cod situation in our Atlantic fishery tonight. I can certainly pledge my support for the Minister of Fisheries and for the constructive approach, indeed the courageous approach, he has to take to this issue because it is so sensitive and so personal to his own political affairs and service. He has to face this every weekend not only as the minister of fisheries for Canada but as the member of Parliament for the city of St. John's and many of the fishing areas around it. I applaud him for the approach he takes. I applaud his department for the comprehensive and scientific approach which they take. I would certainly call on all members of this House to support that approach and to work in addressing this as an environmental disaster, an environmental challenge that we all have to face together. I think if we do, Canadians will start to have some confidence that we in this House of Commons may find a way to deal with it.
On that threshold I would like to address another fish resource in which I have had some particularly unique experience and for which I have a great deal of high

February 19, 1992
regard and respect, almost as a symbol of our natural environment. That is the Atlantic salmon.
The Atlantic salmon which is one of the most magnificent creatures in God's world has been in peril for many decades, for almost all of the decades in my life. Yet we continue to live on the edge with practices that we know are destructive and hope will be successful. But we know inside they probably will not be, and constantly retreat from the sort of management we should be taking.
With respect to Atlantic salmon I think there is an analogy to the cod situation or vice versa. The signals have been there for years that the resource is in trouble. It is under constant attack. It is under constant overharvest. The runs do not show annually as we expect. We blame it on the weather and on phenomenon that is beyond description when in fact it all boils down to a reality that if we are not at least the cause of it, we are not the solution to it either. We have not been able to manage ourselves sufficiently well to manage the resource.
With respect to Atlantic salmon I would remind the House of the tagging system we have introduced, of the catch and release approaches we have taken, of the elimination of commercial fisheries in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, of the reduction in commercial licences in Newfoundland. Despite all of these measures we continue in a very significant way to debate the merits or demerits of gill net fishing. It is a destructive indiscriminate manner of harvesting fish so that everything that is touched is dead when it is retrieved. The opportunity to release spawning fish, as has become the practice in angling traditions is not possible.
Yet as we advance cases for the termination of gill netting we are still confronted with debate and argument about the fact that the courts may not see it as an adequate conservation measure. We may not be able to sell it as a conservation measure, and we do not dare take the risk of banning gill netting because it will have political and social implications among our citizens of all cultures.
Yet if a resource disappears as the northern cod is on the verge of disappearing, and an entire economy such as Newfoundland's is struck with real tragedy, does it not seem like hollow talk when we wonder if we are over stepping the bounds of conservation by managing a little too tightly or a little too closely?
I would call on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who I applaud, admire and support completely. I would call on him to approach the Atlantic salmon resource with the cod resource in mind, to dare to take the conservation measures now that are required to preempt a precipitous decline in the stocks, to take the kind of measures that will prevent us getting to this day with Atlantic salmon that we are with cod saying that we have failed. We are in trouble and we do not know how to cope with it. We do not know what caused it and whatever we should have done, it is now almost too late.
I think as we search for a solution to the cod tragedy, it is a solution to which we all must commit ourselves. I ask my colleagues and I ask our minister, with the greatest of respect, to ensure that we do not end up approaching the issue of Atlantic salmon in the same manner and bring about the same sad result we are now experiencing with the northern cod.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity-


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for St. John's West, has already addressed the problem of foreign overfishing, its underlying elements, its complexities, and its dimensions.
A clear result is a severe depletion of the biomass and the tragic economic and social implications for the economies of the Atlantic provinces together, and Newfoundland in particular.

Therefore, we can clearly see the human tragedy, the result of plant closures and job losses. The question is: What is Canada doing to resolve this serious problem?

Before describing the measures that Canada is and will be taking, I want to make four important points on foreign overfishing generally:
First, these fisheries are taking place outside the 200-mile limit in international waters where Canada, to our great frustration, has no jurisdiction and flag states alone have the legal authority to enforce rules on their own vessels. International waters do not belong to any one state, Canada, or any other state, or even to an organization like NAFO, the North Atlantic Fisheries
February 19, 1992

Organization. They belong to the international community. It is up to individual sovereign national states to control the actions of their citizens and those vessels that are in those waters.
Second, most of the countries that fish in the NAFO area-Japan, Russia, the Faro Islands, Norway, Denmark, Cuba-support fisheries conservation, respect their NAFO quotas, and co-operate with Canada. They do not fish for northern cod. The problem of overfishing is centred on the activities of two countries in particular: Spain and Portugal. They are not the only ones but they are the primary ones.
Third, the small number of countries that do not co-operate with Canada, certain EC member states as well as Korea and Panama, are not eligible for benefits in the Canadian zone. Their fishing vessels are barred from Canadian ports, except in very serious emergencies. They are not allowed to fish for surplus stocks in Canadian zones. They are not eligible to take part in commercial ventures involving any fishing by their vessels in Canadian waters.
Fourth, the number one priority in international fisheries management is improving effective controls. All NAFO members must agree on measures to strengthen surveillance of vessels and to control actual fishing in international waters. They must take all steps necessary to ensure that conservation rules are enforced.
This government is committed, as no other has been, to ending foreign overfishing in the northwest Atlantic outside the 200-mile limit. Since 1989 we have carried out a comprehensive campaign, both at home and abroad. We have undertaken a high-level political initiative led by the Prime Minister to ensure that leaders of the EC, its member states and other nations, including members of the G-7, are aware of the serious consequences of overfishing. The Prime Minister has raised this with his colleagues-heads of government, the head of the European commission-at every available opportunity and frequently to our cost. The tensions that have resulted from our raising the issue of overfishing have created tensions in other areas. We are glad to do that on behalf of the fishermen of eastern Canada.
In bilateral and multilateral discussions we have sought to persuade the European community to return to compliance with NAFO decisions. Sometimes I feel as though I am beating my head against the oak door up there in the gallery. I raise this in every international meeting I have with European ministers, the presidency of the EC, and the Commission of the European Community. Canada's ambassador to the United Nations raised Canada's concerns in the last session of the UN General Assembly. 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. We have to make the Europeans realize that overfishing is to their disadvantage as well as to ours. Believe me, it is one of the most frustrating parts of my job to try to get them to listen, but try we do on every potential occasion.
Work has begun within NAFO-and this is a hopeful sign-to improve its system of surveillance and enforcement and to eliminate fishing by vessels registered in countries that are not members of NAFO. 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 part of our initiative, as opposed to the political element which we emphasize every time we can, is international recognition of the special interest of coastal states, others as well as Canada, in conservation and management of fish stocks which are harvested both inside and outside national fishing zones.
A special ambassador for fisheries conservation has been appointed to co-ordinate and carry forward Canada's diplomatic, legal and information initiatives in this important area. He initiated bilateral consultations with the EC Commission early last summer but the community rejected Canada's proposals to help resolve the problem.
Much remains to be done but there are signs of progress, however frustratingly slow. For example, the European Community, which is increasingly Eurocentric and as a result we have to consistently build our efforts there, did accept eight of the 11 NAFO management decisions for 1991 and 1992. In 1991 the EC assigned a fisheries patrol vessel to the regulatory area for seven months and it is likely that the patrol vessel will return to the NAFO area in 1992. We will certainly urge

February 19, 1992
that it does. The EC is co-operating within NAFO to reduce fishing by non-NAFO vessels, including its own reflagged vessels. Of course reflagging is another of the problems which we have to fight on another front. Canada will continue to press the EC to control EC vessels fishing in the regulatory area and prevent reflagging by its vessels.
In the meantime, we are pressing ahead on other fronts and we do so consistently. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has laid out an ambitious plan of objectives and initiatives for 1992. Canada has asked the chairman of the NAFO fisheries commission to convene a special session of NAFO to improve international control in the NAFO area. This is a special meeting and will take place in May. It is very rare that NAFO agrees to have a special meeting of this nature. 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, to seek international support for our efforts in terms of conservation of what is an important international resource.
We have met with, and hammered on, the government of Panama to ask them to take action to end the use of Panamanian flagged vessels in northwest Atlantic fisheries. The minister himself has travelled to London and Tokyo to speak eloquently on behalf of the fishermen in Canada for effective control of international fisheries. He will visit other capitals over the coming months to build up support for Canada at NAFO and at the Rio summit. These are some of the ways that we are working to end the foreign overfishing outside Canada's 200-mile limit.
The new scientific evidence that has come to light this week as reported by my colleague 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 the tail of the Grand Banks outside the 200-mile zone.
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 community that the northwest Atlantic fishery, especially northern cod, is in serious trouble because of continued and excessive overfishing by EC vessels.
This is not an issue just of critical importance to Canada which is our primary concern. It is of importance to the entire fishing industry and fisheries conservation of the world. The EC and the non-members of NAFO have got to recognize this. They have to address it seriously.
If this important resource is to be saved, these countries have to bring their fleets under effective control in compliance with NAFO conservation decisions. We will continue to beat our heads against any door that is available to us to make this point clear.
I should say that those who fish inside our waters, which has been suggested tonight as a kind of sinister failure on the part of the government, are here because of obligations under the Law of the Sea, frustrating though it may be that under the Law of the Sea, people can come into our 200-mile limit and fish for underutilized species.
We are doing everything we can to conserve the fishery that is under our control and to convince others to conserve the fishery and save it when it is under the control of others who are beyond our borders.
We have been doing that daily and weekly. We will continue to do it until we manage to resolve this issue on behalf of the fishery of Canada.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I move under Standing Order 26:
That the House continue to sit beyond midnight for the purpose of
continuing the consideration of this item of business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
Fewer than 15 members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, it is sad that this House is once again debating the many troubles of the Atlantic fishery. Had the government paid the attention that the fishery deserved over the last few years, we would not be here tonight.
We all know that the government has not paid enough attention and the fishery is in crisis again. The other day in Question Period the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that this government has done everything possible to help the fishery and that the fault for the problem was an
February 19, 1992

