May 11, 1978

PC

Fred Alward McCain

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCain;

All those governments aren't Liberal. You are judging them all by yourself.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Herb Breau

Liberal

Mr. Breau:

All those governments are not Liberal, but the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and all their inshore fishermen would become bankrupt if we were to accept the plan put forward by the province of Newfoundland, with the support of the province of Nova Scotia, because they do not want to rebuild the stocks. They are not concerned about proper management or rational development. I have a copy of their plan here. They want to build fishing capacity beyond what it was before the 200-mile limit was set. They want to build it beyond what it was when foreigners were fishing there. They are not talking about rebuilding stocks either in the 200-mile limit or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. What they want to do is rape the resource and get short-term profits for themselves.

I think that point of view should be put to the people of this country and to the people of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I would be very happy for them if they could get something good, but there is a problem. The question is not one of who should own the resource but of who can manage it properly. I am from the Atlantic provinces, but we must criticize ourselves because, while we might agree in criticizing Ottawa or the rest of the country, the four Atlantic provinces cannot agree on the time of day. The maritime provinces have been trying for the last few years to agree on something. Why all these inter-governmental meetings between provinces when really one constitutional authority can listen to the four Atlantic provinces?

The federal authority has to account to this House and to hon. members opposite, who do not consider themselves the protectors of the interests of their constituents. They do not consider themselves the protectors of the interests of the people

May 11, 1978

of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. I do, and I am also ready to defend the interests of my constituents at any time in this House. Is it not really more efficient and does it not make more sense to have one constitutional authority? In the Gulf of St. Lawrence or even outside the gulf we really cannot define the line between the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. And what do we do about P.E.I.? How are we going to agree on the line?

The position put forward by the province of Newfoundland is unfair in terms of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The people of New Brunswick depend on the rebuilding of stocks and on a rational and cautious development of that fishery in the future. However, the position accepted by the Conservative opposition is really unworkable, and to suggest that we could bring together the four Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec even to agree on where to hold a meeting to discuss these things is absurd. Nobody would agree on anything. As I said before, they could not even agree on the time of day. The result would be that a few companies based in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would rape the resource.

We all know the concentration of power presently in the fishing industry. We all know about the transfer of shares which took place on the stock market in 1977. We all know how strong fishing companies are becoming. We all know that while provincial politicians were arguing amongst themselves, five or six big companies would rape the resource, and the result would be that all of us would pay very dearly.

I just hope that the Conservative party comes before the people in the Atlantic provinces with that kind of position, because I feel that the people of Canada everywhere do want a stronger central government; and if there is one area where the fishermen and the people generally want the federal government to maintain its authority, it is the area of resource management for the fishery. Anything else would be total chaos.

The basis of the policy of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment in the last few years has been to have a fair allocation of quotas. For the first time in the last two years we have an allocation of quotas. If there is going to be a scarcity of fish, we say that different areas will have a fair allocation of quota. They can extract that fish from the sea. However, we also say that inshore fishermen will have their share. How will they have their share if more than one authority decides how much fish is to be taken? If we do not protect fish coming into the Gulf of St. Lawrence by having a sound, rational and cautious development policy within the 200-mile limit, it just will not get there. If it does not get there, that will mean bankruptcy for the fishing industry. The basis of the policy of cautious development is that the inshore fishermen should have a share and an opportunity to enjoy the prosperity it had, in relative terms, 20 years ago.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
PC

Fred Alward McCain

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCain:

I agree with that.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Herb Breau

Liberal

Mr. Breau:

The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte now says he agrees. It is difficult to understand the policy of the Conservative party. One wonders if it is the result of conviction

Fisheries

or confusion. Just about 20 minutes ago the hon. member was criticizing the minister for saying exactly what I am saying. I am saying that we should resist the policy of the Newfoundland government. Just because it is a Tory government, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte should not think it has the divine answer to everything. I am here defending the minister and explaining why, and the hon. member interjects and says he agrees. The hon. member should make up his mind.

