1961-05-02

GRAIN-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO CHINA

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that on February 2 I informed hon. members that a sale of 40 million bushels of wheat and barley, valued at approximately $60 million, had been contracted between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company.
I now inform the house that there was an additional sale to China of 2.2 million bushels of wheat, valued at $3.7 million, for shipment during March to May, 1961. Those connected with shipping grain through the west coast ports have made a fine effort to meet these commitments. As a result, the grain sold to China for delivery between March and August is being loaded ahead of schedule.
Simultaneously with the fulfilling of the first order there have been discussions and finally negotiations between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company concerning further amounts of grain that could be made available. Because of the quantities of grain involved and other factors, the Canadian government felt there should be an over-all agreement to facilitate orderly marketing.
I am now pleased to report that a long term agreement has been signed. This long term agreement covers the period June 1,
1961	to December, 1963. Under this agreement we have committed ourselves to provide up to six million tons of barley, wheat and flour. Of this amount approximately one million tons will be barley. To put this into approximate bushels and value, it would provisionally be 186.7 million bushels of wheat and 46.7 million bushels of barley, worth approximately $362 million.
If one adds the previous order for 28 million bushels of wheat and 12 million bushels of barley, valued at $60 million, then the total transaction that could provisionally be expected for the three calendar years 1961,
1962	and 1963 will be 217 million bushels of wheat and 58.8 million bushels of barley, with a total approximate value of $425.6 million.
I mentioned earlier that the first order of 40 million bushels was being moved satisfactorily. As an extension to the order now being filled, a contract to provide additional grain from June 1 to November 30 of this year has been signed. It is the first contract under the long term agreement. The amounts are 750,000 long tons of wheat, 360,000 long tons of barley and 32,500 tons of flour, to be shipped mainly from west coast ports. The equivalent in bushels is 28 million bushels of wheat, 17 million bushels of barley and 1.5 million bushels of flour. The estimated value of this order is $66 million. The terms of payment under the long term agreement are 25 per cent cash and the balance in 270 days.
Hon. members will appreciate that it is beyond the resources of the Canadian wheat board to extend credit facilities for the quantities involved in these transactions. Accordingly the government, reflecting its intensive efforts to sell grain in volume to new markets, is prepared to guarantee to a maximum of $50 million the credit necessary for the Canadian wheat board to conclude these transactions on a short term credit basis. I have made it clear that there is a long term agreement. Under that agreement one contract has been signed. Each future contract will be negotiated in respect to price and quantity.
A sale of this order will spread substantial benefits through the Canadian economy. Not only will it provide a welcome increase in western farm incomes, but this in turn will release new purchasing power for the goods and services required by farmers from the business community at large. Additionally the sale will generate increased employment for country and terminal elevator operators, railway and dock workers, and others engaged in the domestic handling and export movement of grain and flour. It is apparent that new grain sales of this magnitude will add significantly to Canada's total earnings from exports. Business activity in general will therefore be stimulated to a marked extent by the conclusion of this new sales contract with China.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposilion):: We on this side welcome the minister back from his trip across the Pacific to Hong Kong, where he has been successful in negotiating a long term agreement with

Sale of Grain to China the communist government of China and a considerable sale of wheat, barley and flour for the current year 1961.
So far as the long term agreement is concerned we can only hope on this side that an agreement of this kind negotiated with a government of this type will work out satisfactorily for our own country. There is, of course, an element of insecurity in an agreement negotiated with this kind of government, because political considerations often intervene between the purchaser and the seller. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that famine in red China, a country with which we have no diplomatic relations, has meant this large sale of grain which we welcome. We welcome also the reduction in our surplus together with the increased activity that the sale will provide.
But, of course, this is not normal trade. This is a windfall. Two factors make this sale even more unusual. One is that credit terms are now being given to the communist government of China, as mentioned by the minister. We sell wheat to our friends for cash. We sell it now to a government which we do not recognize diplomatically, for credit. Also the minister is reported as stating at a press conference in Vancouver that we shall accept pounds sterling for this sale, pounds acquired by communist China through the sale of rice to sterling countries.
It is clear, of course, that the United States is not a competitor for this trade, because United States trade with China in all commodities is now illegal. While that is not a reason why we should not develop our own trade with China in commodities which are not on the strategic list, a position we have taken on this side for some years, this deal, however, undoubtedly will mean that the United States may not feel itself under the same obligations as it was previously in co-operating with us in the sale of agricultural products abroad.
Considerations governing this arrangement show that in government thinking there is a distinction to be observed-and this applies also to South African developments-between political ideology and commercial advantage, and that political ideology does not prevent a commercial embrace.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly the former Liberal government sold wheat to Poland on long term credit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We recognized Poland diplomatically.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps out of my element in commenting on this subject, but if the hon. member for Assiniboia
[Mr. Pearson.)

were here he would say that we welcome this announcement. We are glad the minister has been able to make this contract for the sale of this wheat, but with over 500 million bushels of surplus grain on the prairies and with an annual production of grain of approximately 500 million bushels, the minister must continue actively searching for markets which will bring even greater results if we are going to meet the needs and the expectations of the producers of grain in western Canada, for whom I speak today.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his interesting statement this morning. Did the minister indicate in Vancouver yesterday that payment for some of the grain to be sold to communist China would be in pounds sterling; and if so, what proportion of the payment would likely be made in pounds sterling?
Second, in his statement I think the minister said that the shipments would be made mainly from west coast ports. Have any deliveries so far, under the agreement which commenced in February, been made out of eastern Canadian ports, and does the minister contemplate that some deliveries will be necessary from other than west coast ports during the 1960-61 shipping season?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the portion of the question concerning shipping, all the first order has been shipped through the four west coast ports. If the additional orders starting in June overlap the previous orders it will be necessary to ship a portion of them, about 300,000 tons out of the 1.2 million tons, out of the St. Lawrence ports.
With regard to the part of the question dealing with sterling, as I understand it all the payments will be made in sterling.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask whether he is aware of the fact that the port of Prince Rupert is 500 miles nearer to the Orient than Vancouver, and every opportunity should be taken to use the grain terminal facilities there.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been following the announcements which I have been making these last three or four months he would understand that the port of Prince Rupert has never been so busy, and that situation will probably continue for some time to come.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that I only want to see it busier?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with notice which I gave orally last week I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West:
That the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance and statement of accounts for the year 1960 be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for study.