agreement signed by the Liberal government 20 years ago.
I say to the government that 20 years ago there was enough fish off our shores for everybody. Today, after eight years of mismanagement, there is not enough fish to keep the communities alive. The European Community has consistently overfished its NAFO quotas for several years and the government has done nothing.
The minister says that he has talked with his European counterparts about the problem. He has told the Spanish and Portuguese that they must stop the raping of Canadian fish stocks outside the 200-mile limit. The minister says he is doing everything he can and that he is conducting delicate, diplomatic negotiations.
If the government had any concern for the groundfish-ermen of Atlantic Canada, it would claim its right under International Law of the Sea Convention and extend the 200-mile limit to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. This is our right and was recommended by Leslie Harris over two years ago.
Many of my constituents think that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is afraid to offend the Spanish, Portuguese, Koreans, and others. The time has come for this government to take action and enforce Canadian management of all fish stocks, especially straddling stocks. Unfortunately we all know what this government is like enforcing our fishery regulations.
While government allows the harassment of small inshore groundfishermen and forcing dockside monitoring down their throats, it lets Spain and Portugal rob us blind.
The government should cancel all foreign fishing licences in Canadian waters, especially for food fish. What sense is there in allowing foreign vessels into Canadian waters to fish for things like mackerel, capelin and squid? These fish are the basis for the food chain and the foreigners are literally stealing the food from the mouth of the cod. No wonder fishermen are saying that the fish are getting smaller, the cod are starving to death.
It is not only food fish that foreigners are allowed to catch in Canadian waters. The French are allowed to catch 1,600 tonnes of 4T cod each year, the fish that groundfishermen in my riding depend upon for their livelihood.
Fishermen in my riding want to know why they have to take over 10,000 tonnes in quota cuts since 1990 and the first French quota has gone up by 260 tonnes.
The crisis in the Atlantic fishery is not only a crisis of declining stocks, it is a crisis of mismanagement and the government is to blame.
The crisis is not only in cod stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador, it is in every harbour and bay across Atlantic Canada. Ask any fisherman in Prince Edward Island about DFO and he will give you a list of things the government is doing wrong in the fishery: lack of repairs to small craft harbours, lobster size increases, and dockside monitoring to name but a few.
Since I was elected in 1988, wharfs and breakwaters in the Cardigan riding have been falling apart. Wharves like Graham's Pond and Launching required only about $50,000 of maintenance work two or three years ago to keep them in shape.
However, because the federal government did not spend that small amount of money two years ago, the cost of doing major reconstruction has gone up to well over $1 million for the two wharves. If this is not mismanagement I do not know what it is.
There is also the issue of increasing lobster sizes for island fishermen. Last year, DFO increased lobster size for fishermen on the south shore of P.E.I. while keeping the same size on the north side. This move by government has been a disaster for the fishermen in my riding.
In a year where there was a 5,000 metric tonne reduction in cod quotas, the government reduced canner catches in zone 26A by about 1.3 million pounds. These small canner lobsters filled a very special market area and the size increases could effect a loss of over $14 million in that product area alone.
There was no problem with the lobster stocks, there was no need for conservation measures, in fact lobster stocks have been increasing steadily for many years.

Playing with the lobster size has been a major financial blow to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island. It is mismanagement pure and simple. Snow crab fishermen in my riding are concerned about a proposal to allow licences for more fishermen in that fishery.
According to a DFO proposal, Island fishermen are to be shut out from applying for the new licences despite the fact that the licences are for the area off eastern P.E.I. Indeed, Island fishermen were not even told by DFO that more licences were being considered. Fishermen found this out by word of mouth. Fishermen from eastern Prince Edward Island should be given a crack at the new licences. Not giving Islanders a chance is mismanagement as far as I am concerned.
The real crisis in the Atlantic fishery is a mismanagement crisis. Because of mismanagement by this government, the northern cod stocks are dropping like a stone, throwing thousands of people out of work. Because of the government mismanagement, wharfs and breakwaters in my riding are literally falling into the sea.
The fishery has been a way of life in Atlantic Canada for about 500 years and that way of life has been destroyed. The fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is more than simply dollars and cents. With proper management, Atlantic Canada can handle a proper fishing industry with thriving communities scattered around the coast.
Until this government takes concrete action against mismanagement and foreign fishing, the fishermen and plant workers in Atlantic Canada will continue to suffer needlessly.
Concerning the repairs to small craft harbours, I have some information compiled by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I believe it is a prime example of why the Savage Harbour breakwater on which I tried to persuade government three years ago to spend a small amount of dollars to repair and why Graham Pond wharf needs $1 million today. Launching and Georgetown and many other harbours are in a desperate state.
I just happen to have the figures of DFO spending on small craft harbours for the riding of St. John's West which happens to be represented by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and the dollars allotted to Prince Edward Island which has four ridings.
I will give a couple of examples since time is short. In
1990-91 about $8.5 million was spent in St. John's West and $1.3 million was spent in the four ridings in Prince Edward Island. In 1991-92 $3.5 million was spent in St. John's West, in the hon. minister's riding, and in the four ridings in Prince Edward Island we did not get $1 million.
It is no wonder that the breakwaters and the wharfs in Prince Edward Island are falling into the sea. This is total mismanagement. It is totally unacceptable and hopefully, with these figures becoming public, pressure will be put on government and the minister will see fit to spend the proper dollars on small craft harbours in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take a few minutes to speak on this emergency debate.
I want to begin by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, for taking the initiative to bring this emergency debate forward and Your Honour for accepting his motion.
The revised information from the scientists of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the state of the northern cod was released this week. It demonstrates that the biomass or the stock of the northern cod in 2J-3K-L off the eastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is much lower than was previously estimated. It is indeed an emergency. It is a crisis and warrants the concern of all members of this House.
There is a certain sense of deja vu in the debate we are having this evening. I remember the last time we had an emergency debate on the fishery. I remember very well because I called for the emergency debate. That debate took place on December 18, 1989, in response to a decision by National Sea to close its fish plant in Canso, Nova Scotia, thereby throwing 750 fish plant workers and trawlermen out of work and effectively shutting down this coastal community in my constituency which has been a fishing community for over 400 years.
February 19, 1992

At the same time National Sea Products announced the downsizing of its operations in Newfoundland and other parts of Nova Scotia and Fisheries Products International did the same. That was a crisis and an emergency affecting all of Atlantic Canada.
The crisis was precipitated by a fall in Canadian fish quotas and an increase in the difficulty both offshore and inshore fisheries industry had in catching the quota available to the Canadian 'fishery. As a result, National Sea was making the corporate decision to close these plants, as was Fisheries Products International.
Members will recall that as a result of that debate and the passionate interventions that were made on all sides of this House during that evening and as a result of a very determined fight led by the mayor and town council of Canso for about four months, this government finally relented, intervened and worked out, in conjunction with the Government of Nova Scotia and other consortia in Atlantic Canada, an arrangement that allowed the fish plant in Canso to be purchased and reopened and allowed the fish plant in Burgeo to reopen and essentially save those communities.
We have to say that because of the government's actions in this respect, the people in Canso are grateful, even though it took a tremendous battle on their part. They are grateful that this action was taken and that this company, Sea Freeze, was allowed to preserve the jobs in those communities. That was in May or August of 1990. What has happened since then?
The underlying cause of the crisis is basically the failure of the government to control the over-all effort by Canadians and by foreign fisheries vessels to control the pressure on our cod stocks and the entire groundfish stocks which exist off our coast. The failure of the government to do this means that we are once again confronted with the evidence which precipitates this crisis and this emergency debate only three years later.
The crisis we face this evening, as other members have said, is not a crisis affecting only one part of Canada. It is not a crisis affecting only Newfoundland. It is a national crisis and it is a social crisis. It is a crisis for the thousands of families who live in coastal communities all across the northeastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador who have absolutely no alternative but to pursue the fishery, the way of life which they and their ancestors have followed for generations.
If there is no fishery, if it continues the way it is, these communities are decimated. Either those families live on welfare or handouts or they have to leave. They have to leave behind that part of the country and that way of life which they have carried on for generations. So it is a social crisis.
It is an economic crisis because 21 per cent of all employed in Newfoundland, 41,800 jobs in 1989, depend on fish harvesting and fish processing. It is a similar number in Nova Scotia. There are 100,000 jobs in Atlantic Canada that are fisheries related. If the fisheries goes, there is no immediate prospect for those communities that depend exclusively in many cases on this industry. This government in seven years and with all the talk and the so-called initiatives about development in Atlantic Canada has not found a satisfactory alternative to those traditional industries which nurture so many parts of Atlantic Canada. The collapse of the northern cod stocks is an economic crisis.
It is an environmental crisis as well because it represents a plundering, mostly by man, of a resource which had heretofore been considered to be inexhaustible. We are discovering that it is not inexhaustible. It behoves us as a society to begin to understand the environmental consequences of the failure to manage a resource, to consider that the pressures on this resource, if they are not checked, will ultimately lead to its extinction, that we take the kind of drastic action nations around the world are beginning to take to control another environmental crisis, namely, the depletion of the ozone or the global warming which we, after ignoring this crisis for so many years, are finally beginning to address. This is a problem not unlike that.
To conclude, because I realize my time is up, I want to point out this is a crisis of sovereignty. It represents a failure of Canada, of this government, to exercise its sovereignty. For the people, not only in Atlantic Canada, but elsewhere in Canada, it is all too familiar. It is all too familiar that this government talks a good line and talks in this House of Commons about all the efforts, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said just a few minutes ago, it has taken to convince other countries, but still nothing happens. Still we see that in 1989 the economic community overfished its own quota by 44,700 tonnes. It overfished its quota in 1990 by 60,000 tonnes and in 1991, while our own quota dropped from 197,000