I should remind the hon. member about what has been happening to the herring fishery in his own constituency in the last few years. The purse-seine landings tripled in value in 1977 over 1975, from $2.8 million to about $7 million, yet he has the gall to criticize the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The minister saved the herring fishery in the Bay of Fundy with his policy. Federal government measures have tripled the value of the herring purse-seine fishery in the Bay of Fundy. Federal fisheries authorities backed the seiners to form a marketing co-operative and helped them work out individual boat quotas which enabled them to slow down their rate of fishing and to sell herring for processing into food rather than racing to catch all the quota in a short time to sell for reduction to fishmeal. That is what was happening before the minister came in with his policy.

The hon. member suggests that the federal government is unfair by insisting that it should have the authority to regulate the fishery. He should have been in his constituency over the last two months asking herring fishermen what they think about that. If the herring fishermen of the hon. member's constituency were to read his speech of this evening, I would have to go there to help him in the next election because he would be in difficulty.

I mentioned a while ago that in 1978 Canada will get 69 per cent of the traditional groundfish catch. In 1974 it got only 33 per cent. That is not the only difference we must look at. In terms of inshore fisheries, again for the first time the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment introduced the concept of allocation on a regional basis. For example, there will be a cod quota in 1978 for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Not only will there be a cod quota generally for the Atlantic provinces but also for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Also there is a cod quota for inshore fishermen. As a result of that, the inshore fisheries now have an opportunity to prosper.

For hon. members opposite, under the guise of a motion, to attempt to condemn the minister for lack of consultation is unreasonable. They come here and present various arguments. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) complained this afternoon about 500 licences being given to foreign fishing vessels within the 200-mile limit. Is that a big scandal? In the groundfish industry, we will be fishing 69 per cent in 1978, whereas in 1974 we were fishing only 32 per cent of the total allowable catch. The foreigners are receiving species which Canada is not equipped to process. Canada is not used to

May 11, 1978

Fisheries

fishing those species traditionally, and we do not have a market for them. Why not let the foreigners take them?

I support the position of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. I support his contention that fisheries management must remain a federal authority.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Herb Breau

Liberal

Mr. Breau:

At this time in our history, there is no way that I would want to see the central government weakened in any way, particularly not in the area of the fisheries. That would mean chaos. There is no way the four Atlantic provinces would agree on anything. The result would be that four or five big companies would control the fisheries. For an hon. member from New Brunswick to suggest that the power over fisheries should be given to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is not feasible. The result would be that the inshore fisheries of New Brunswick would be totally bankrupt. I could not stand for that. I support the posture the minister has taken, as well as the policy which he introduced respecting a cautious development of the fisheries. If there is a need for more fishing capacity, better boats and bigger boats, later on we can acquire these boats when necessary and when there are fish to fish in the sea.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
PC

Cecil Morris Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):

Mr. Speaker, in the very few minutes remaining in our allotted day, I should like to speak about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It was established in 1969 specifically to market fish, fish products and by-products in the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and a portion of Ontario. As is clearly stated in its 1976-1977 annual report, the objective of the corporation was to market fish in an orderly manner and to increase interprovincial and export trade.

One could probably write a book on the allegations which have been brought to our attention concerning this corporation over the past eight months. One such allegation is that 14 million to 15 million pounds of fish purchased by the corporation through its Transcona plant were in storage at a cost of $5,000 a day to the fishermen. Some of it has been kept in storage for as long as nine months. Another allegation was that many pounds of fillets had to be thrown away because of freezer burn. A further allegation concerned the deliberate changing of packaging dates on fish already in storage so that it would appear to be fresh fish. Apparently expensive fishing and processing equipment was sitting unused adjacent to the Transcona plant. I could refer to many such allegations.