Mr. Speaker:: Undoubtedly the hon. member has considered whether this motion can properly be made, and if he can indicate any precedent for a motion of this kind I would appreciate him doing so now.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, last week this matter was discussed. The report of the discussion will be found at pages 4043 and 4044 of Hansard of April 27, 1961. The presiding officer of the chamber at that time took the position that under citation 186 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, there would be difficulty in a private member of this house giving oral notice in respect of a motion of this sort. It was pointed out that under that citation certain exceptions were provided in respect of routine proceedings. It was argued per contra that this involved proceedings affecting the maintenance of the authority of this house.
Some discussion took place between the presiding officer at that time and the member for Essex East, later participated in by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The remarks of the Deputy Speaker, to be found at page 4044 of Hansard of April 27, 1961, I believe support and warrant the initiative taken by me this morning. He observed, as reported in the right hand column at the bottom of the page as follows:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the comments of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have clarified the point. As he says, if the notice given by the hon. member for Essex East is not intended to have this question stand on the order paper, there is no problem-
Then later on at page 4045, in the left hand column, about a quarter way down the page, he says:
I do not think that is necessary because the question seems very clear and, as I said, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has removed any doubt I might have had.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I believe I should be frank in this matter, Mr. Speaker. At the time I myself had understood that the Deputy Speaker had taken a position against the submission I had made, but on a careful perusal of Hansard, as I am now indicating by some excerpts, it is clear I think that the Deputy Speaker did in fact concur in the clarification so ably provided by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
On the merits, Mr. Speaker, the submission briefly is that, under the Bank of Canada Act, the governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible only to parliament, according to the Minister of Finance. By way of parenthesis I say, of course, that exception is taken to that interpretation of the governor's constitutional and legal responsibilities. Nevertheless, in part, that is the legal position; the governor is responsible to parliament with respect to monetary policy. His report is in the hands of the government and has been made available to members of this house, but no opportunity exists for an examination of its contents, based upon interrogation of the governor or otherwise. It would seem to me incomprehensible that the governor of the Bank of Canada, who is responsible to parliament, should not be available for questioning by parliament. This brings the matter within the bounds of what is a routine proceeding, and is covered by the explanation of citation 186 and clarified by the ruling which Mr. Deputy Speaker gave on April 27.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this written motion of mine, oral notice of which was given last week, is in order. It is the only procedure available to this house in view of the government's reluctance to have the report of the Bank of Canada placed before a committee of the house for consideration. It would render completely ridiculous the legal responsibility of the Bank of Canada to parliament if parliament was not given the opportunity in the face of the government's refusal and reluctance, to examine the report of the Bank of Canada. It would mean that the governor was not responsible to parliament in fact but was responsible only to the government, a contention that is denied by the government.
For these reasons I submit that this motion is in order and that the house ought to be given a chance of passing judgment on the merits.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has perhaps served his purpose in trying to discuss the issue that he would like to raise today under the disguise of a point of order. The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is quite clear and the Deputy Speaker of the house,

Inquiries of the Ministry who was in the chair on April 27, has dealt with the matter completely and succinctly. When the hon. member for Essex East sought to raise the matter and to purport to give an oral notice, the Deputy Speaker, as appears at page 4043 of Hansard, quoted citation 186 from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, as follows:
Oral notices for future proceedings do not exist in the Canadian House of Commons.
As the discussion proceeded I read the remainder of the citation, which simply confirms the ruling that was made by the Deputy Speaker at that time; because by no stretch of the imagination could what the hon. member for Essex East is attempting to do here now be possibly justified in view of the terms of citation 186. What was attempted by him at that time was a complete nullity, and what is attempted by him here today is, under the rules of the house, a complete nullity. He is seeking to make new rules to fit the occasion, Mr. Speaker, and those rules are not to be made in quite this way. The only way such a private member's motion could proceed would be by unanimous consent, and that unanimous consent is not given.


Hon. J. W. Picksrsgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could say a word before you make your decision on this point. In the first place, sir, it seems to me, however much respect we may pay to citations from Beauchesne, that when one examines the standing orders of the house one will find there is no prohibition against a private member getting up and moving a motion having to do with routine proceedings. In fact that is done practically every day in the house, as Your Honour well knows and as is pointed out in the citation referred to by the hon. member for Essex East.
Only yesterday there was at least one motion, if not two, for concurrence in the report of a committee moved by the person who is chairman of that committee but who in the house is merely a private member. Moreover, motions are frequently made to change the composition of a committee and, in fact, one was made yesterday by the hon. member for Elgin.
There have been occasions-I remember well when the question first arose in recent times-when there has not been concurrence in these motions being moved immediately; and the question of notice, which was never published anywhere, was settled, I think, by Mr. Speaker Macdonald by a suggestion that they might be printed in routine proceedings, but there is no such requirement in the rules.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
Fundamentally, the point I wish to make is a very simple one. It is a recognized principle of our constitution, one particularly dear to those of us on this side of the house, that we have responsible government in this country and that the executive is responsible to the house. It seems to me, in default of any specific prohibition in the rules, that it must be assumed that there is a procedure, a method, by which that responsibility can be exercised, and that it certainly would be a denial of the rights of hon. members to deny them the possibility of testing the views of the house with respect to whether any report should be referred to a committee.
The government should not have control of that. That should be in the control of the house, even where the report in question is a report made to the house by a government department. But the situation, of course, is tremendously aggravated in this particular instance by the view taken by the government that it has no responsibility and that there is a direct responsibility to this chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member in that line of argument is perhaps dealing more with the merits of the motion than with the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was only the aspect of order with which I was seeking to deal. If this house is to exercise that responsibility which we have under the constitution, it is important that members of the opposition should be able to make the necessary routine motions in an effective way when the government does not do it, and this is particularly important where it is argued that there is no direct responsibility to the government.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will say no more than this. In the years I have been here and when hon. gentlemen opposite were in the government, at no time was it ever permissible for a private member to move the type of motion that has been moved today. When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talks about those on the other side now believing in responsible government, I am glad they have at last achieved a belief in something they so continually disregarded when they sat over here. I simply point out, and it is interesting to note this, that after all their examination, which must have been meticulously careful, they were unable to find one example to support them in their contention.