tonnes, the amount we were able to catch, to 127,000 tonnes, it over fished its quota by 47,000 tonnes.
It is time, as we have suggested on this side of the House, to unilaterally extend that jurisdiction, to get control of that zone, and to begin managing that resource properly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate if the hon. member would indicate to the Chair how long he intends to speak.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would think two or three, maybe four hours, but if I am restricted, I guess 20 minutes will be the maximum.
It has been a long time since I have spoken in this House. In fact, it has probably been a long time since I have been in this House, preoccupied, perhaps unjustly for my constituents, but preoccupied as I have been in the matters of national unity and the Constitution. Not even the Constitution could keep me away this evening.
I want to congratulate the hon. member as well for this debate. I think this debate is important. I think this debate provides us with the opportunity to ensure that all members of this House, and indeed anybody in this country who is interested and is watching, understand how important the fishery is to Atlantic Canada, and particularly to those of us from Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was asked the other day by a reporter who wanted to know about the debate. I congratulated the member and said that what it does is it continuously allows us to reinforce across this country that this is indeed a national issue. This is not some regional issue. This is not something that just pertains to us in Atlantic Canada and primarily us in Newfoundland and Labrador who are most directly affected by the impact of reduced cod stocks.
The fishery in our province I think represents about 6 per cent of the economy. That is just economy. Some people say: "That does not sound like a lot". It probably
represents 25 per cent of the employment, and that represents a lot. That is direct and indirect.
As well, in every part of the island of Newfoundland and in every part of the mainland part of our province in Labrador, the fishery has a psychological impact and it has an emotional impact. My family has been involved in the fishery for years. My father took the oldest company in Canada, older than Molson's, out of the fish business in 1967-68. My God, history was being rewritten. They had come from Liverpool in 1720, 1730 and operated in the fish business in our province until 1967 or 1968. It has been a part of me.
It is a part of all of us because we are affected when others are affected, not only in terms of the economy. They always say in Newfoundland and Labrador that you can tell how the fishery is doing by how the car sales are going or how things are going in the hardware business. People say: "What is happening with the fishery?"
For far too long we disregarded the views of the fishermen, inshore and offshore. We sort of said that they have an opinion but they do not understand the science or they do not understand the cycles of fish or their evidence is anecdotal. I like that. I have always liked that, "anecdotal". Finally, thank God, we are recognizing that there is wisdom and knowledge there.
This tie I am wearing is in honour of Dr. Bondar. This is the space agency tie and it was presented to me some four or five years ago. It struck me that we can put Canadians and Americans and representatives of the economic union of states, or whatever flag in the Olympics, people from Indian and Pakistan, into space and we wonder why we cannot find fish. People in Newfoundland and Labrador wonder about that.
Fortunately or unfortunately, aeronautical science or space science is much more developed than fish science. We are coming a long way on fish science. I think it is recognized that in 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 when we moved into the implementation of our end of the deal on the Law of the Sea, the imposition of the 200-mile economic zone, our knowledge of science was not that good and it put us in a bind. We made assumptions at the time that were probably invalid on which we made a variety of decisions, repeatedly making mistake after
February 19, 1992

mistake in good faith, based on the best knowledge available.
We have had to improve our science. We have had to improve our science in the pure science end of the world. We have had to improve our science and the ability to collect more information and to analyse it better. We have had to improve our science and the way we use it, the type of information we provide and the type of decisions that get made on the basis of that science.
In 1986 there was a significant strengthening in the effort in Newfoundland and Labrador, a 22 per cent increase. Under the current Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program we are spending something like $150 million over five years to improve the amount of data we have, to improve its collection and its analysis.
We are also doing something that is new and different and is perhaps more significant than all the money we are spending, and it probably costs us nothing. We are saying to the people in the industry, in the inshore and the offshore: "You know about fish, in an anecdotal way, but you know about fish. Come and participate in the process of science, come and tell us what you know, come and tell us what we are doing that might be made better. In the process we will show you what we as scientists do and how it may in fact make your lives better and improve your ability to fish".
Science is an important part of what we do but it is only one component, as I think everybody in this House knows.
We have had an evolution in our fishery. We have the capacity today to catch a lot more fish than we have had in the past, both in trawlers offshore and in the inshore fishery, with the evolution of equipment and gear, particularly the development of the Japanese cod trap. The fishermen in Torbay, Flat Rock, Pooch Cove, Bau-line, Portugal Cove, Fox Trap, Kelligrews, Holyrood, Conception, Harbour Main, Brigus, Cupids, Bell Island, and Collier's-please, if I have left anybody out in St. John's East forgive me. It is certainly not to forget the people of Lance au Clair, Loggie Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove, and certainly the people of the Battery and Quidi Vidi.
What are they saying about all of this? They say: "All we want is the opportunity to fish. What we need is the fish. As for the rest of it, we can deal with governments at a variety of levels, or we can collectively as fishermen
manage the fishery as best we can, to use equipment and the resources of government as best we can". They also say: "If we don't have fish, what is it that we do then?"
They have come to government and said: "We're in trouble, we need help". Frankly, my experience is for the most part that the fishermen who do that are really in trouble and really do need help. They do not ask until that time comes.
In the meantime there are a number of things that government can do. As I think all members know and I am sure my colleagues have said earlier tonight, when the need has been there the government has been there. Certainly there have been emergency response programs in the last three or four years to ensure the fishermen qualify for unemployment insurance. That is something they do not particularly want to do but they must if they can only fish six, eight or ten weeks a year, or as some fishermen in the constituency of my friend across the way who expect to fish in the winter and there are no fish in the winter. We have to provide that protection, and we have been there.
Last year, in response to a critical situation caused by an abundance of ice, we provided about $18 million to try to pick up that slack. As well there was a terrible catch failure last year. All the inshore fishermen are aware of that. That is not to mention the offshore fishermen. We caught just over half the inshore fish last year that we had caught the year before. The government was there. People expect government to be there in the bad times. Hopefully government can be there in the good times, not to hand out money needlessly but to support the development and evolution of our fishery. I want to come back to that.
I want to remind members that the last two or three years have not been good. They have been desperate. They have been desperate for fishermen and their families. They have been desperate for communities and they have been desperate for provinces. Government has been able to provide some support. The Fisheries Adjustment Program has provided $584 or $585 million. As I mentioned $150 million of that was to try to rebuild stocks, improve science, improve monitoring, have more flights and surveillance inshore and offshore to deal with foreigners. Adjusting to current realities is what they call a program that is saying to communities: "You are the source of the solution to your problems. We are there to help you with all the resources that we have including

February 19, 1992
money". The Public Service has been tremendously supportive.
I also remind members of the ability of two levels of government to work together, the ability of four or five departments at two levels of government to work together, primarily at the municipal level with regional economic development commissions, in developing Community Futures Programs, developing local responses to problems, trying to find opportunities in the fishery, trying to develop alternatives, trying to diversify the economy where possible. We provided about $150 million for that.
It is not enough just to put money into response to the fishery in crisis. It is critical that we build so that when the stocks return, when the opportunities are there, it is a modern fishery that is integrated into an economy based on technology, efficiency, effectiveness and international trade in a competitive way.
The world of the fishery these days is unbelievably competitive. In the old days it was one species against another, one country's cod against another country's cod. We are long past that. The substitution in the large markets has been terribly threatening, particularly to the east coast cod fishery as pollack from Alaska has replaced it in the big American fast food markets which are now our big customers, which are now the source of good contracts for big offshore companies and for many smaller operations that buy from inshore fishermen.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency played a substantial role in the ability to support the fishery, particularly in terms of fishery's innovation. We have supported the centre for fisheries innovation at the Marine Institute in St. John's which is now becoming part of Memorial. There has been a number of initiatives marrying education with industrial initiatives, bringing people together who have ideas, others who have a technical capacity, others who have a marketing capability, others who have an academic capability that provides some good research and development in market development, product development and health and safety standards.
Today there are 15 co-operative agreements between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. I guess co-operative agreements are a new way of saying DREE or DRIE or whatever manifestation they have taken over a period of time. It is government sitting down and working out programs to attack problems, to take advantage of opportunities and to deal with challenges. Just going through the 15 of them from my own memory and my own knowledge, some of them I am not particularly familiar with. The inshore fisheries development agreement is obviously direct. NAFTA has provided tremendous support, particularly to small plant operators, to fishermen who need equipment and to those who have innovation and are able to take that innovation and make it grow.
The comprehensive Labrador agreement has done a tremendous amount to improve facilities along the coast of Labrador. The ocean industries agreement is not directly related to fishery, but it builds on the capacity that after 450 years of having a fishery we now have a technical capability that is focused on our marine world. We live along side of the Atlantic Ocean. We have traded across the sea. We have traded with products that come from the sea. We have a capability in our province that involves marine communications and the application of computer and high-technology innovations to a world that is bounded by oceans. One very exciting innovation has been over the horizon radar. We in this country are world leaders in that development and that has come from the fact that our history is based on the fisheries.
As we look at the environmental improvement agreements, the rural development agreement, enterprise agreements, they are focused on what we can do in the fishery. I would be a fool if I stood here and said: "We have done it all. We have taken care of it. Everything is copacetic". It is not. We have a serious problem. The fish that people, communities, companies large and small in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada generally have depended on are apparently not there. Sometimes we wonder: "My God, what more can happen to us?" Sometimes we wonder if it is some bizarre whodunnit and if we just clicked the channels it would all go away. It does not happen. Believe me, I have clicked a
February 19, 1992

