Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the Shelburne County enforcement crisis. By condoning the oppressive crackdown on lobster fishermen in southwestern Nova Scotia, the present Liberal Government is once again demonstrating its insensitivity to the need for Canadians in small communities to retain their dignity and economic self-determination.

These fishermen are being unfairly attacked because they were honest enough to inform the Government that the lobster trap limit set in 1968 was being over-fished and needed to be revised. Last fall, these fishermen were anxious to consult with federal officials and resolve the issue, but it soon became clear that the Government did not respect the knowledge and opinions of the fishermen. The Government was determined to bring in its heavy artillery and enforce the old trap limit in spite of evidence that lobster stocks are increasing. This enforcement would ultimately keep these fishermen below the poverty line, or drive them out of business altogether.

It is not only the fishermen who are under attack but the entire social fabric of Shelburne County. The reputation of the Crown is being defiled in the process. Fisheries officers are destroying legal fishing gear and refusing to acknowledge the fact. They are also guilty of making misleading statements and of unreasonable search and seizures, harassment, and unequal application of the law. Every attempt by fishermen to resolve this issue peacefully has been contemptuously rejected. I wrote to the Minister about this on February 28-

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.

Mr. Crouse:

-and have received no response.

Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):

Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, there have been frequent comments on television and on the radio that Indians are overfishing salmon. I would like to say that this is not altogether true, because last November, when the Government of Canada, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, purchased fishing rights for the Mingan River, the Montagnais Indians in the area unanimously decided to refrain from all fishing in this river, in order to protect the salmon and evaluate fish stocks.

Mr. Speaker, what we must understand at this point is that the issue is not really the Indians' salmon fishing rights but their ownership claim on the salmon rivers.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two things we must distinguish here. When the media tell us that the Indians refuse to observe salmon quotas, it is not the same as being told they refuse to act responsibly in this area. By fishing selectively, the Indians want to show us that they own these rivers. What the provinces must do is ensure that the Indians are given responsibility for the rivers and leave it at that. I am convinced the Indians will do exactly what they did on the Mingan River this year, where no salmon was taken at all. They are now proceeding with a scientific evaluation of the fish stocks.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be careful when the media say the Indians are acting irresponsibly with respect to salmon fishing, because it is another case of claims being made on the basis of aboriginal rights.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions my colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), has risen in this House to condemn the action by the United States of putting out to tender sub-sea oil and gas drilling leases in the Dixon Entrance area off the coast of British Columbia in waters which belong to Canada. This action constitutes a deliberate slight to Canadian sovereignty and threatens the peaceable resolution

June 1, 1984

of Canada-U.S. boundary disputes, yet our own Government stands mutely by and does virtually nothing.

It has now come to my attention that the United States plans to issue more oil and gas leases, this time in the Canadian sector of the Beaufort Sea east of the 141st meridian. As the Member of Parliament who represents the area concerned, I take great exception to this unwarranted, incautious, and antagonistic proposal, and call upon the Government of Canada to protest this infringement on our national sovereignty in the strongest possible terms.

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, the Government has recently announced that it is increasing the veterans allowances for those veterans whose claims are recognized, which, of course, must be welcomed by everyone. But the Government should also deal with the problem of veterans whose claims have not been recognized. There are many veterans of World War II who claim that they have pensionable injuries which are not being recognized or are being underrated by the Pension Review Board. Some of them received back or leg injuries which seemed slight at the time of discharge when they were young and healthy, but now, after many years of heavy industrial work, are seriously hindering the ability of these veterans to earn a living.

Some of these veterans have hearing problems, such as tinnitus, which can be related to the heavy bombardment they endured at places such as Arnhem. However, because it took years to show up, their claims are either not recognized or are very slightly recognized.

Many of these people have organized into a new group called "Suffering Veterans", some being members of the Canadian Legion and some not. They are trying to bring their case to public attention. When we have $100,000, which I welcome, to give to those veterans whose claims are recognized, we should also consider doing something for those whose claims are not recognized or are being underrated, in the opinion of the claimants. I would urge the Minister-

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.

Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):

Mr. Speaker, Liberal Members are so in the habit of blaming others for all of our nation's difficulties that they forget to look at themselves. According to the Liberals, high interest rates are the

responsibility of the Yanks, and unemployment is the result of a world-wide condition. With respect to the national debt, the Liberals say: "Golly, that just happened. Don't blame us". And when the Ministers mess up with poor legislation and ridiculous scheduling of House business, the Liberals blame the Opposition.

But careless Liberal priorities were revealed last night. With real urgency to complete the Standing Committee study of the Western Grain Stabilization Act amendments, which will provide immediate financial relief for western farmers facing financial disaster, who fails to have members in attendance? The Liberals. To the shame of the 145 Members of the Liberal Party in Parliament, they could not find even two of that number who had enough interest to attend. The Liberal Chairman would not try to fill the empty chairs, saying: "I have 300 miles to drive tonight". What a way to run a country! What a way to accept responsibility!

Who is responsible for the failure to get Bill C-33 out of committee? Not the six opposition Members who waited for Liberal Members to show up. This is the same Liberal gang who are responsible for high interest rates, the national debt, two million unemployed, and the lack of respect which many Canadians hold for the institution-

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member's time has expired.

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult enough in these hard economic times for average Canadians to live comfortably on their earnings. For our elderly living on low and fixed incomes it is virtually impossible. Our senior citizens struggle to stay alive while the Liberal Government wastes billions of Canadians' dollars on Canadair, de Havilland, Petrofina, and Maislin. Now the Liberals are trying to pay off their massive deficit on the backs of Canadians, taxing everyone and everything in sight, including the elderly.

Previously, when applying for the guaranteed income supplement, workers' compensation benefits were not counted as income, because a disability is a disability regardless of age. This year the Government decided that workers' disability benefits must be counted as income. Senior citizens who have suffered an injury on the job need and deserve the disability benefits which they effectively lose through this totally unnecessary government action.

There is a real fear among our senior citizens that this Liberal Government, insatiable in its quest for tax revenue, will directly tax workers' compensation benefits next. This must not be allowed to happen.

June 1, 1984

[DOT] (ms)

After a two-year delay, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has the nerve to announce a $25 increase in the GIS, while simultaneously declaring compensation benefits must be counted as income. This type of Liberal chicanery has driven one of my constituents, Mr. Harry Kuzick, of Surrey, B.C., to express his frustration: "Do those Liberal idiots in Ottawa know what $70 means to an elderly person's income?"

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):

Mr. Speaker, the House is so quiet today I think I should make an announcement. The Department of Employment and Immigration will announce in early June a new program called the Volunteer Initiatives Program. It is for people on unemployment insurance who are unlikely to find work. It will pay $50 a week to sponsors for their overhead. I am not sure whether it will pay the people on unemployment insurance any extra money. The sponsors are charities, schools, hospitals, and some community centres.

The problem is that this program is the old Liberal shell game of job creation. You take some workers off the streets and possibly replace people who are already working full time in these voluntary organizations. The Government is again using charities to fill gaps in the Public Service. We in B.C. know what it is like when nurses are laid off and low wage, unskilled volunteers are hired to fill their place.

I have three suggestions for the Government, one, that there be a mechanism in this program to protect existing workers in agencies so that we are not just displacing existing workers. Second, more people should be eligible. People on welfare, for example, should be eligible. Third, we should look at a full-scale program of job creation, not just one more stop gap, band-aid measure.