With respect to the Department of Fisheries' helicopter service stationed in Yarmouth to provide fisheries surveillance in the Scotia Fundy region, (a) how is the number of actual flying hours arrived at after considering base costs (b) how many fishery surveillance trips were taken for the past eight months, how many hours were used for each trip, what was the total cost to the Department of Fisheries and how many charges were laid for overfishing (c) how many search and rescue trips were made over the same period of time and who paid for them?

November 18, 1992

Hon. John Camell Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):

DFO has a fixed budget for helicopter services in Southwest Nova. Actual flying hours are determined by:

(i) subtracting monthly basing charges and operational expenses (hangar maintenance, crew travel, and fuel) from the over-all budget; and

(ii) dividing the balance of the budget by the fixed hourly flying rate to determine the number of actual flying hours.

From January 1 to August 31, 1992, DFO conducted 163 surveillance trips utilizing 424 hours or an average of

2.6 hours per trip. The total cost was $1.4 million. During these trips, DFO encountered 64 suspected violations as follows:

-26 domestic vessels fishing during a closed season; -8 domestic vessels fishing in a closed area;

-4 domestic vessels with improper identification markings;

-4 incidents of illegal salmon and lobster gear;

- 1 foreign vessel entering Canadian fisheries waters without authority; and

-21 domestic vessels fishing not in accordance with their conditions of licence.

For that same period, the helicopter conducted eight search and rescue missions involving 12 actual trips totalling 20.9 hours. DFO covered the cost of 12.3 hours and DND covered the balance.

Regarding the series of shows featuring trade commissioners to be held in Tbronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver later this year (a) what is the total estimated cost for the series of shows (b) what is the cost for each show (c) how much will be spent to bring trade commissioners back from their posts (d) have any contracts been entered into by the government in relation to these shows with private companies or individuals (e) what is the value of each of these contracts and who are the individuals or companies involved?

Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):

In its eighth year ExportVision, formerly known as Marketplace, has been held annually by External Affairs and International Trade Canada to promote exports, exporting and to provide direct assistance and information on export markets and government assistance programs to Canada's business community in all regions during October, Canada International Trade Month.

This annual series of seminars and workshops, one-on-one meetings between trade commissioners and

Routine Proceedings

company representatives, self-funded networking luncheons and outreach activities with local chambers of commerce, colleges and schools and media representatives took place across Canada during October.

Some 3,500 persons, mostly from the private sector, participated in one or more of ExportVision's events. It remains too early for companies to say what impact their participation will have on their export operations this year. However, for example, last year, as a result of information provided in an interview that took place at the advance technology Marketplace in Vancouver, Sys-temhouse Pacific entered into an alliance with Samsung Data Systems Co. Ltd. of Korea, to provide its systems integration expertise to Asia. The potential of this deal is worth hundreds of millions to Canadians over the next five years.

The total estimated cost for the series held in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver is $99,275 and the individual estimated costs are: Toronto-$63,000; Montreal-$20,275; Calgary-$4,000; and Vancouver- $12,000. These costs include in-house costs.

Trade commissioners returning to participate in ExportVision also receive ongoing training, briefings and departmental initiative updates as part of their regular duties. Therefore the total estimated travel costs of $166,000 cannot totally be attributed to ExportVision.

Private sector contracts entered into regarding Export-

Vision are as follows:

Toronto

Westin Harbour Castle Conference Centre 10,000.

OEB Public Relations 33,000.

Manpower Temporary Services and

Personnel Opportunities Ltd. 5,364.

Southam Audiovisual-Equipment rental 1,200.

Vernon Rentals and Leasing-Equipment rental 375.

Ricoh Canada-Equipment rental 295.

Ove Design-Design, layout, printing of tickets 515.

Security Management Services 351.

Montreal

Hilton Bonaventure Hotel 2,825.

Clarkson & Conway-display booths 1,850.

Creation Graphique-signs 3,800.

Caron, Belanger, Ernst & YoungModerating services 800.

Corpav-Equipment rental 800.

Routine Proceedings

Inforum-Telemarketing 3,000.

Calgary

The Palliser Hotel 2,230.

Tel Av-Audio/visual equipment 642.

Stampede Display-Display booths, eta 475.

Calgary Tower-Room rentals, dividers, eta 645.

Vancouver

The Meridian Hotel 1,293.

Judy Wvong and Leanne Martinson-

Temporary help 4,079.