Prior to the estalishment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, fishermen sold their produce through various private companies in the north. At that time all the fish was being sold. It did not have to be put into storage, and the fishermen were not assessed some nine cents a pound per annum to keep fish in storage. Today the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation does not seem able to sell half the amount of fish being produced. From 1963 to 1969 the average production in northern Manitoba was nine million pounds per annum. That fish was all marketed. It did not have to be

stored, and fishermen were not assessed one cent per pound per month. Now that the corporation is in place, the average annual market volume is 5.5 million pounds. We have taken a step backward.

The corporation will indicate that fishermen are receiving a better price for their catch, but when fishermen are required to pay in order to keep fish in storage for a period up to nine months, that theory does not make sense. Instead of putting this fish in storage, we should use mother nature's deep freeze. The lakes in northern Manitoba are ideal. In the wintertime they could be used to replace deep freezer storage until production is sold to a buyer in the United States, our major customer. The fish could be taken out of the lakes and shipped directly to the market. Then fishermen would receive a better price for their fish, at least ten cents a pound bonus for fishing in the wintertime. Also we would get away from these high storage costs.

If the Canadian inland fishery is to survive, we will have to take a look at the lakeside results which fishermen receive in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and so on. A portion of Ontario has opted out of the program. The fishermen of that province are now receiving $1.16 to $1.20 per pound for pickerel, whereas fishermen under the corporation receive only 50 cents to 69 cents per pound.

May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Denis Éthier (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), that proceedings on the motion have expired.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATION ON FISHERY POLICY
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-FUNDS FOR RESEARCH

NDP

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, on May 3 I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I asked her whether representations had been made by medical researchers to the effect that the small increase in funds allocated for medical research this year would have very serious effects on the entire program of medical research, and on the ability of this country to keep medical research in Canada. The minister replied by pointing out that there had been an increase of 5.6 per cent, which amounted to approximately $60 million. Also in view of the freeze under the restraint program, she felt that medical researchers had not been badly dealt with.

May 11, 1978

The increase is far short of what is required. Medical education in Canada to a large extent has been based on teachers in our medical colleges who are vitally interested and tremendously involved in research in the various specialties for which they have been trained and are deeply involved. They are experts in their fields. They want to continue their work. If they are not permitted to continue their work because funds are not made available, they will move to the United States. The United States is not just a country close to Canada, not just a country to which it is easy to move, and not just a country in which the people speak the same language; it is a country which spends at least ten times as much per capita on medical research as we in Canada spend.

This results in a constant pull from Canada of Canadian medical researchers to the United States. Just a week or so ago one of the best known and most competent of the researchers at the medical college at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Ruben Cherniack, announced he would be moving to one of the mid-western states. He is moving because he does not have to worry in that state about the funding necessary to carry on the research in which he is interested. The money is made available there freely and willingly.

Too little money for medical research has been the story for many years in Canada. What have aggravated the situation are the stop and go programs in Canada. Some two years ago when medical researchers successfully mounted a protest against that year's cut-backs, the then minister of national health and welfare, speaking at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, said in part:

You cannot just turn it on and off as if it were a water tap. What we are trying to develop is a kind of formula or criterion, by which research... particularly medical research ... will be able to count on some reasonably steady rate of growth in its expenditures.

Those were brave and sensible words. The medical research community hoped the government had changed its thinking and that there was a new understanding regarding the importance of medical reasearch. They thought the government had accepted the principles enunciated in those words I have just quoted from the former minister. After two relatively good years, researchers find this year they are right back in the mess they were in two years ago. The $60 million allocated is just not good enough. This is an increase and we can argue how much. The minister said it was an increase of 5.6 per cent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a letter said it was an increase of 7.8 per cent, and medical researchers say it is an increase of three decimal something per cent. The fact is that the cost of medical research has gone up between 15 per cent and 20 per cent annually.