Mr. Hellyer:: Where is your championing of the rights of parliament now?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the practice, procedure and interpretation of the rules are reasonably clear. There are two matters involved in the motion submitted by the hon. member for Essex East. The first is the question of whether oral notice of motion can be given, and that was discussed the other day. I think our standing orders and practice are clear, and I refer the house to standing order 41 which reads as follows:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address .. . Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m., and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
Then I refer to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 295, where he says:
In the House of Commons, when a member has prepared his notice of motion in writing, he hands it to the Clerk ...
Further on the same point, citation 186 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, reads in part as follows:
Oral notices for future proceedings do not exist in the Canadian House of Commons.
I think it is fair to conclude that this is a well established practice in our house. Whenever a notice is required it has to be in writing. In standing order 42 it is provided that in certain cases notice may be waived by the house, but that involves unanimous consent, and it is not the case which falls for decision.
The other point is whether notice of motion of this kind can be brought on routine proceedings and, if so, by a private member. The hon. member for Essex East has failed to produce any precedent for the rather unusual course which he suggests. Motions made during routine proceedings include motions relating to the business of the house, according to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 219, footnote (s). On the same subject Beauchesne says in citation 85 of his fourth edition:
The motions allowed on routine proceedings are motions relating to the business of the house and for the discussion of reports from committees.
Standing order 32 of our rules, subparagraph (1) (m), gives us a general idea of the kind of motions which can be made during routine proceedings, and I refer hon. members to subparagraph (m) of this order which is the order relating to debatable motions. Subparagraph (m) says that the following motions are debatable:
(m) such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Assuming only for the purpose of argument that this motion does relate to the business of the house, which I shall deal with later, the further question remains whether it could be moved by a private member. It is well established and certainly has been the normal practice that the responsibility for the business of the house and for initiating motions with respect to the business of the house rests with the house leader. Motions which might come under that section are motions relating to the time of sitting as well as the business of the house, approving appointments, transfers, dismissal or retirement by the civil service commission of certain officers of the house, expressing sympathy for the death of some prominent person, or acknowledging any gift made to the house, or accepting or making any invitation, or making an unimportant correction in the debates, Votes and Proceeding and Journals of the house, or for the election of the chairman of committees of the whole house or for the appointment of the special selection committee. Questions of privilege, when raised under routine proceedings, also come within that category.
At any rate, that is the type of motion admitted. I think it might be worth while to put Bourinot's further views on record. In his fourth edition, at page 301, he says:
Motions applying to the business or arrangements of the house are called, in the ordinary daily routine, after the presentation of committee reports and before the introduction of bills. As a rule these motions require notice, but some are of such a purely formal nature that by general consent notice is not insisted upon.
Also Beauchesne in citation 87:
It is a fundamental rule that with the exception of certain matters dealt with under routine proceedings, no question can be considered by the house unless it has been previously appointed either by a notice or a regular order of the house.
Then citation 88 (2):
All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house.
I think it is reasonably clear that the business of the house is normally introduced by a motion of the house leader, and it is also reasonably clear what type of transaction is included in the business of the house.
There are some instances of the kind of motion which the hon. member for Essex East has in mind and of how they have been dealt with. I have just picked out two for the information of the house. They are quite recent. They are instances from last year. I have here the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day for Monday, March 7, 1960. At page 2 under the heading of "Daily Routine of Business" there are listed the following:
Introduction of bills; first reading of Senate public bills; Government notices of motions.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The government notice of motion for that day was one standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, as follows:
That the public accounts I and II, and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ... he referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
That is a motion of this type and it was dealt with on the motion of the Minister of Finance, under government notices of motion. It was then, of course, transferred to and dealt with as a government order in due course. The same thing is found on Friday, March 11, 1960, where under the name of the Prime Minister, under the heading of government notices of motions, stands the following motion:
That the report of the Canada Council for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959.... be referred to the standing committee on public accounts-
And so on. This proposed motion is about a report of the Bank of Canada or deals with a report of the Bank of Canada, which, as the hon. member says, is required to be made to parliament under the Bank of Canada Act, and is of the same order and character as the two reports or documents referred to committees by the government under notices of motion, as I have indicated, and dealt with subsequently under government orders.
The hon. member raises the question of whether a private member can do the same thing. I think it is clear that a private member can do so if he can use the notice of motion procedure which is open to private members under our rules. But, of course, that procedure would involve the giving of written notice of 48 hours. The notice of motion would then appear on the order paper at a place where, at this stage of the session, it could not be dealt with.
The hon. member's complaint, I take it, is that because this motion cannot be dealt with in the way that is normally open to a private member, therefore there must be some way of dealing with it under our rules. I think that is the fallacy of the argument. Our rules speak for themselves and our practice has been settled. We must interpret them as they are. If they are defective in not giving a private member of the house an opportunity to make a motion which he feels he should make, or to take a procedure which he feels he should take, the remedy is to amend the rules, not to depart from the practice which has been well established.
I therefore think I must follow what appears to me to be the logical course and indicate to the hon. member that I do not think he, as a private member, without notice, can make the motion which he proposes to make except with the unanimous consent of the house. I think that covers most


of the points that have been raised and is my best judgment of our practice as it applies to the hon. member's motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to take issue with your ruling, but first of all to thank you for the great care you have obviously taken in trying to protect the rights of the private members of this house.
You have said that in your judgment there is no procedure open to a private member to make the kind of motion which I submitted a few moments ago. However, in the course of your remarks you made the observation that it would be permissible to seek to raise the matter in another by way of a question of privilege. Whether Your Honour had made this observation or not, in my effort to exhaust the possibilities open to us I was about to raise-in the light of your ruling, not in contempt of it-a question of privilege.
My question of privilege is one that affects me as a private member of this house, and indeed it is a question that affects the privileges of all members of this house. The question of privilege is that we are not given the opportunity which I believe duty demands of us in the examination of a document which is now in the possession of the house and which in my judgment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds may I make this observation. If his question of privilege is what he appears to indicate now, I am afraid he is not warranted in trying to make a matter of privilege out of a point of order. The rules of the house are set by the house itself. It is not a breach of the privileges of the house to observe its own rules.
I think I perhaps omitted one point which the hon. member made and which he asserts as a privilege, namely that there is no opportunity for him as a private member to deal with this situation which he feels should be dealt with. I do not accept that assertion. There are other opportunities in the procedure of the house to raise the question of the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada. The only thing that I am proscribing this morning is a motion by a private member, made without notice upon routine proceedings to refer that report to a committee. Other opportunities and courses may be open to the hon. member. I am sorry that I cannot accept his question of privilege. I therefore consider the matter closed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say that I have a motion based on the question of

privilege, which I have not completed and which is incorporated in the following motion:
Whereas the bank-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if the hon. member would indicate his motion, then the neat point of privilege will be indicated there and it will fall to me to decide whether there is any prima facie question on which the motion could be raised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The motion is as follows:
Whereas the Bank of Canada Act as interpreted by the Minister of Finance provides that the governor of the bank is not responsible for monetary policy to the government but only to parliament; and whereas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is really presenting an argument here under the guise of a motion of privilege. I am afraid he has taken the wrong course. I have seen nothing of privilege involved so far. Unless there is a neat point of privilege which arises-and I cannot see where it would arise-I think the hon. member should desist.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is only because this matter is of the greatest importance that I beg leave to indicate to Your Honour that this, through the exact form of the motion, I believe will be a means by which this problem can be dealt with by hon. members in the absence of any positive way of having this report referred to a committee of this house. This has been done only after the most careful consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly like to hear the hon. gentleman talk, but I think after you make a ruling that ruling should be observed. I thought a ruling had definitely been made. The hon. gentleman persists in this course, which he must know -I say he must know-is contrary to the rules of the house, and I ask Your Honour to proceed accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister is quite right in saying that when I have come to a conclusion, as I have both on the point of order and on the question of privilege, the matter is then disposed of. The other course open to the hon. member is to appeal the ruling that has been given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to appeal your ruling-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Peter Francis Martin: -but I do propose to say to the Prime Minister that I am not yet of the disposition to accept lectures from him.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister is within his rights, as the hon. member recognizes, in drawing attention to the fact that a ruling has been made. The question of privilege has been disposed of and the matter is closed.