lot of channels lately and it is still there. It is right there in the kitchens, the bedrooms and the boats of people all across Atlantic Canada.
What do we do? We obviously cannot make the fish come back. We have to continue to find ways of managing our knowledge of the fishery, making sure that the decisions we take in the management are based on the best knowledge, advice and analysis available. We have to continue to work with the industry to ensure that we get the best productivity, the best use of the resources we have, and the best benefit to the fishermen, the plant workers and those in between so that we can continue to export a high quality, competitive product around the world.
We must continue as governments provincial and federal to be responsive to needs in times of tragedy, in times of crisis, and in times of threat. We must be there with the support that is necessary to keep the industry moving, to keep the communities whole, and to keep families together.
We must continue to ensure that the world knows that we are under a direct environmental threat that in my view is wanton and deliberate and callous, that is totally uncaring of knowledge of the damage and the threat that is being caused to this resource we have worked so hard to manage, and that we have taken decisions that closed whole communities, that put families and people in jeopardy, literally at jeopardy of survival. Yet the Europeans continue to fish not at levels of the past, not to meet their commitments to reduce, but to increase.
I and other members of this House have gone in good faith to our colleagues in legislatures in Europe. Some think of it as a grand boondoggle. It is hard work. We have sat in the Senate in Paris. We have looked at the bullet holes in the ceiling of the Parliament in Madrid. We have talked to representatives of the fishing industry and communities that go through somewhat the same thing we do. We say: "We want you over there. You have been part of our lives for 400 years. But, by God, if you don't do what is responsible for all of us, there will be no fishery there".
The Prime Minister, senior ministers in this government, senior officials of the opposition parties, colleagues, senior people in provincial governments, industry and labour have gone to Europe, have talked to the Spanish and the Portuguese and have talked to the European Community. We have yelled. We have
screamed. We have begged. We have cajoled. I would not be surprised if there were probably a few bottles of rum offered, but to no avail.
At the end of the day what offends me more than anything else is that there is a deliberate, wanton, uncaring process of continuing to take fish outside an agreed management system, threatening the viability of our four Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and this country, without regard for the people who are there. Despite the very direct approaches that process cannot continue.
I end with those words. We have a future in the fishery. We have to manage it properly. We in government with the support of the opposition and others will continue to provide that help, but we cannot continue this environmental threat.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take part in this debate on the state of the fishery in Atlantic Canada. It is certainly not a happy occasion because, as has been said here tonight by many of the great speakers that have gone before me, this is not a regional or provincial issue. This is a national issue. This is one of the oldest industries in Canada. It is a vital segment of our east coast economy.
A number of years ago Atlantic Canadians stood on the threshold of a bright and prosperous future as a result of the potential of the fisheries. The extension of the fishing limit to 200 miles should have, in and of itself, guaranteed that the fisheries would be a major income producer in Atlantic Canada.
Instead over the past few years it has become the source of continual economic bad news.
Again here tonight we stand to debate fishery policies and again we hear the government claim it is not its fault. Well it is time for someone to take some responsibility for the sorry state of affairs. If the members of the government do not realize where the blame should be placed, let me tell you the people of Atlantic Canada know.
There is an expression that we are all familiar with that says: "Don't lock the door after the horse is stolen". It is fine to stand up now and say that the northern cod stock, the main part of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, is depleted and our quota must be cut in half. Surely a person with the intelligence and the integrity of the current minister, backed by the expertise of his

February 19, 1992
department, should have been able to foresee this alarming development long ago.
We have allowed this potentially golden goose to be stolen away from the residents of Atlantic Canada because this government does not have the fortitude to deal with the European Community, and other communities continue to plunder this resource.
If the government was as tough on non-Canadians as it has been on the residents of this country, we would not be involved with such things as the disastrous free trade deal.
Earlier this week the minister spoke in the media about foreign overfishing as if it was a newly discovered phenomenon. The presence of foreign trawlers and the lack of effort of policing the fishery off the east coast has been with us for a good number of years. To raise the issue now with such indignation is like trying to convince Canadians that this government is a stalwart supporter of supply management and marketing boards.
Like the marketing boards at the negotiations at GATT, I fear that the fishery has been abandoned by this government. We will now see a bit of window-dressing trying to convince the fishermen and the taxpayers of Canada it is really strongly supporting this fishery.
I fear it may be too late. The horse has been stolen and it is time to replace the watchman at the stable.
We live in a hungry world, a world in which people, such as we who control such a large proportion of the available food supply, should be able to turn to our advantage. It is ludicrous that we should be constantly telling Newfoundlanders and other Atlantic Canadians not to fish. But it is just as ludicrous that thousands of tonnes of fish have been dumped back into the ocean because the government is not able to develop a policy which would firstly protect and secondly conserve this precious national resource.
By allowing others to continually deplete our resources, we are on the verge of creating an economic and an ecological wasteland in Atlantic Canada. Although many people do not realize it, the east coast fishery is one of our very special natural resources.
Why do we allow the fishery, which should be one of the main economic engines driving our economy in the east, to be plundered in this fashion? Why will the government and the minister not stand and defend our east coast fishery and, in doing so, show Canadians how important they believe and we believe this industry is?
There is very little offshore fishing in my province, but the inshore fishermen realize the harm which has been done to their fishery by the management of the offshore resource.
The catches inshore are declining because the fish have been scooped up offshore by vessels from around the world. I can agree with the minister and with officials at the department that there is a limited number of fish.
What I want to see as a maritimer is fish which should be considered a Canadian resource being utilized to the benefit of the residents of this country. Let the minister who had this responsibility develop policies which will see that the number of fish available are used by Canadians. Also let the minister help Canadian firms and companies develop ways to add value to that product.
Let us keep the fish plants operating and let us keep the fishermen of Atlantic Canada fishing. The precious natural resources of our region should not be used as trading chips in the international games any more than the resources of other parts of the country should be.
When John Cabot came to the waters off Newfoundland 500 years ago he reported that codfish could be taken by lowering a basket over the side. No doubt the numbers have declined but I now ask the minister to always remember that those fish in the Atlantic waters are part of our birthright.
Do not mismanage and do not give away one of the things which could bring our economy out of the economic slump we are in at the present time. These are good people, good fishermen, and good workers. Manage our resource to the benefit of Canadians first and to the benefit of the maximum number of fishermen workers.
This is an industry that was built for the small operator. I say to the government and to the minister: Do not turn your back on them during this present crisis.
February 19, 1992


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in two years that this House sits late at night to hold an emergency debate on the Atlantic fisheries.

I want to say a few words on the fishery because it is rather interesting to think that less than three years-actually two years and a few months, probably a couple of months, three months-this is the second emergency debate that we have had on the Atlantic fishery.
This has to tell Canadians there is something wrong. We do not need the Globe editorials to tell us that this government is doing something wrong, or that it cannot handle or manage the fishery. On this side of the House, we certainly know that. My colleagues and I have fought for many years on the subject of foreign fishing.
This is the third minister of fisheries we have had since November 21, 1988. That goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, that something is definitely wrong with the calibre of this Prime Minister's cabinet in dealing with the most important natural resource that we have on the east coast. It is a natural resource. It is a renewable resource and it is food.
We are debating tonight foreign fishing in and outside our 200-mile limit. I listened to the minister for external affairs. I totally agree with her. Under the 200-mile limit, Canada is fortunate to have such a large coastline and to have such a bounty. That natural resource, that bounty, is food. It is food to feed the world.
Not once did I hear her say, or did I hear her colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans say, that we were going to fish the underutilized fish and put the biggest effort into fishing what foreigners that come from Japan, Cuba, eastern Europe, Europe, all over come to fish. They fish outside the 200-mile limit but they come inside and fish the underutilized species that supposedly are excess to our needs under the Law of the Sea and the share in the 200-mile limit that we were given in 1977.
I was looking at the notes of the emergency debate and I said at that time, over two years ago that yes, there was a crisis yes, we had overcapacity fishing, overcapacity in
plants, but we also had over 100 freezer factory ships fishing within our waters, fish that our fishermen could catch.
I have not seen one realistic incentive to put for those boats that have the capacity to go out and fish and those plants that have the capacity to work. We have some semblance of an effort but we do not seem to know exactly why the Japanese come over here and fish and why we cannot do the same thing they do. If it means money, then use the ACOA money that has been wasted for the most part in Atlantic Canada because it has not gone to create too many jobs in those fishing villages which have no longer a fish plant working, have no longer boats working.
I heard one of my colleagues in the House talk about cultural genocide. That is what it is when community after community is hurting because of the lack of a decision or a lack of an ability of this government to have a creative program. We have all that supply there.
Tonight I asked one of the pages who is from Nova Scotia this:

"What do you think needs to be done?" This young man, who was about 19 years old, replied: "We have the technology. We can do the whole production. How come it is not being done?"