New Communications Concepts Ltd.-Signs 940.

Mail-o-matic Services-direct mail 1,542.

U.S. Direct-Consultant services 796.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Mr. Edwards:

I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Mr. Duhamel:

Madam Speaker, I am seeking some guidance here. I submitted Question No. 207 regarding the goods and services tax revenues in December 1991. It concerned the amounts and where they would be applied. There is still no response.

I was wondering if I could have an indication as to when it might be answered. As we can well appreciate, constituents are interested in this question and I have been getting some telephone calls.

Mr. Edwards:

Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned that my hon. friend has waited so long. I can tell him there are some three departments involved and the report is proceeding reasonably well. I believe it would be possible to produce it within the foreseeable future. I give my friend the undertaking that I will pursue it personally for him.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

Agreed.

Agreed.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I have received one application pursuant to Standing Order 52.

Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):

Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate on the state of Canada's transportation industry. I request this debate for a number of reasons, most of which are being played out on the front pages of most of our newspapers at this very moment. One of course is the story we have all been following very closely in the past number of weeks which involves all Canadians. That is the crisis in the airline industry which involves not only PWA and Canadian Airlines, but also Air Canada.

I think it is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to stand up here in Parliament and debate this issue and debate it very, very soon.

In particular, as an Atlantic Canadian, the news yesterday in Atlantic Canada with regard to transportation was not particularly good. We have a crisis looming there as well since CP Rail made known its intention to abandon or seek abandonment of all its rail lines in Atlantic Canada.

I do not think I have to go on any further. It is being suggested by the other side of the House that I save my speech for the debate. Madam Speaker, I want to impress upon you the importance of it because in a country as large as Canada I think the 27 million Canadians who are watching us from time to time should be aware of exactly what is happening out there and it is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to put that message out.

The decision has been made by CP Rail to abandon the rail lines in eastern Canada. That is an entire region of Canada that is going to be abandoned by a major corporation that has been mandated and has the respon-

November 18, 1992

sibility to provide a service to a very important part of this country.

I request under Standing Order 52 an emergency debate based on the crisis facing Canada's transportation industry.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):

I rise on a point order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if I could be helpful on this point. Earlier in the week representatives of the New Democratic Party and others called for an emergency debate on the crisis facing our two major airlines.

Also, since then the crisis in Atlantic Canada, with the announcement that CP would be abandoning its rail, has arisen. To assist the Chair, I want to make it clear, since the request has come from a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party, on behalf of the New Democrats here in the House of Commons that this will be an opportunity to show the people of Canada that we are prepared to address what have to be the critical issues of the day, which I think was made very clear in the referendum campaign.

We are prepared to give our unanimous consent to this request to ensure that a proper debate takes place later tonight, not only on the airline crisis but on the crisis in the transportation sector generally, particularly, as my hon. friend mentioned, the situation regarding the CP announcement.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):

Madam Speaker, I want to echo what the hon. member for Kamloops has just said. We share the concern that has been raised by the hon. member.

As the government has obviously had one of its members put this forward and agrees that it is a crisis, I want to say that we would be more than happy to have an emergency debate and hope that Your Honour will find in favour of the position put forward by the hon. member.

Mr. Riis:

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly certain how this ought to proceed. However, if it will be helpful perhaps we could ask my hon. friend if he would seek unanimous consent of the House because the House could then agree and the debate would occur with the understanding that it would occur with the same restrictions and regulations that an emergency debate would have.

Routine Proceedings SPEAKER'S RULING

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I thank the hon. members for their contributions.

I have in front of me an application under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. I can understand the importance of the subject on which he is proposing the House should have an emergency debate.

At this time I do not think that it meets with the requirements of Standing Order 52. In that sense, I am not in a position to grant this emergency debate.

On the other hand, should House leaders get together and propose something to the House, then I am the servant of the House, as you all know. At this time I cannot, according to Standing Order 52, grant this emergency debate.

Mr. Thompson:

Madam Speaker, if I have interpreted what you have said correctly consent to debate or emergency debate has been denied, but I do seek unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that fashion. If that would be appropriate I would then seek unanimous consent to do so.

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that under Standing Order 52 an application is made to the Speaker as to the propriety, the correctness, the timeliness and the need for an emergency debate. It would seem to me that is the route it should go, and that we should await the Speaker's ruling on that particular question by the hon. member for Carleton

Charlotte.