RESEARCH


Mr. John Pallell (Peel) moved:: That the name of Mr. Danforth be substituted for that of Mr. Robinson on the special committee on research.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe no notice has been given of this motion, and according to the ruling just made it would require notice, which it is improper for a private member to give. There is not unanimous consent to proceed with the motion.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, I bring this motion as a member of the special committee which was appointed at the beginning of the session to deal with the composition of committees of the house. If hon. members opposite, who also comprise this committee have objection to the change, then I think we will have a meeting of the special committee and determine this matter there.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that our practice has departed somewhat from principle in that a member of the committee, rather than the house leader, proposes the motion. But certainly this type of motion has been so well established, in my experience of parliament, that I do not propose to accept an objection to it at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the reported breakdown of negotiations between the non-operating unions and the railway companies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no official information in this connection, although I have been advised that there was a discontinuance; not a permanent discontinuance, but a discontinuance. I hope, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me in this connection, there will be an immediate resumption of negotiations. I do not want to

Inquiries of the Ministry say anything that would prejudice those negotiations in any way, but I do think every effort should be made by both the railway companies and the unions to arrive at an agreement in this connection, because the Canadian people do not want a strike.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister confirm the statement he made in this house on November 30 last, as reported at page 359 of Hansard, that if there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not think a reference to a statement made in November, 1960, would be a question for the orders of the day.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the tense situation in the province of Katanga in the Congo because of the arrest of Mr. Moise Tshombe, has Canada made any representations to the United Nations and to the commander of the Congolese soldiers, General Mobutu, requesting the release and safe conduct of Mr. Moise Tshombe of Katanga?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. The actual position of Mr. Tshombe remains obscure at this time and we are not entirely certain that he is, in fact, under detention. The Canadian attitude has been to refrain from interference in the internal political affairs of the Congo and to leave these to the Congolese themselves, with whatever help and advice the United Nations can give. We have confidence that the secretary general of the United Nations will take whatever appropriate and useful action is open to him.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgef (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received complaints from the population and public bodies of Rouyn, Quebec, concerning the ugly and disgraceful appearance of the new post office building in that community? If so, will the minister tell the house what action he intends to take to remedy the situation.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally received any notice of this serious charge, but I should be very glad to accept this question as notice.


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister looks into the matter and finds that it is a disgraceful building, will the minister assure the house that this kind of soap box will not be built elsewhere in Canada?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, nobody knows more about soap boxes than the hon. member.


Azellus Denis: May I direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The artistic merits of the post office already constructed seem to me not to be of such urgency that they should be raised on orders of the day. As for those built in the future, this is a purely hypothetical question and I suggest the hon. member has not presented a proper supplementary question.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Postmaster General. I should like to know whether the Postmaster General approved the design of that building, or does he have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conceplion):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Has the hon. gentleman's attention been drawn to an article in last Friday's Daily News of St. John's, Newfoundland which stated:
Transport minister Balcer said yesterday in Ottawa that the question of a ferry service linking the east coast of Newfoundland with the mainland is "still under study".
Could the hon. gentleman say when he expects the study will be completed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Acting Minister of Transport):: My attention has not been drawn to that particular article, but I shall mention it to the Minister of Transport and I am sure he will deal with it in his usual prompt and efficient manner.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime

Minister if he would care to comment on a report issued by the Canadian Press on April 28 to the effect that the right hon. gentleman had said that the government notice given to the commons earlier this week in relation to the legislation to extend the roll-back subsidy on freight rates would act in the same way as a budget proposal which becomes effective when it is announced, subject to later parliamentary approval?


John George Diefenbaker: I would not care to comment on that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not having given him notice, but at the same time I am sure this is a question which he will be able to answer without preparation.
I wonder whether the minister has exercised his responsibility under section 3 of the bill of rights and looked at Bill No. C-86, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, sponsored by the Minister of Fisheries. If so has he found any inconsistencies in that bill with the terms of the bill of rights?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Justice always exercises his responsibility under section 3 of the bill of rights and the answer, as I am sure he has anticipated, is that this has been done in the case referred to and no inconsistency has been found.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. May I ask whether the minister has examined Bill No. C-76 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and whether he has found any inconsistency there or not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Justice has looked at the proceedings of the house and the purported Bill No. C-76, and had discussions on that matter with the Chair. It is my view that this is not a bill which is properly before the house at all in that it purports to be a bill to amend a statute while actually it does nothing more than re-enact the same statute. In my view it is nothing more than an abuse of the procedure of this house, but I do not care to go further than that at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, this house gave first reading to the bill of the hon.
90205-6-266
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Burin-Burgeo, and the minister is now clearly criticizing a decision of this house which said this was a bill and that it should be printed as a bill. It seems to me that in those circumstances it becomes a matter for the house and not for the Minister of Justice to decide whether or not this is the kind of measure which would commend itself to the house. The minister has a clear duty under the bill of rights to examine every bill that is presented to this house and to take the action which parliament prescribed he should take, but not to substitute his own opinion for the decision of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the question of privilege, it is true that the house gave leave to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to introduce a bill. In accordance with ordinary custom the house accepted the explanation of the hon. member, leave to introduce the bill was granted and the bill was read a first time without being examined. May I point out that in my view the explanation given by the hon. member is not borne out by the contents of the bill itself. The explanation given was that it was a bill to-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it does not seem to me that the matter of the bill in question can be dealt with at this time or questioned at this time in this way. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made a question of privilege out of what the Minister of Justice said, but as far as the bill itself is concerned it stands on the order paper for second reading, and I would think any discussion of its introduction, or its position, or its legality, if you want to use that word, can only be raised by motion or when the bill comes before the house for second reading.


Frank Howard: I asked the minister a supplementary question as to whether he had examined Bill No. C-76 in the light of his responsibility under section 3 of the bill of rights and, if so, whether he had found any inconsistency. The hon. gentleman did not answer that question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was in the course of doing that when I was interrupted by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You had sat down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not concluded my consideration as to the propriety of Bill No. C-76, I imagine that the subject matter which the hon. member for Skeena has in mind will be discussed in the course of proceedings on the bill introduced by the Minister of Fisheries.

Army Benevolent Fund Act


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice on what ground he would state that Bill No. C-76 is not properly before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that question. I have already stopped the Minister of Justice from discussing that matter. It will come before the house in due course when the bill is called for second reading.