That is what this government has to say to the young people in Atlantic Canada. Why have we not put money into research and development instead of having the foreigners come over here year after year to catch the under-utilized species? As they catch the under-utilized species they get a by-catch. That by-catch is not a small amount. That by-catch could keep a plant going in one small community in Nova Scotia. Not once has any one of the three fisheries ministers put any effort into going out and saying to the Japanese: "Next year we are catching that fish", or to the eastern Europeans, or to the Cubans: "We are going to catch that fish and we will sell it to you, and if you do not want it, we will get rid of it somewhere else. We will sell it somewhere else because it is food". What does it take to sell food in these countries where people are starving? Not once has that happened and we have had three ministers.

February 19, 1992
Obviously the intelligence of three ministers is not as high as the young student who said to me tonight what he would do. That is a young person looking at a natural resource on his doorstep. I have to read The Globe and Mail and be told that we are always looking for handouts. If this government would start focusing on the fact that we have the capacity, we have the technology to fish and to process. What we need is the political will to change.
I sit back and listen to this debate on foreign fishing within our waters and outside our waters. If we could do away with those 100 or more freezer factory ships that come well equipped to process fish for those countries that we should be fishing, I would think as you did away with the effort of those 100 ships or more, they would not have the same desire to come and fish outside the 200-mile limit. Perhaps again we might be able to show NAFO we were serious about what we were doing within our 200-mile limit. As we came to show we were serious, they would begin to put teeth into what the foreigners are overfishing and what they are doing in raping a natural resource. It is a bounty that we do not mind sharing outside, but certainly within our 200-mile limit. We are not a very strong example to the foreigners who have come repeatedly and repeatedly and in larger numbers every year to fish stock that we are forbidden to fish because they have a by-catch in spawning areas.
I know my time is coming to a close, but I have sat here and listened to the ministers. I cannot believe there is that inability to react. I cannot believe the fisheries committee has not met. I heard the chairman tonight. I cannot believe people at The Globe & Mail can just write an editorial crossing us off and saying we are going down the road again or Atlantic Canada is going down the road. I cannot believe they can be so stupid to not criticize this government instead in an editorial once in awhile.
We are going to see our agriculture go out the window if the GATT agreement is signed. The Prime Minister says it may come to that land we have to sign it. President Bush is not saying that. We have a Prime Minister who is going around saying we may have to sign it. The President is not saying that.
It is the same thing here with the overfishing and the foreigners' fishing. We do not have a Prime Minister who is going to stand up and say that we are going to protect our natural resources first.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We have before us tonight a motion for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the situation in the Atlantic fisheries sponsored by the hon. member from Burin- St. George's. Truly this is indeed an emergency situation and a situation in which we from every side of the House of Commons have every right to take part in and put our collective minds together.
Earlier this week in the local paper, there was an article entitled "Where Have All the Fish Gone?". It was written by Elaine Flaherty from Southam News Service out of Halifax. It says:
The accounts from the early explorers of Newfoundland described a sea of plenty; cod fish that swarmed to snatch bait from a man's hand; fish so thick by the shoal that we hardly were able to row a boat through them. The northern cod fishery built a sustained Newfoundland. Historically, it is the reason for the province's existence and today it accounts for about 30,000 jobs in Newfoundland and $700 million of the country's economy.
A popular poster showing an old photo of a small child dwarfed by an enormous fish beside him underlies the rock's resilience on the fishery. "In cod we trust" it reads. Today that trust is seriously undermined, if not gone like the abundant catches of the past. All last summer fishermen off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador hauled in empty nets and wondered about where the fish had gone. This week the scientists delivered the bleak news.
The news delivered by the scientists was a very sobering scientific report of the state of the northern cod. It was made public this past Monday. It was discussed at a special meeting of provincial fisheries ministers and the Atlantic groundfish advisory committee. The Canadian Atlantic Fishery Scientific Advisory Committee or CAFSAC have told us that the northern cod biomass has declined from 1.2 million tonnes in 1990 to 780,000 tonnes in 1991. Truly that is a remarkable change in one year. The spawning stock has dropped to
130,000	tonnes from 270,000 tonnes. We from the west coast do not understand that the cod stocks on the Atlantic live for several years. Seven years is really the prime of their existence. On the west coast the cycle for salmon is four years and after they spawn they die. In the Atlantic it is different. We want to make sure that there are sufficient spawners. They start spawning around age three. The hon. members opposite from the east will know this far better than I do, being from the west coast. Nonetheless the spawning biomass has been seriously depleted and the new numbers that have come in have really been shocking.
February 19, 1992

Catches of northern cod have been falling since 1988. Last year barely more than two-thirds of the Canadian quotas were caught. The minister is now considering the CAFSAC report and the views expressed at the meeting and is consulting widely with the representatives of industry. I am sure we can expect an announcement shortly on the government's response to this serious situation.
Earlier tonight the minister said he would be making his announcement next Monday. I know it is his plan to be back in Newfoundland for the latter part of this week.
In considering what to do it is clear that the government must put a priority on conservation and the long-term health and viability of the stock. It must also consider the potential impact of quota cuts on the incomes and well-being of inshore and offshore fleets, on fishermen, on plant workers, on the communities in Newfoundland and elsewhere which depend on the fishery.
Another very important factor in this complex equation is the continuing supply of this important species of fish to world markets. Although it is only one of twelve Canadian cod stocks, northern cod is by far the most important. We are known and want to continue to be known as reliable suppliers of cod. We need a balanced response to the new situation but we also need a balanced perspective on the complete picture for Canadian fisheries. We still have an ample supply of Canadian cod for the marketplace this year, not to mention other species of fish, shellfish and seafoods.
I do not need to explain the benefits at the end of the chain, to the retail market. However, we do need sound fisheries management that can be promoted from year to year so that there is a reliable resource and a source for the retail market.
In another paper in an editorial entitled Less Fishing Will Replenish Stocks it said: "NAFO recommended a northern cod catch of zero for 1991". Earlier tonight we heard people commenting about the overfishing by the Europeans. This article goes on to say: "The European Community fishermen ignored NAFO's advice and caught an estimated 42,000 tonnes of northern cod last year compared with 132,600 tonnes by the Canadians in the rest of the area. If a resource management regime is
to be effective it must cover the entire resource. Otherwise our efforts to conserve stocks will only benefit and be neutralized by the foreign fleets who catch the fish when they cross the 200-mile limit".
Some tonight have suggested that Canada should unilaterally take possession outside the 200-mile limit. However that is easier said than done. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has explained to us tonight some of the things we would have to watch in trying to do that. It is all very well to talk about gunboat diplomacy but is that the real answer that we need? Once again we must try to see if we can get our European neighbours across the Atlantic-in particular two countries, Spain and Portugal, that we feel have not played by the rules as the others have-to joint in.
There is also a suggestion concerning the number of foreign licences permitted to fish within our 200-mile limit. It must be remembered that these are for the species that Canadians have not caught, have not wanted to catch, and in some cases have not been able to catch because we do not have the equipment to do it. I am sure this will have to be seriously looked at in light of what is now taking place in the industry.
We also know what has been taking place since we had to stop taking young seals. Now we only have some culling of the adult seals. We now know that the numbers of seals have more than doubled from what they were some five to six years ago. We know they feast on part of the food chain within the fisheries. We do not know precisely what they eat but we know it starts with the capelin. If they eat the capelin then it is not there for the cod to feed upon to allow them to continue their growth cycle. Therefore, very serious consideration will have to be given to how to handle the seals and how to cull them much faster than they are now.
Tonight we have heard a great deal of blame being attached to the present minister. This minister has been in this portfolio less than one year. This minister has been part of the government during the downturn in the northern cod stocks. However, I think it is most unfair for people to hold this minister responsible for the drop of the biomass and problems like that when our own scientists have changed their estimates of what was out there just within the last three months. The advice they were giving to this minister has changed negatively, very

