Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a lot of problems with the new fish plant. I understand the foundation has collapsed. I understand it is sited far away from the water. I understand there have been some significant cost overruns on the Development Corporation contract, which was awarded to a Quebec company, by the way. I wonder if the Minister could give us a picture of some of these cost overruns and tell us who has borne and will bear responsibility for the overruns that were caused by the technical problems I understand they are having in completing the plant?

I'm not technically qualified to tell you whether the thing was built right or wrong. All I can do is give the Member an update, which I will do early next week in the House.

I would just like to clarify any suggestion that I'm against the creation of jobs in Pangnirtung. I'm for the creation of jobs there, but I don't want the fishery to be so heavily subsidized that it will eventually go the way of the Newfoundland fishery, Mr. Chairman. Those are the only comments I will make today. I have many other questions. There are ways of getting answers to them. One of the best ways is probably to go to Pangnirtung and see the operation for myself. Thank you.

Maybe we need a full debate in the House about the issue Mr. Patterson is raising, about what is the position of the MLAs as it relates to Development Corporation operations. Maybe that is the debate here. Because, what I now hear him saying is that he doesn't want these jobs to be subsidized. That is what the policies that are in place say. Would he prefer that we didn't subsidize the jobs and everybody was left to be on welfare? I don't want to start an argument here, but let's get a debate going in the House. Let's see what Mr. Ng thinks, let's see what Mr. Antoine thinks. If the majority of people feel that way, then we'll stop doing it.

But, it is my understanding that we have the mandate to subsidize capital, to subsidize jobs, where we are creating employment opportunities for people in Level II and III communities, where there is a desperate, desperate level of unemployment. Here is a unique opportunity to do that in a fishery that we never had up until 1990. We've got a minor problem which can be resolved and we are having an argumentative debate about it in the House. So maybe we should be debating the bigger issue and let's see where the honourable Members stand on this Development Corporation position and policy. Thank you.

No, Mr. Chairman, I really don't want to start a debate, because, as I said in the House the other day, I was on Cabinet when some major moves were made to start this very important fishery in Pangnirtung, and I am proud of that. I think the only question, Mr. Chairman, and it is a philosophical question, is the extent of the subsidy and whether, if we are over-generous, we may be threatening the long-term financial viability of our fishery. The only issue, in my mind, is whether the Development Corporation is being overly generous with its funds and whether it spends its money in ways that promote northern preference and northern business and whether it uses its financial muscle in predatory practices against private operators who don't have the benefit of strong financial support. I didn't say I was against subsidies. I said that the issue, I think, is the extent of the subsidy and the extent of the capitalization. I was warned by an experienced Maritime Minister that one of the fatal mistakes made in the Newfoundland fishery was over-capitalization. I am not saying that's happened in Pangnirtung, but I think that we should dare to ask the question and not be seen as the enemies of local employment if we ask such questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is clear in the policy that we are allowed to subsidize jobs up to $10,000 per person. It is clear. There is no debate. It is clear. The only debate is, do you wish to continue that and do you wish to continue the capitalization? It is abundantly clear. So the issue has to be, at least in Mr. Patterson's eyes when he says, what is the degree of subsidization? The mandate and policy I have which are in writing, is to subsidize up to $10,000 a job. Is that satisfactory? Is that predatory? That has to be opened for debate. I don't know. All I know is, in 1994, there are 151 people working in that fishery. Now, that is what I thought my job was. So it is clear what the subsidies are, very clear. I think the debate has to be, is that fair? I think that is the issue that has been raised here and I am prepared to debate that, but let's get everybody in the House because that affects other people's regions.

I will look forward to a solution of the fish box problem which is going to allow my small, struggling corporate constituent to survive in the fishery business with money invested from his own pocket. Maybe we can take that as a first step, take a look at the Pangnirtung Fishery, and if it leads to a debate about the policies and the mandate of the Development Corporation, then so be it. But I am wanting to take this one step at a time, and my first concern is the fish boxes and I am pleased that the Minister is going to tackle this problem. In his business-like way, I am sure he will find a solution. Thank you.

Now, wait a minute. This is an important issue to me, okay. It was the honourable Member who talked about policy, not me. I am suggesting to you that the policies are there. If we are going to debate the larger issue, then let's debate it with everybody in the House. That is all I am saying. If we have a minor problem with fish boxes, then why the...Pardon me. If we have a minor problem with fish boxes, we will resolve that issue.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened, with interest, to the two Members, one Minister, one MLA. It has been an interesting discussion. Mr. Chairman, isn't it true - I might be asking the wrong Minister - that the Pangnirtung fishery for turbot, which has been around 100,000 pounds per year, has been given a licence by the Minister of Fisheries to the Inuit and it's not for Pangnirtung. It could be fished out of Iqaluit; it could be fished out of Pond Inlet; or it could be fished out of Rankin Inlet, as long as it does not exceed 100,000 pounds. Pangnirtung itself has not been licensed to do that

fishery. That was my understanding. Is that still true? Thank you.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but in my discussions with Mr. Mike, who is the president of the Pangnirtung Fishery, he did relate it in the same way as Mr. Allooloo currently spoke to it. He saw it as part of a quota given to aboriginal people and he saw it as part of what he perceived as, perhaps, a right. Now, in terms of clearly defining whether it was given under those circumstances, I would have to look into it. I don't have the legalities of it. I don't know definitively if that's how it was done but it's certainly perceived that way, yes.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be interested to know. If the Minister does not have that information now, then I would be happy if he could provide it in the future. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, was that, due to lack of scientific information by Fisheries and Oceans, they were reluctant to

license a certain area. To get around that, they said, okay, we'll give you 100,000 pounds. They call it an Eskimo licence that was for the zone "O" and maybe part of "B". Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the Minister to see if that fishery could be developed and keep asking the DFO to do some initial assessment so that other allocations could be made for both exploratory and establishing quotas. That is all I have to say. Thank you.

I must apologize. I appreciate what the honourable Member said, and I am encouraged by what he said. I will look into it and get it more clearly understood by myself as it relates to why this licence was given and who it was. It would certainly solve a lot of the debate. Thank you.