NATIONAL DESIGN


George Harris Hees: the third reading of Bill No. C-85, for the establishment of a national design council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT WITH BRAS D'OR COAL COMPANY LIMITED

Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-87, to authorize certain amendments to the agreement made under the Coal Production Assistance Act with the Bras d'Or Coal Company Limited.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-88 to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act.
He said: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday on the resolution stage. The bill on examination will be found to contain the three changes I mentioned at that time; the change in interest rate, authority to the board to determine the salary of a secretary, and the striking out of a phrase in the act which the Auditor General considers to be unnecessary.
If the bill is given second reading it is my intention to move that it be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is
unnecessary to say much, but I cannot refrain from expressing the disappointment of members of this group that there is not provision for at least 5 per cent interest on the moneys held by the government on behalf of the army benevolent fund. However, we shall have an opportunity to go into all that when

the bill is referred to the committee. That is all I wish to say at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-86, an act to amend the Fisheries Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of Bill No. C-86 I should like at the outset to point out that, with the exception of some minor amendments, the last one of which was made in 1949, there have been no major changes in the act since 1932.
The Fisheries Act is the basic statute under which the fisheries of Canada are administered. In the last three decades many new problems in the administration of fisheries have arisen, problems created by the variety of species involved and the geographical distribution of the fisheries, as well as problems arising out of federal-provincial responsibilities for the development of the fisheries and the international character of the sea fisheries adjacent to our extensive coast lines.
During the same period much progress has been made in biological and technological research and the development of new fishing vessels and fishing gear. It has therefore become necessary to amend the basic act under which the fisheries of Canada are administered, so as to bring it into line with present day requirements and practice.
One of the difficult problems arising out of the existing provisions of the act relates to the arbitrary exclusion of Canadian trawlers from the 12 mile coastal zone in the Atlantic coast provinces. This exclusion of fishing vessels using an otter trawl has been part of the law of Canada for more than half a century. During that time fishing by draggers has increased to the point where we now have on the Atlantic coast about 281 small draggers operated by Canadian fishermen and about 75 large draggers, sometimes called trawlers. This method of fishing now accounts for about 40 per cent of our total production of groundfish on the Atlantic seaboard of Canada.
Following world war II the advent in increased numbers of foreign fishing vessels to areas along our coasts, particularly off the coast of Nova Scotia, has created the anomalous situation where foreign trawlers in certain areas fish up to the three mile international limit, whereas Canadian trawlers are not permitted to come closer than 12 miles in the same areas. This 12 mile restriction

applies only in the maritime provinces. It does not apply to Newfoundland where, by virtue of arrangements made at the time of the union of Newfoundland with Canada, the Fisheries Act was amended so as to permit Canadian trawlers to fish up to the three mile limit. It does not apply on the west coast of Canada.
The minister is given authority under the act to exempt small draggers from the 12 mile prohibition. This exemption has been accorded to small draggers 65 feet in length and under for a number of years, and they may fish up to the shore line in all areas with the exception of those where, by regulation, zones have been established within which their operation is banned, subject to the restriction that they will not interfere with the other methods of fishing. The minister has, however, no authority under the existing section of the act to except larger draggers from the 12 mile prohibition.
An amendment to section 55 of the act is therefore proposed which would give the minister the same authority with respect to the larger draggers that he now has with respect to small draggers, but only in areas designated by him between three and 12 miles from the coast of the Atlantic sea coast provinces excepting Newfoundland, where, as I have pointed out, the 12 mile restriction has been reduced to three miles by an amendment in 1949. The proposed amendment would enable the minister to establish zones where fishing by larger draggers would be permitted. The establishment of such zones would be undertaken with due regard to the interests of local fishermen.
Another problem for which a solution must be found, by providing a more flexible regulatory system, refers to the necessity for rapid closures or extensions of fishing times, particularly in the case of the anadromous species such as salmon, the runs of which to spawning streams and lakes are closely watched on a day to day basis and where a set fishing season may have to be closed or extended on short notice. In such instances it becomes virtually impossible to enforce proper conservation measures without giving regional and provincial officials the necessary authority for that purpose. The proposed amendments would empower the governor in council to prescribe this required authority.
Another subject requiring attention relates to the removal of any doubts that the act and any regulations enacted under it apply to Canadian nationals and fishing vessels not only in the territorial waters but also on the high seas. It is trite to say that fish take no cognizance of arbitrary boundary lines, and it is not possible to provide adequate con-90205-6-266J
Fisheries Act
servation measures in respect to any species that migrate freely in and out of the territorial waters unless fishing activities can be regulated inside as well as beyond the territorial waters either unilaterally, in cases where only Canadian fishermen are involved, or by international agreement where fishermen of other states fish in the high seas for the same stock of fish. One of the proposed amendments to the act would clarify the scope of the application of the act.
In recent times problems of pollution of waters frequented by fish have become accentuated. The sections of the act dealing with pollution need to be strengthened in order to cope effectively with these problems. The proposed amendment would increase the penalties and make provision for giving notice to the public by the governor in council of any substance which may from time to time be found harmful to fish life.
Although in certain respects the powers of regulating under the act are inadequate for present day requirements, in other respects some of the powers contained in the act relating to enforcement of the act go beyond present day requirements. I refer to the judicial powers of fishery officers who are, by virtue of the act, justices of the peace with power to convict on view and to confiscate valuable equipment on view. While these powers may have served a useful purpose many years ago because of the lack of properly constituted courts of criminal jurisdiction in remote and isolated areas, there is little justification today for an officer of the executive branch of government to exercise judicial functions. In fact, by administrative control, these powers were seldom used in recent years.
The act is being accordingly amended to relieve fishery officers of the responsibility of exercising any judicial functions, and to place it in the hands of the courts where it more properly belongs. The enforcement sections have accordingly been rewritten in some detail.
There are other minor amendments proposed in the way of clarification, but they are very minor. Those are the main amendments to which I wish to refer. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say at this juncture.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to-


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to speak from the seat he is now occupying?


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: That was my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I felt the hen. member should be occupying his own seat.

Fisheries Act


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member must speak from his own seat in accordance with the rules, which require him to rise in his own place.


Chesley William Carter: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: It has.


Chesley William Carter: I hear the Minister of Justice say "It has". I welcome that remark, as I welcome this particular bill because the minister and the house know that on March 22,

I think it was, I introduced a bill which was designed to achieve the second principle I have just mentioned, namely to revise the Fisheries Act and bring it into conformity with the bill of rights.
As I look through the bill I am very pleased to note that the sections which I had in mind and which I outlined in the explanation I gave to the house on that occasion, namely sections 19(1), 35, 51(lb), 64 and 75 have all been taken care of in this bill which we are now discussing.
This morning I was interested in the question asked of the Minister of Justice by the hon. member for Skeena about the reports that the minister is obliged to make, in accordance with standing order 40, on bills which are introduced in the house. If I understood the minister aright he indicated that he had done his duty in this regard. I take it that should mean that the report he made on this legislation should be available. Yesterday I asked the Clerk if he could let me see the reports, and he replied that they were not available at that time.
I am still not sure, in spite of what the minister said, that this bill entirely conforms with the bill of rights. I notice that it still retains one practice which I regarded as inimical to individual rights and to which I am personally opposed. The practice to which I refer is that of seizure and forfeiture of ships and property. I cannot bring myself to believe that offences committed under the Fisheries Act should be treated differently from offences committed under any other act of parliament. Under most acts of parliament which prescribe penalties for offences, the penalties consist mainly of fines and imprisonment. I think that is fair and just because we prescribe exactly the same treatment for every offender under exactly the same circumstances. But when we introduce this practice of seizing property and causing the offender to forfeit the property we are departing from the principle of equity, of fitting the punishment to the crime and of treating every offender in the same way. In many instances, and particularly in my own riding, the property is the means of a person's livelihood. Certainly under the bill of rights a person has a right to live. I think that is the most fundamental right any human being has and one that we will maintain at all costs. When you deprive a person of his livelihood, or of his means of livelihood, you deprive him of his life in theory and in some instances in fact.