February 19, 1992
drastically, from as late as November and December of this past year.
It is a situation in which we all must be vigilant be very much aware of the people who are going to be affected if the minister has to announce on the weekend a serious cutback in the amount of fish that will be allowed to be caught over the next several months. We know this resource is renewable. It is something that will not become extinct. If we carefully nurture and watch over this resource it will renew itself and return to the condition it was in and has been in for these many years.
I would ask the indulgence of members opposite as well. I would ask that during Question Period in this House they ask the questions that need to be asked. However, by the same token, it serves no useful purpose to do it in such a way as to cause hysteria in people's minds because their constituents are watching at home. What kind of a message are they trying to send? Are they trying to say: "Oh, it is all the government's fault" when nature has a very serious influence on what takes place.
We, in this government, have done many things. However, I am sure that we do not have much influence on what nature does. We did not have any influence over the ice situation which affected the fishery last year. When there are changes in the atmosphere or in the water temperatures, whether it be on the east coast or west coast, the government does not have any control over them.
Yet it seems that some members opposite take great delight in fingering government members as the ones who could have an influence over that.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I want those on the east coast, particularly those in Newfoundland who are going to be more seriously affected by this than any other single group of people, to know that we all care deeply about them and their welfare. We will be doing everything possible to make sure that we are able to tide them over through these next several weeks and months.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue we are facing here this evening. It is with thanks to you that the emergency debate was allowed. As has been said before, an emergency debate is an unusual thing and is something the Speaker does not normally grant that readily. From our vantage point, it shows the seriousness of this particular crisis in the fishing industry.
We have heard all kinds of talk this evening, with blame and all those sorts of things attached to the issue. I think we have to look at this as a national issue, the impact on all of Atlantic Canada and really all of Canada. When you look at the number of people who are involved you see astounding numbers in the hundreds of thousands of people. Even in my own province of New Brunswick there are almost 12,000 or
13,000	people involved directly as fishermen and plant workers in the fishing industry. This all has an impact. What we are seeing in Newfoundland could very easily be happening somewhere else. You really have to ask yourself this question. You can give the government the benefit of the doubt and say it managed this industry properly, everything worked out fine and it is just an environmental catastrophe that struck out of the clear blue and there was nothing that it could do. The other answer is that it has totally mismanaged the industry and there was a whole bunch of things that it could do.
Either way, no matter which way you look at it, and I am sure that people in Newfoundland would agree, if the industry was properly managed, they would have anticipated this problem. There were warning signals that had been cast about for the last number of years. I know that we on this side and the members from Newfoundland in particular have been warning the government year after year, Question Period after Question Period, and the fishermen the same. This government tinkered. It did not actually deal with the problem. It was a tinkerer rather than finding the root problems and solving them. Now we have the crisis and we are going to go into crisis management. That, again, is not the way it should be done. We are facing mismanagement of a resource. That is the reality of the situation and something has to be done.
We know there is overfishing. We have heard all the statistics of the European overfishing. We realize that is the nub of the issue, probably the thing that grates the
February 19, 1992

most. We know there has been illegal fishing. It has occurred year after year after year and nothing has been done, and so the frustration does come forward and people are concerned. This has caused the environmental problem. You see things and you scratch your head and you try to wonder what will be going on in people's minds when they give a quota to the CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the Soviet Union. They give them capelin, the feed stock of northern cod. You just scratch your head and ask why they would do that. Yet they did. Then they say that it was an environmental disaster. Granting the licence was the disaster. It had nothing to do with the environment.
This is where we become frustrated. I feel compassion for Newfoundlanders who sit there and watch Brigitte Bardot and other Europeans come over here and say: "No killing of seals, we can't allow that, this is a terrible disgraceful thing", the movies, the news items and all the rest of that. At the same time they will come over here and plunder our fish stocks. You say: "What a bunch of hypocritical you-know-whats".
We realize that presently the statistics show something like three million to four million seals are in the Atlantic coastal region. I am sure that you realize this, Mr. Speaker, but others do not. Those three million or four million seals are making about 300,000 baby seals every year and every one of those is a hungry mouth. We have all heard the statistics on how much they eat. We have an environmental problem there. I was thinking about that. It is just an aside but if we are going to deal with that and were to cull that herd, what are we going to do with the cull because we would have to cull probably 300,000 to
500,000	seals? Where are you going to put that cull? What are we going to do with it? We have got ourselves in a mess. We in Atlantic Canada have to be concerned. If the mess can occur in such a major resource as the northern cod stock, what can happen in the rest of Atlantic Canada, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy, areas that affect my riding?
I think we have to go back to square one to see if we can adopt a plan and take the necessary steps to have something that functions properly. We can talk and we can make suggestions and all the rest, but we have to try some things. Rather than saying it cannot be done and that we had better not attempt it, let us try some things.
We could take a look at the nose and tail. They say it cannot be done, therefore, we will just let it go. Why do we not opt in favour of doing something that may work, rather than giving up before we try? Why not extend our limits to include the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks?
We hear reports from our military as to how successful they were during the Persian Gulf war. What was their task in the Persian Gulf war? It was not to engage in combat as much as to verify and support the blockade of Iraq.
I think we should use those same initiatives and those same skills, because our Canadian troops were the best over there, to verify the overfishing and to prosecute, capture and bring to justice those people who break the law. We have the capabilities and the abilities to do that.
I will hear the arguments from the other side about gunboat diplomacy, et cetera. Maybe that is true. But I look at what happened with Iceland and Great Britain and when the Icelanders stood up and said: "Enough is enough and we are not going to put up with it any more", we knew who owned Icelandic cod. It was the Icelanders and not the people from Great Britain. They were a small nation and they took on the big nation and they came close to winning.
Therefore, we have to try the same thing. Rather than saying it cannot be done and there is no point in trying, let us try to do something to salvage this situation.
I know my time is going by quickly. I say to the people in Newfoundland that this is not the end of the world. This is a renewable resource. There are things that can be done. I am just very concerned about the management of this type of problem by this government.
We in Moncton faced a similar problem. We lost 1,500 jobs and this government's attitude was: "It is just a cyclical thing in the economy. It will go away. Do not worry about it". That is the attitude it seems to be taking in this particular matter.
We as parliamentarians in this place must send a message to the people of Newfoundland that we stand with them and that we are going to be there and support them all the day long, as they say, to make sure that they do not have the heartache, the stress and the impact on family life and all of those things that are associated with

February 19, 1992
the fact that they are out of work and the appearance is that they have no future.
Newfoundland will rise above this particular problem. We have to be there to help. That is the role of Canadians, That is the role of this place and that is what we are going to do.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand tonight as a member from Ontario to support my colleagues from Newfoundland and from Atlantic Canada in general.
We in this country have to realize that we as Canadians must stand together or we are going to hang separately. What we need in this country is a good dose of medicine called national pride, national meaningfulness. We are going to support our own to the same degree that other people who are taking advantage of us are supporting their own. But we will not go around stealing from our neighbours. That is what is happening in many issues in the fisheries today.
It is a lack of proper conduct on the part of the international community. A lot of it is coming about because there is no muscle in Canada to say: "You cannot do it".
If next week when the budget comes down there is a cut in the shipbuilding program, then this is a clear signal that we will not have the additional ships that we are going to need to guard our fisheries here in Canada.
I remember very well that in 1984 during the election campaign the present Prime Minister criss-crossed this country and said: "If you just give me a chance to be Prime Minister of Canada, if I just get there, I will guarantee that in a few years' time, you will not recognize Canada".
Little did we know how meaningful that statement really was. We wish he had kept his other promises as well as he has kept that one.
The importance of the fishing industry to the GDP of each Atlantic province in commodity producing industries in 1986 really impressed me: Newfoundland and Labrador, 20 per cent; Nova Scotia, 15.8 per cent; Prince
Edward Island, 15.9 per cent; New Brunswick, 5 per cent; and while the corresponding number for Quebec was less than 1 per cent, the industry is vital in the Gaspe and the north shore region of the St. Lawrence.
Tonight I listened to the member for Cardigan who delivered a very good speech on behalf of his home island of Prince Edward Island.
About 500,000 Atlantic Canadians live in 1,300 small fishing communities strung along thousands of miles of coastline. That last statement reminds me a great deal of the situation in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario where lumber is so important and where there are so many small communities. They too are in trouble.
There is proof, absolute proof here. I was amazed at some of the figures on the overfishing of the fisheries area around Newfoundland. It is sad that people around the world, with all the talk about the environment today, seem to have absolutely no respect for conservation.
Over the years of Canadian history there are three things that have been very important to the Canadian economy. One is fisheries. Far beyond the years of Confederation and right back to the early days of the first settlers, the fisheries were important.
The history books tell us of all the problems of the fisheries over the years. They were not problems necessarily on conservation but problems with foreign countries coming and taking the fish out, too many at one time.
Forestry was another main staple in the Canadian economy. This government has certainly fixed that industry today, too. It is in serious trouble.
The person who was responsible for undermining our forest industry, particularly softwood lumber, was rewarded by being appointed to the Senate. There was no fight there at that time, but worse still, there was no judgment in that case.
The third one was agriculture. Look what is happening to agriculture today. On Friday you will undoubtedly have the most farmers on Parliament Hill and in Ottawa than you have seen over the years of Canadian history.
February 19, 1992