What this small increase this year means is that the National Research Council had to turn down about 167 grants for highly qualified applicants, as well as the applications of 32 excellent investigators who wanted to continue the work which has been funded by the National Research Council so far. They have been told they would have to conclude their research in the next few months. It has been estimated that

Adjournment Debate

they need about another $6 million to cover the cost of staffing their research programs, as well as for equipment and for the development grants program which has gone a long way to providing the salary support needed to recruit new faculty members in the newer medical colleges. This development grants program was cut to the bone. It is short by at least $500,000.

What we have according to medical researchers is another crisis which will have a profound effect not just on the researchers but on the whole program of medical education. What we are talking about is some $6 million, and I do not believe that a country like Canada which has programs in every field which total in the tens of billions of dollars cannot find $6 million. I would urge the minister to reconsider the decision.

The Acting Speaking (Mr. Ethier): Order, please.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-FUNDS FOR RESEARCH
Permalink
LIB

William Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Liberal

Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for bringing up at this time a topic which is not only of concern to him but to many other members of parliament, and certainly to the Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would like to point out to him that the minister did reply to him in her response of May 3, 1978, but I wish to amplify that to some extent. Before doing so, however, although he has mentioned that many doctors are moving to the United States, I would like to inform him that it is not all milk and honey and sweetness and light in the United States and many doctors are returning.

The hon. member also indicated that the per capita research in the United States is ten times that of Canada. If he checks his figures he will find it is not ten times the per capita amount but rather $10 per capita in the United States as compared to one-third of that in Canada, if my figures are correct. It is true there is a difference, but ten times as against three times is quite a significant difference.

I disagree with the hon. member when he says there is a crisis as far as this is concerned, because many of the most important projects are in fact being funded at the present time. I believe that many hon. members will have received representations from their constituencies about the government's funding of medical research in 1978-79. I appreciate and share that concern.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, to correct a number of inaccuracies that have crept into reports and statements in the media. It has been stated that 20 per cent of ongoing Canadian projects in the medical sector have just been terminated by the Medical Research Council. This is significant exaggeration which should be corrected. In Canada in the fiscal year just ended, a total of 2,725 research projects in medical fields were under way with support from one of the major granting agencies-federal, provincial or voluntary.

May 11, 1978

Adjournment Debate

This figure included 1,302 supported by the federal Medical Research Council, of which 545 were assured of funding for the coming year without further review.

In November, 1977, and March, 1978, the Medical Research Council had for consideration applications for the renewal of 575 projects. Approval was given to continued support of 475 of those projects for further periods of one to three years. In the remaining 100 cases, support was provided only for periods of three to eight months, to enable the investigators to bring the projects to an orderly conclusion or to revise the protocol for future work so that it would be more favourably viewed by the applicant's scientific peers and thus receive further funding in the next competition. This unconditional award rate of 82 per cent of the requests under review is not at all unusual in the experience of the Medical Research Council.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-FUNDS FOR RESEARCH
Permalink
LIB

Denis Éthier (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-FUNDS FOR RESEARCH
Permalink

AIRPORTS-CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT CHARLOTTETOWN-ALLEGED DELAY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS

PC

Heath Nelson Macquarrie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, if I may make a minor transgression from procedure, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to convey to his minister my opinion that she is a lady of great compassion, and I support her in all the endeavours that she has put forward for the deserving people of this country.

Once again I address the House on a problem both important and pressing, the construction of adequate airport facilities for the city of Charlottetown and the province of Prince Edward Island. This is not the first time I have presented my concerns, Mr. Speaker. I brought up the subject most recently on November 7, 1977, and on May 24 and January 31 of the same year. I had hoped that an announcement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on November 8, 1977 concerning funding for the new terminus would have ended my anxiety. However, I fear that my worries are far from alleviated. Delay and uncertainty seem to remain the order of the day.

The problems we are facing become increasingly serious as we approach the summer months. Tourists will soon be heading to our beautiful villages and sunny beaches. Once again the summer visitor arriving by air will be greeted with uncomfortable and inadequate convenience-an unnecessary and unwelcome set of circumstances far from becoming the capital city of the province where confederation began.