Mr. Drysdale:: He can get another job.


Chesley William Carter: It is not a case of getting another job. The merits of the case depend upon the circumstances which surround it. Even though a person may not be deprived of

his livelihood there is still an inequity which is foreign to my concept of justice, because the property which might be forfeited by one person will have no relationship to the property which might be forfeit by another offender under exactly the same circumstances.
I hoped the report of the Minister of Justice would have something to say on this matter. It was for that reason I was so interested in getting the minister's report before introducing amendments which, under other circumstances, I hoped would have been made to my own bill as it passed through the house.
We readily admit that some steps must be taken to prevent unfair or undue violations of our fisheries rights, and to protect and conserve our fisheries resources. However, when an offender has only one boat and you take that away from him, you place him in a very different position from that of a big operator who may have a number of boats so that the loss of one particular boat does not affect his livelihood to any appreciable extent. The same principle is true in respect of fishing gear and nets.
This is particularly appropriate to my own constituency, where approximately 90 per cent of the fishermen are engaged in the shore fishery, either by hook and line or by net. The boats they have are small, under 40 feet in length, and if nets are used they are vital to the way these fishermen prosecute the fishery. Perhaps some fisherman may have three or four nets, but even if only one of these is confiscated that man's means of livelihood is certainly imperilled.
I regard the retention of the right to seize and cause an offender to forfeit his property as a sort of hangover from the middle ages, and something which certainly-


Mr. Browne (Sf. John's West):: A Liberal government.


Chesley William Carter: I am not interested in who put it there or who left it there. I am only interested in removing what I regard as an injustice, not only an injustice but an inequity. Certainly if the bill of rights has done any one thing above another it has been to focus our attention on our rights. We are now more concerned about them. After all, it was this government that took great pride in producing this bill of rights. A lot of fanfare was made about it. We had every right to expect that if things were going to be corrected, then they would be corrected in the legislation introduced by this government. I am personally surprised that the Minister of Justice would put his stamp of approval on this kind of practice.
The minister referred to another amendment which I believe will receive general
Fisheries Act
acclaim. If there was any one thing that infringed a person's rights it was the power of the fisheries officer to act as judge, jury and lord high executioner, all in one. We are glad to see that the power which made a fisheries officer a justice of the peace has now been removed. I think everyone will rejoice at that development. Under the old act, Mr. Speaker, a fisheries officer did not need to have evidence that there had been an offence. All he needed was a suspicion or a thought in his mind, and he could proceed to confiscate a fisherman's property.


Mr. Morris:: That was Liberal legislation.


Chesley William Carter: I am not interested in whose legislation it was. My hon. friend is not making any contribution to the debate by sitting in his seat and making these irrelevant remarks. If he wants to get up and join in the debate he will have plenty of time later on.
I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that within the last two weeks I have had a case brought to my attention which was prosecuted under this old act that is still in force and will remain in force until this bill is passed and receives royal assent. I received a letter from a fisherman who had set out nets to catch bait for his lobster traps. Unless he can get this bait he cannot engage in the lobster fisheries. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne), will perhaps be surprised to learn that the gentleman was one of his constituents.


John Ferguson Browne: It sounds familiar.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. This person set nets in Placentia gut, where he claims he has a right to set them. He claims he was not infringing any boundary and, in any case, there were no marks on either side of the bank to indicate where the boundaries were. He set those nets in what he claims were legal waters. However, the fisheries officer came along and confiscated them. Now the fisherman is left without any means of acquiring bait and no means of prosecuting his livelihood.
I have written a letter to the minister about this. I know he has not had time to receive it because I did not get it typed soon enough. The letter is in the mail, and I hope the minister will take prompt action to have the fisheries officer restore these nets to the owner, because it is a very serious matter to him. He told me in his letter that he was heartbroken. He is a poor man and now he has no chance at all to earn his livelihood.
These things are very serious. When an act like that can be carried out on the initiative of one person, without evidence being

Fisheries Act
required, I think that is something that should never have been permitted in the first place, and I am glad to see the power to do so is being removed under this bill. I hope the minister will not wait until this legislation receives royal assent before he takes action to have the spirit of this legislation and the spirit of the bill of rights enforced in this particular case.
The bill itself empowers the government to make regulations for the proper management and control of sea coast and inland fisheries. It is a great disappointment to me to have to point out to the minister that this bill will not take care of the most serious hazards to our Newfoundland fisheries. In my own particular riding, and this is true in practically every coastal riding of the province, the fishing grounds are located outside the three mile limit, from three miles to 12 miles offshore. Any bill which confines the authority of the government to within three miles of land is not going to deal with the most serious problem we have to face in my province.
The greatest threat to the Newfoundland fisheries, particularly in my own riding, comes from foreign draggers. Last winter the foreign draggers were particularly active. On one occasion for at least two weeks they prevented the fishermen in my riding from prosecuting the fishery at all. They could not prosecute the fishery because, as I said earlier, these fishermen use very small boats about 40 feet in length or under, and they dare not go out on the fishing grounds because of the danger of being run down by these numerous foreign draggers. The same thing is true with respect to their gear. They dare not set their gear because of the danger of having it destroyed by the operation of these draggers. Of course they cannot afford to take the risk. If they once lost their gear they would have no means of replacing it, and their livelihood would be imperilled.
On one occasion it was found that one of these draggers-it was a Spanish dragger named the Santa Amalia-was actually violating the three mile limit. Statements were made to that effect. Affidavits were made by at least two fishermen who took radar bearings on this ship. This particular ship destroyed approximately $350 of gear belonging to one of the fishermen in my riding. We have no recourse. Therefore unless we do something about the 12 mile limit this bill is not going to have very much effect as far as the protection of the coastal fisheries of Newfoundland is concerned.
I know this bill does not define territorial waters. However, the minister and his colleagues must do something about this prob-

lem. The patience of our fishermen is wearing very thin, and the time is going to come before too long when they are going to take the law into their own hands. It would have happened this winter; if they had had the weapons with which to drive these draggers off they would have taken offensive action against them.
Another flaw in the enforcement of this legislation which the minister has put before the house is that we have not the means of enforcing it. We have not sufficient patrol boats to see that even our territorial waters are not violated. The patrol boats we have are small ships 65 feet or 100 feet in length, and they are too small to be out in rough weather. They are all right for rescue work, which they do, and they perform a very good service in that respect; but when it comes to chasing away these foreign draggers they are not at all equal to the task.
Here I want to express my thanks to the minister for all he did this winter in trying to help find a solution to this problem. He sent the Cygnet from Halifax, and at one time he was good enough to work out a plan whereby we had naval ships patrolling these waters. We also had an aerial survey by the Royal Canadian Air Force. However, we must have more and bigger ships if we are going to protect our Newfoundland fisheries. We need about five times as many patrol ships as we have at the present time, and we need ships that are about five times as big.
There is really only one solution to this threat from foreign draggers, and that is to extend our territorial waters out to the 12-mile limit. The minister told us this morning that one section of this act, I think it is section 55, will remove a handicap under which Canadian trawlers now suffer in that Canadian draggers are obliged to fish outside the 12 mile limit while foreign draggers can fish in to the three mile limit. We have no objection to that; we do not want to see our Canadian fishermen deprived of rights which we accord to foreign fishermen. However, it would be better for all concerned if this limit were pushed out to 12 miles offshore, and not only 12 miles following the contour of the coast but 12 miles from headland to headland. We nearly achieved it at the conference at Geneva a year ago; there was only one dissenting vote. But there is no reason why the minister and the government should not work out a convention with those nations which are agreeable to that arrangement of six miles of territorial waters and a further six miles for conservation of fisheries.
We must impress upon the foreign draggers that we mean business in this regard. If we cannot work out a proper agreement