That is because article XI of the GATT may be lost. If it is, the Liberal legislation that set up marketing boards in this country will be meaningless to farmers because they will lose their marketing boards. They will lose their milk quotas that they paid huge prices for over the years. It is a terrible issue for Canadian agriculture. Worse still, they talk about tariffication. We cannot put up tariffs against the United States to protect the farm industry in Canada. The Americans are going to come after us because of that insincere free trade agreement that we signed. They have been very insincere about it. We have all kinds of non-tariff barriers going up today.
The government is not fighting hard enough to protect the fisheries against intruders. It is not fighting hard enough to retain article XI of the GATT and hence save Canadian farm marketing boards and jobs in Atlantic Canada.
The government has not put into effect the necessary resolve to deal with those European countries that overfish in the Canadian Atlantic fisheries. Where is the Canadian resolve in dealing with the European community? It is failing in the farm discussions and it has failed in the-fisheries.
I would like to remind Europeans tonight that during World War II convoy after convoy of food was sent from this nation of Canada to feed the civilian population in free Europe and to feed the Canadian armies and other armies that were situated on British soil. It is time that these European countries for which many young Canadians risked their lives and lost their lives, both in the merchant navy as well as in the active forces during World War II, remember that Canadians sacrificed for them. The least they can do today is respect international law that involves Canada. That is all we ask. Surely it is not too much to ask people to live up to decent agreements in the world. Memories are short unfortunately, but history is long and history records the real facts of life.
The underlying problems of the fisheries catastrophe that we are discussing tonight must rest at the very heart of the present government. We have heard that they do not want to hear tell of gunboat diplomacy and so on. The present system is not working. We are not doing the work in the diplomatic areas that we should be doing.
Canada is not being respected. That message has to get through to the people who are not living up to the agreements with Canada, be they in fisheries, farm products or whatever.
These people have shown no respect for the Canadian government when discussing farm marketing boards. They show no respect for the Canadian government when discussing fisheries. We have a free trade agreement with the United States and what are we getting in return? All kinds of non-tariff barriers are thrown up.
It is time that we had a government in Canada that will fight for Canadians and not try to appease everybody in the world that is going to break international law and agreements with us.
We need a government that has some courage. We need a government that is willing to stand up on its feet and show some resolve, a government that means business when dealing with the international community. The day is over for a government that is too wimpish to take a strong stand on anything.
I just want to say that it is time not only to complain and march in Canada, but it is time to tell Europeans and others who are trespassing on the rights of this nation, on our sovereignty, to start abiding by agreements. It is time to make it plain to the world that they are not.
We did not pay the price in tens of thousands of lives of Canadians and in hard work in building this country only to sit back and be taken advantage of by other countries. From now on a national spirit in this country is needed that means resolve, determination, and play the game right.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that there are two speakers left on this side of the House, myself and the member for Gander-Grand Falls. We will be taking our full period of 20 minutes each.
I want to start by saying that I compliment you, Mr. Speaker, for accepting on such short notice the request of my colleague, the member for Burin-St. George's, for an emergency debate on this issue. Your Honour has been sitting in the chair for many hours today. You have been here often during the last two and a half weeks and know that I have been promoting and advancing the idea

that on priority issues such as this we should take advantage of the time we are here in Ottawa when the House of Commons is sitting to extend the hours. I thank you, on behalf of all of us in this House and on behalf of all the people in our communities who want to know, when times are tough like this, that their members of Parliament are advancing debate in a constructive manner.
I must say that I believe the tone or tenor of debate tonight was the kind that many of my constituents would want to hear. Even though we tested the government or challenged the government tonight, there were positions put forward on both sides that I think should provide the beginning of some feeling of hope to Newfoundlanders, the people involved in the fishery. It is not only the fishery but people from all regions of the country. I mean, as the member for St. John's East said, direct and indirect employment is close to 25 per cent.
In my community of downtown Toronto losing 25 per cent of our employment is something beyond imagination. Our community could not function with an unemployment number that high. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the government is seized with this issue and understands that the political will on this side of the House and on the government side as well is going to be there and is going to press the Prime Minister and the cabinet to act on this issue.
I could not help but reflect, as I was listening to the debate this evening, on what makes the leadership of this country, the Prime Minister, different from the previous Prime Minister who led this country, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a Prime Minister I had the honour and privilege of serving from 1980 to 1984 on his personal staff.
I tried to reflect, because we had times that were difficult in 1980, 1981 and 1982. We had a crisis in terms of the recession. It was one of the worst recessions that ever hit the world at that time. There are many differences between Prime Minister Trudeau and the present Prime Minister, but the one main difference is that Prime Minister Trudeau was a force in international affairs.
He was a force that was respected; he was a force that was admired and he was not afraid to take on the tough
issues. When I say that I am not trying to suggest that the current Prime Minister could not do some of the same. What I am suggesting is that he is not doing enough of it.
Here is a perfect example where the Prime Minister of Canada could take a page out of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's book and he could call up his chief of staff and say: "Get the JetStar ready. We are travelling to Spain. We are travelling to Portugal. We are travelling to wherever we have to go and we are going to put this case before the leadership of those countries that are causing this problem".
I am not suggesting that this is an easy task. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister will score the first time or the second time that he does this, but he must try.
Right now, the foreign policy of this country is basically being influenced and directed from the forces of Washington. It has affected our entire economic policy. We got suckered into a poorly designed Free Trade Agreement and we continue to flounder in that area. In the process of trying to cope with that poorly designed Free Trade Agreement, our national spirit has dissipated.
When that national spirit dissipates, when it becomes a weakened spirit and there is a crisis like we have right now in Atlantic Canada, in Newfoundland specifically, do not think that the world forces do not see, do not smell our weakness. They do and they take advantage of it. They are taking advantage of it right now.
I just came back from the Middle East. I spent about 10 days in Syria and Amman, Jordan. The people in the Middle East have warm feelings toward Canada, but they wish that we would once again develop our own foreign policy. They wish that we would stop being a mirror image of the United States of America. This example of foreign overfishing is one of people ignoring the basic laws in relation to the environment.
I cannot believe that in this debate tonight we have not had the Minister of Environment here. This makes a mockery of the green plan, what is happening here in Atlantic Canada. This makes a mockery of some of the projects that we are involved in, in terms of Global '92, in Vancouver. This makes a mockery of our plan in Rio de Janeiro in June.
February 19, 1992

This is an environmental disaster equal to the oil disaster in the Persian Gulf.
I would like to know where Greenpeace is. What hypocrisy, Greenpeace. Where are all the non-governmental environmental organizations this week? Where are they? Are they intimidated by The Globe and Mail? I cannot believe it.
The priorities on this issue are upside down. This is not a regional issue this is not a national issue. This is an international issue. This is an international issue because we are custodians of that fishery, not only for our nation but for other nations on this planet. If we show a lack of will, a lack of fortitude, if we show an indifference toward the international environmental justice, if we show an indifference, what is the next stop? Is it going to be the Americans taking water out of the Great Lakes and we sitting back and just letting it happen?
Is it going to be something on the west coast where my friend must have concerns? There is west coast exposure in terms of the environment, in terms of sovereignty. My colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso earlier in his speech this evening talked about sovereignty. This is an issue of sovereignty. Just because it is happening in a region of our country where it is not easy for the national media to get to it, it may not be as sexy for the national media.
We have to stop letting the national media control the agenda of this nation. We as members of Parliament have to control the agenda. We have to let our voice be heard, not only here in this House of Commons but we have to make sure it is heard in all the other international courts. If we let this issue rest, it is going to be the beginning of a series of advantages that other nations will take from our own sovereignty.
As a member from an urban riding from Toronto I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. There are close to 5,000 people in my community who are from Newfoundland. Many of them have parents and friends, aunts and uncles still living in Newfoundland and they expect my voice to be heard on this issue. Toronto, contrary to what many people will say, cares about this nation as a whole. Like Charlemagne once said to his son: "Give me one spear and I can break it
over my knee easily. Bring me ten together and I have strength". On this issue, all sides of this House must act together. We must encourage the Prime Minister of Canada to take a page out of Pierre Trudeau's book, get his foreign policy act together and start speaking for Canada, and leading Canada.
The people of Canada are saying there is a tremendous void of leadership in this country right now, that the Prime Minister is not leading, he is retreating. I say this without malice toward the Prime Minister but on this particular issue he needs a little nudge. He needs a little bit of a push and he needs to be told, in a very humble, direct way that it is time to fight for some international, economic and environmental justice.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long. It is pretty late and I am sure that a lot of people are a bit tired at this hour in the morning.
I suppose it is fitting that I have the last words on this emergency debate and, as I say, I will be very brief. It is fitting because I am the only member in the Chamber whose riding lies entirely in the middle of the northern cod stock zone.
My riding to the east has a community at the very end called Deadman's Bay and in the west a community called Nickey's Nose Cove. Those are the extremities of my riding and both of those communities are within the 3K fishing area on the map. The northern cod zones are 2J, 3K and 3L. I am the only member in this Chamber who has the privilege of having a riding so located and of having 13,000 licensed fishermen in his riding; not 100, but 13,000 who fish only the northern cod stock. They fish nothing else.
There are families who migrate during the summer, who take their children and put them on a boat and go up to the Labrador coast and spend the entire summer there in communities. One of the communities is called Punch Bowl. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, you know where Punch Bowl is, but everybody in the middle of my riding knows where Punch Bowl is. For the first time in the 18 years that I have represented those 13,000 fishermen, I had to arrange for welfare to bring them back, men, women and children, because there were no fish.