9 (2212)

Being a believer in representative democracy, I consider it a grave situation that the worries of the people of the village of East Royalty have not been eased. For months they have had to contend with uncertainty concerning their position in respect to their property. Certainly, land acquisition is a necessary effect of expanding the Charlottetown airport. It has been estimated that approximately 28 property owners will be affected by the project, 28 individuals and families who at the

present time have not been given any reasonable assurance from the federal government as to their circumstances or their future. They had been promised ample opportunity through public meetings to voice their position and to receive information from the responsible officials. The last such public session was held in December of last year, with no indication of another forthcoming. The people of East Royalty are deserving of better treatment and I request of the minister that the village be given immediate recognition and full information so that this problem affecting the airport's expansion be resolved.

Not all Islanders are enthusiastic about the Charlottetown airport plan. On a "hot line" radio program in Charlottetown, some citizens have suggested that $21 million is too much to spend. I know this problem and I am convinced of the importance of new air terminal facilities to the economy of the province and the well-being of its citizens. The sum of $21 million is not too much; in fact, I wonder if it is too little. We of the Island have been too long neglected. I urge the minister not to consider a reduction of this figure. PEI deserves a first class airport and I make no apology for advocating such an installation. Why should we settle for second best? I think we should not.

Four weeks ago we all thought that the days of this parliament were numbered. After today's words from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) it seems that we are to stay for yet another few months. I urge the minister to devote some of this freshly acquired time to the exigencies of the construction of this much needed facility and to go "full steam ahead" on a sorely needed project, the airport in Prince Edward Island.

I want the parliamentary secretary to assure the minister- who is not the most popular figure in that part of Canada- that he will have my full and sustained support in bringing to Charlottetown a much needed airport with the most modern facilities that our province requires and needs. I will support the minister to the fullest extent of my eloquence and capacity as either a has-been politician or emeritus one, depending upon whether it is friend or enemy who describes me. I should like the parliamentary secretary to know that we appreciate his attention.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   AIRPORTS-CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT CHARLOTTETOWN-ALLEGED DELAY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS
Permalink
LIB

Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) when he describes his province of Prince Edward Island as one of the jewels of Canadian tourist life. I am sure-in fact that is the very reason why the Department of Transport decided to spend a relatively large amount of money on the Charlottetown airport-I am sure that everything in our power must be done to give better services to the visitors who go to Prince Edward Island as well, if not, in particular, Mr. Speaker, to the citizens of the island. I should like to thank the hon. member for his words of support for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I agree with him that the needs of the people living near the airport must be taken into consideration and efforts made to

May 11, 1978

try to solve the sociological problems caused by having to move and the construction of a larger airport in the vicinity.

As the hon. member mentioned in his intervention, on November 8, 1977, the Minister of Transport announced that the federal government will completely redevelop the Charlottetown airport at a total cost of $21,531,500, to include a new terminal building and eventually a new 5,000 foot runway. I can assure the hon. member that this amount will not be diminished and that we will forgo the previous engagement we took last November. The Minister of Transport said at that time, and I quote:

This massive project indicates the government's longstanding commitment to improve transportation facilities in this province and throughout Atlantic Canada.

Adjournment Debate

The minister also paid tribute to the dynamic and highly successful Prince Edward Island tourism program since jet service began in 1969, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in air transportation. The Charlottetown airport redevelopment concept was developed in close consultation and co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities.

It is worth repeating that the carriers serving Charlottetown participated fully in the development of the master plan which identified a requirement for a new runway in future years. The first state of the new runway would be constructed to a length of 5,000 feet. As and when the demand developed, it would be extended to 7,000 feet. If at that time aviation technology has changed to the point where an even longer runway is required, operational requirements will be met.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   AIRPORTS-CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT CHARLOTTETOWN-ALLEGED DELAY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS
Permalink
LIB

Denis Éthier (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

Friday, May 12, 1978

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   AIRPORTS-CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT CHARLOTTETOWN-ALLEGED DELAY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS
Permalink

May 11, 1978