with other nations which should be interested in this problem, the only thing left for us to do is to take unilateral action. I think the government should make it clear that we intend to do that and that we intend to stop pussyfooting in this matter of having foreign draggers encroach and deprive our own fishermen of their livehood.
The other criticism I have to make about this legislation in so far as protection of the fisheries is concerned is that it is designed to protect the fisheries against the little man but that there is in it no means or no machinery to protect them from the big operator. We feel that steps should be taken to deter the big commercial operator. However, the small man-the single man, the inshore fisherman-is the one who is going to be picked up under this legislation. He is the one who is going to have his nets confiscated when some fisheries officer gets the idea that he is going to commit an offence.
I want to conclude by making a special plea to the minister to insert somewhere in this act, or in the regulations that are permissible under this act, some provision whereby we can take steps to protect or to exempt from confiscation the property of the lone fisherman, the person who has only one boat and only three or four nets, particularly the person who is obliged to set nets to get bait. I think some exemptions are provided in this act in the case of lobster fishermen. I would ask the minister to give the same protection to the little man and in particular to those fishermen whose nets must be set in order to assure a supply of bait.
I think I have said everything that need be said at this time, Mr. Speaker. When we come to clause by clause consideration of this bill I will make other suggestions.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have the habit of moving out into the aisle here, but in view of the comments made and the ruling given a while ago I think I had better be a little careful to stay in my particular place, in case an hon. member raises a point of order about it.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo made an observation with respect to the relationship between this particular bill and the function of the Minister of Justice in studying it to see whether or not it was inconsistent with the bill of rights. The hon. member said he had checked with the Clerk of the house yesterday to see whether or not a certificate had been deposited with the Clerk as required by the regulations, as I understand them. A few moments ago I again checked with the Clerk, and no such certificate has yet been filed. I see the minister waving a document in the air. I assume that is the certificate to which I have been referring.
Fisheries Act
I only mention this matter as an aside, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that even though the Minister of Justice did say, in answer to a question of mine, that he found no inconsistencies in the bill, it is not a wise practice to proceed with the second reading of a bill before this certificate is filed with the Clerk. I should say that in as much as the Minister of Justice is in reality giving a legal opinion-which I understand he is not competent to do in so far as his capacity as minister is concerned, but nevertheless that is what he has done-when he says that a particular bill is or is not inconsistent with the provisions of the bill of rights. I think hon. members of this house are entitled to agree or disagree with that opinion.
I intend to disagree with the opinion of the minister when he says this particular bill is not inconsistent with the bill of rights. I also feel that the minister should have acted with a little more speed in considering Bill No. C-76 and whether or not it was inconsistent with the bill of rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That bill does not arise in this debate.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I am leading up to the point that I think the very fact that we have Bill No. C-86 before us in the name of the Minister of Fisheries is proof, if ever it were needed, that the present Fisheries Act is inconsistent with the bill of rights. In fact the bill introduced by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is also inconsistent with the bill of rights.
I recall that during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries last session I raised this question and quoted certain sections of the Fisheries Act. I asked whether the officials of the department had looked at those sections from the point of view of their inconsistency with the bill of rights. The minister indicated that this would be done.
I notice that one of the sections which I quoted is now being repealed. The reason given is that the department does not want a fisheries officer to be a justice of the peace and able to marry people. However, I submit that the real reason is its inconsistency with the bill of rights.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo as heartily and as warmly as I can for having introduced a bill which prompted the Minister of Fisheries to introduce the bill currently before the house. 1 offer these congratulations openly and sincerely to the hon. member. It is not like the Liberal party to show such courage,

Fisheries Act
but perhaps the hon. member for Burin-Bur-geo is an exception to the general Liberal party attitudes that we see and hear from time to time.
Part of the bill seeks to remove the arbitrary powers of fisheries officers to confiscate property, convict on view, or arrest and detain fishermen or persons suspected of operating contrary to the act. It also prevents, as I said, fisheries officers from marrying people in the future. I am sure this function has never been performed by any of these officers, and perhaps they did not relish performing it.
To the extent that this bill seeks to remove these arbitrary and dictatorial powers of arrest, conviction and detention on the part of fisheries officers and others, we think it is very commendable and support it wholeheartedly, because in this respect it is based upon the rights and freedoms of individuals. However, there is another inconsistency in the bill. This inconsistency is also being left in the act, and I think it should also be dealt with in the concept of the rights and freedoms of individuals.
This question is connected with our general concept of freedoms and, as I understand it, the teachings of law schools. I refer to the concept of British justice, to the extent that an individual is presumed innocent until he has been proven guilty. This bill is contrary to that principle in one or two instances, inasmuch as an individual is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: At the hour of the adjournment, at one o'clock, I had reached a certain stage of discussion on one phase of the legislation before us.
Before I proceed along that line I should like very much to know from the Minister of Justice, who has more than a passing interest in this particular bill, at what time it was today-I presume it would have been today- that he received two copies of the bill before us from the Clerk of the House of Commons in order that he might proceed to examine the bill. I have in my hand the regulations made pursuant to the bill of rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the hon. member is debating the subject at issue in dealing with the reference of any bill, including this one, to the Minister of

Justice pursuant to the bill of rights. That procedure does not arise in this debate. This debate has to do with the principle of this bill on second reading.


Frank Howard: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can explain what I was seeking to do. You will recall that before the adjournment I had mentioned that the minister's examination and report upon this bill was in fact a legal opinion as to whether or not it was consistent with the bill of rights. I am trying to ascertain now how the minister could have reached such a legal interpretation with respect to this particular bill in the very short time that must have been at his disposal before I asked him a question about the matter on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: That is really not in issue. The hon. member is entitled to discuss whether or not the principle of the bill is, in his opinion, in conflict with the provisions of the bill of rights, but there is no machinery by which he can at this time make the inquiry he wishes to make from the Minister of Justice. Furthermore, the procedure of reference to the Minister of Justice is not relevant to the present debate, in my view.


Frank Howard: I shall certainly bow to your wishes in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not say the hon. member could not use the opinion of the Minister of Justice, if he had it; but how it was reached is not, in my opinion, relevant.