For the first time in 18 years I went down to a meeting in a place called Crow Head recently. It was in the month of December. There were 67 long linermen, crews, 67 vessels, and they did not have enough for unemployment insurance.
They had to arrange to go out and pick up rocks and garbage under the snow to get their stamps, their unemployment insurance stamps. This was a works program of the federal government for the best fishermen in the world, the longliner fleet.
The hon. member for Burin-St. George's who moved this motion in the House today knows exactly what I am talking about. In fact, he knows some of them personally. The greatest fishermen in the world were picking up rocks and garbage under the snow in order to get enough unemployment insurance to feed their families. It never, ever happened before in our history.
I want to restrict in my few remarks to only one thing. I am not going to talk about foreign overfishing outside. I am going to talk about something that the Government of Canada can do and do now. I am glad the parliamentary secretary is here. Next to the minister, he is the most powerful in the Government of Canada.
The 100 foreign vessels inside the 200-mile zone area licensed by Canada. Those people who believe that they do not have anything to do with the shortage of fish must believe that crew members on those 100 foreign vessels are suntanning.
The crew of 15 factory freezer trawlers from Cuba are around Newfoundland suntanning, because what else would they be doing? Playing bridge, or cards, or cribbage? Do they have an indoor pool? Their boats are big enough, they are 400 feet long. Do they go down and play video games? When you go inside the control room, it looks like Star Wars.
They are all at the television screens and they control their nets by remote control. The nets go down and around every bump in the ocean. They pick out the fish they want. Star Wars in the Atlantic Ocean.
Maybe they are playing video games for those people who do not believe that those vessels are harming the fishery. They must believe they are either getting a suntan or playing Pac-Man on the Atlantic Ocean.
I want to make just one brief reference to what the minister and the parliamentary secretary said. I noted it very clearly. They said: "The species of fish that foreign nations are catching legally"-these are the only people I am talking about, not the illegal ones-"are only catching it because we are not able to catch it or we are not interested in it".
I want to tell the minister and the parliamentary secretary that there is no such thing as an under-utilized species in the Atlantic Ocean today. The only under-utilized species in our ocean are our fishermen and fish plant workers. Those are the only underutilized species.
I will explain to the parliamentary secretary exactly what I am talking about. They are granting 100 licences to various nations. The hon. member knows the nations I am talking about: Cuba, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria to a certain degree, Norway, France, and so on.
These nations may not have quotas of cod in the northern cod zone, but I will tell you what they do have. They have quotas first of all for squid. The 401 for squid is off the province of Nova Scotia. Squid are bom in Florida and they die in Florida, the species that we have. They know where to go to die, don't they? When they are born they come up the coast of Canada and they pass to within 80 miles of southeastern Nova Scotia. It is there, the food supply of the cod. The squid we made so much money on in 1979. Men, women and children drawing squid, everybody was happy. Everybody had clothes to put on their backs to go back to school, everybody bought their books and shoes to go on their feet. They did not need welfare, they had squid. That squid is a restricted fishery in Canada today. I cannot get a licence to catch squid. A man on welfare cannot get it. A woman on welfare cannot get it. Not even a fisherman can get it unless he fished it previously for the last five years.
It is restricted, but Cuba has 15 factory freezer trawler licences this year to catch squid in our waters off Nova Scotia, right on the 401. The black line of squid come all the way up past Nova Scotia, go in around Cape Breton, on up the Quebec shore and New Brunswick, up around
February 19, 1992

Newfoundland and right back down to Florida and then they spawn and die.
We have not seen squid now since 1979. Is it not funny that Cuba and the Soviet Union with 25 factory freezer trawlers and scientific knowledge so accurate that the moment those squid are big enough to catch when they get inside our waters past Nova Scotia are there. The 25 of them are there and they put a barrier across the 401 and catch every squid that goes up there.
We do not see squid anymore. The hon. member can check with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and it will say that it is an under-utilized species. The poor man on my coast who cannot get a licence says: "Oh, yes, underutilized. Flow is that?" The minister stands up and he says: "But it is the law of the sea. We have to give anything in excess of Canada's needs". What is Canada? It is not National Sea Products Limited and Fisheries Products International. These are the people who are asked: "Do you want this squid quota"? The man trying to support his family is not asked.
The newspaper editor phones the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and is told: "Oh, no, this is in excess of Canada's needs". What does a newspaper editor here in central Canada know about the poor man and woman who cannot get a licence. The squid never reach our coast anymore.
It is the same with our capelin. We cannot get licences for capelin. It is a restricted fishery in Canada today. Only certain people can fish capelin and only in certain bays. You must have a certain size boat and you must have three in your crew. The Russians have 50,000 quota in my riding and Canada has 20,000. Capelin is the main food supply of the codfish.
If you were trying to catch a codfish out in the ocean-I have done it many times all my life-you would go out and you could put bubble gum on your hook and you would catch a codfish. Any child will tell you that. You could use a piece of cotton or something. However, the really good food is the squid and the capelin. Then if you had a piece of mackerel or herring just like a lobster.
Two years ago for the first time since the early 1970s Canada approved four factory freezer trawler licences for Bulgaria to fish-where? We have the biggest spawning area for mackerel in the world in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Since the Canso causeway was built in 1954
the mackerel cannot get in that way any more. They go through Sydney Bight at the end of May and spawn in June in the Gulf.
By September those fish are nine inches long and they go right up around the northern cod zone and they are eaten by cod fish. Lo and behold, who had the nets up? Bulgaria, compliments of the Government of Canada with a 30 per cent by-catch of herring, the largest by-catch our fishermen could ever have in our entire history since we joined Canada in 1949.1 can remember the day. The largest by-catch my people ever had was 10 per cent. Bulgaria had 30 per cent. When you look at the licences, everybody has 30 per cent if they are foreign. You have your capelin, squid, mackerel, and herring to a certain degree. What is the codfish supposed to eat in the northern cod zone? There is nothing left. They are scrawny. They are thin. They are not even spawning at seven years anymore.
One further point I want to make is this. I have done research since becoming a member of Parliament. I represent 13,000 full-time fishermen. When I say fulltime fishermen, I think twice about it because I think about all of those people out there who are part time or less than part time who are not allowed to get any of these licences that the foreign factory freezer trawlers have, none of these licences. Imagine, I have had fellows write to the Soviet Union and ask for a portion of their quota. Imagine. I sent a covering letter to the embassy here. We give them a portion of the quota in 3K in the northern cod zone. Of course the Soviet Union writes back and says no. Imagine, a Canadian asking the Soviet Union for a portion of his quota in the northern cod zone for capelin.
My point on the spawning is this. When you examine all of the scientific reports on spawning they are very interesting. It is interesting how a codfish spawns. A codfish takes about four weeks to spawn. Actually the male cod grumps for two weeks. You did not know that before, parliamentary secretary, but a codfish actually grumps prior to the two weeks spawning period. He selects his female. It is a very complex system. Just like your living room, he maps out this area, and he selects the female cod for two weeks. Then they spawn for two weeks. Every scientific study that has ever been done on the spawning of cod in captivity in incredibly large tanks and in bays show one thing. If you drop food down during

February 19, 1992
the courtship period or the spawning period, the codfish will go mad and they will collide with the sides of the tank or they will disappear. You cannot disturb them during their two week pre-spawning and during their two weeks of spawning. Who disturbs our codfish today on our spawning grounds?
Do you know that the policy of this country is that we are not certain? You speak to any scientist in Fisheries and Oceans and he will tell you that it is Canadian government policy to allow anybody to fish during a spawning period because we have never had a situation in Canada as long as they have studied cod when there has been no fishing during the spawning period. They cannot tell you whether it has any effect on the spawning of fish, that is allowing boats to fish in that area.
Who covers the main spawning areas of Canada during the spawning season, the Hamilton Banks, the Funk Island Banks? Ninety per cent of our spawning areas are inside the 200-mile zone. You know who covers it? It is those factory freezer trawlers. We do not have any factory freezer trawlers in Canada other than one. National Sea has one. Do not use it. A government fell in Atlantic Canada, I would say, when a fisheries minister approved factory freezer trawlers. We do not have one. Our boats are maximum size, 174 feet. Some of these foreign vessels are 400 feet long. These vessels go with their modem Star Wars gear through the very zones where codfish are trying to spawn during the spawning season.
So add two of those things together. You take away the food of the cod and you take away the privilege that codfish always had while the ice was in in February and March of being left alone, relatively apart from our own offshore fleet which is about 42 vessels, compared to the 100 from foreign nations we license to catch so-called underutilized species. Those are the vessels that disturb our spawning ground.
You add both of those things together. Yes, you can mention seals as the hon. member did. We have a law in Canada today. You are not allowed to get a sealing licence. I bet you did not know that.
The law was brought in by this minister of fisheries. There was no announcement made but you cannot get one for food. A man cannot get one for food, unless he had one for the past five years.
We are limiting Canadians, telling Canadians that you cannot do this and you cannot do that, saying for the sake of the law of the sea in excess of Canada's needs must be given to a foreign nation. It is funny. We are the only nation in the world that interprets the law of the sea that way.
We are not allowed to go within 200 miles of any nation in the world. Not one nation are we allowed to go within 200 miles and fish, even to put a hook over the side of a boat. We would be arrested. We are the only nation in the world that allows it.
The last one that stopped it was Namibia, that big powerful nation just north of South Africa. That small nation last November said: "We're not going to put up with this any more. We are not going to put up with the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Your time has expired.


George Baker: One minute to wrap it up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: One minute, the hon. member.


George Baker: As I was saying, the vessels from Spain and Portugal that the hon. member who moved this motion from Burin-St. George's knows so well, 100 of them left the coast of Namibia and ended up off the hon. member's riding on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That is where they ended up.
In conclusion let me say this. It is not very nice to have your constituents, full-time fishermen, unable to go out and fish. They look out in the water 12 miles off and see the flags of Japan and U.S.S.R. All these nations catching such things as Greenland halibut which we know as turbot. That is our mainstay but it is listed here as Greenland halibut by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, underutilized species. Our fishermen have fished it for hundreds of years. It is their mainstay. It is flatfish. Foreigners fishing; Canadians are not allowed to fish.
Anybody who believes that foreigners do not have anything to do-that is the legal ones now, the ones that are licensed; I am talking about my riding and the
February 19, 1992

northern cod stock- with the destruction of our cod stocks really believes that these foreigners in 100 large vessels are out there suntanning in the month of February.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1.27 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 52(12), I declare the motion carried.

The House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. today, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.27 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 20, 1992