Frank Howard: I do not intend to proceed along those lines if, as you say, it would be out of order to do so. But with respect to this bill being consistent or inconsistent with the provisions of the bill of rights, I submit that the opinion of the minister is invalid in view of the fact that he has not had time to study this particular bill. Perhaps the arguments of any other member seeking to show that there are inconsistencies in the bill would have more validity than the opinion of the minister, because other members are not bound by the regulation which orders the Minister of Justice to do certain things.
I should like now to proceed to the contention that there are at least two provisions in this legislation which are completely contrary to what I have always understood to be the basic principle of British justice which states that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the courts. There are two references in this legislation which in fact say just the opposite, namely that a person is presumed to be guilty and must prove his innocence. Looking at the act as it is at the present time one finds in section

55, in subsection 3 and again in subsection 6, that the burden of proof of innocence rests upon the person who is accused.
Surely we should not expect a motion for approval of legislation of this sort from a government which lauded itself so highly and which was commended so highly on having introduced a piece of legislation such as the bill of rights. This is certainly in my opinion inconsistent with the declarations which the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet have made on so many occasions about the rights and freedom of individuals. Surely it is the undeniable right of an individual who is charged with an offence to have the crown prove that he is guilty. I know of no other instance, although I am relatively unfamiliar with the field of law, where the contrary occurs, and I have spoken on this matter with a couple of members of the legal profession.
We are aware, of course, of instances where the actions of this government and its words have not been consistent. For example, the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act presented in 1959 were an example of a presumption of guilt being attributed to an individual charged with an offence.
These particular sections in the legislation should, I think, be altered. They should be removed from the act. The crown should be obliged to prove a person guilty under this legislation in the same way as under other statutes.
Part of this bill deals with the so-called 12 mile limit or three mile limit placed on territorial waters. One of the proposals of this bill is to authorize the governor in council to exempt certain classes of fishing vessels from the prohibition. The act now states that on the Atlantic coast most vessels must fish outside the 12 mile limit. It is suggested now that they will be allowed to fish within the 12 mile limit but not closer than the three mile limit. This change will allow, at the minister's discretion, Canadian and foreign fishing vessels to operate in to the three mile limit and will remove that unfair provision of the law which has been in existence in respect of the Atlantic coast for many years.
I think this is the wrong approach to the problem. I do so in the light of information received from officials of the minister's department and other individuals, with knowledge of this subject, from the Atlantic provinces. Much more damage will be done as a result of allowing certain types of fishing vessels to operate in to the three mile limit in so far as conservation is concerned. If it is desirable to follow principles of conservation in respect of our fisheries, then it would be more acceptable for this government to take action to establish a 12 mile territorial limit rather than by taking this negative approach.
90205-6-267
Fisheries Act
I suggest there have been ample international discussions and conferences regarding the extension of territorial waters. The latest conference in this regard with which I am familiar was initiated by a proposal put forward by Canada and supported by a number of other western nations, which was defeated by one vote. If that nation had voted for the proposal there would now be agreement in regard to this question. To my knowledge nothing definite has occurred since that time in regard to the extension of territorial waters.
While I can appreciate that the officials of this government are extremely sensitive to the opinions of other nations in regard to so-called historical fishing rights, this country should follow the example set by Iceland and establish a unilateral 12 mile limit. The establishment of such a limit would allow this government to cope much more adequately with fishing problems than by the proposal put forward by the minister today.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer any questions when I have completed my remarks, providing of course there is sufficient time at my disposal.
I also suggest that the proposal contained in this bill in respect of the seizure of fishing vessels, fishing gear, fishing equipment and appliances is not consistent with our desire to allow individuals the right to earn a living. This power if granted to fishery officers will interfere with the right of individuals to follow the vocations of their choice. It must be remembered that it is not a requirement under the law that a conviction be entered against an individual before the fishery officer can make such seizures. These seizures are done purely and simply on the ground that a fishery officer has reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that certain things have taken place. It is easy to imagine a vessel operating close to the zone limit and viewed from some distance by a fishery officer who, being perhaps zealous in carrying out his duties, would believe there was a contravention of the act and, in consequence, seize the vessel and the equipment. The possibility of this type of thing happening is certainly inconsistent with our desire to protect the rights of these individuals.
Perhaps I can make a comparison to illustrate my point. If a police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a taxi driver was in fact selling liquor without having a licence to do so-in effect bootlegging-the police officer could not seize the taxi and its contents until such time as he had laid a charge and the individual had

Fisheries Act
been convicted. Following that, of course, the liquor would be confiscated and other penalties imposed. I do not see why it is necessary to have such arbitrary powers in respect of the Fisheries Act placed in the hands of the enforcing officers.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestions I have made I feel that certain amendments must be proposed when we reach the committee stage, making the bill consistent with our desire to protect the rights of the individual. While the provisions proposed in this bill are in themselves commendable, there are many inadequacies such as the one I have just mentioned. I feel we must solve the problem in respect of territorial waters as well as perhaps others before we can be satisfied with this legislation. Having accomplished those changes we will then have an act which will be, in the fullest possible sense, compatible with the rights and freedom expressed in the bill of rights itself.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to indicate that he would endeavour to answer any questions put if permissible under the rules. In regard to his remark that territorial limits should be unilaterally established, I would ask him how he would propose to enforce this limit upon nationals of another country not subject to Canadian domestic law. In the case of Iceland, for instance, we are aware of what took place there and the reaction of the nationals of another power. This question is not an antagonistic one, but I should like to know how the group to which he belongs would go about enforcing this limit.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there have been attempts made over a number of years to reach agreement in this regard. There has been a compromise reached with the United States in regard to the 6-6 formula, but presumably there is no further possibility of reaching a more adequate agreement. I do not know what this government has done to explore the possibilities of reaching agreement with other countries in regard to this particular question. If such unilateral action were taken I would suggest that we must use adequate methods to protect the interests of our fishermen in this regard. If we encounter difficulties with other nations we must deal with them in the best possible way available to us. If we do not follow this course then we are making laws in this nation at the behest of those interested in Washington, and we have been doing that far too often.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Russians have a 12 mile limit.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, to be specific, if a Russian trawler entered the area which we
closed, would the hon. gentleman recommend unilateral action such as the use of gunboats?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is trying to start a war with another nation.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am not the one trying to start a war.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How do the Russians enforce their limit?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is unreasonable to pose a hypothetical question of this nature with the expectation of receiving a definitive answer. I think the answers given by the Prime Minister in the past in respect of similar questions would apply. That is in the light of the circumstances, and taking into account all of the factors which exist at the time, we must ensure that our rights are protected.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: The
statement made today by the Minister of Fisheries with regard to the amendments that are to be made to the Fisheries Act by Bill No. C-86 will be most welcome to all fishermen on the east coast, and especially to those engaged in deep-sea trawler operations. While there are a number of amendments in this bill, I should like to speak briefly on the 12 mile limit, for in recent years it has become somewhat of a symbol of discrimination by governments against Canada's deep sea fishermen. If all the resolutions passed with regard to this act, and all the speeches that have been made, were placed end to end they would no doubt reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific, for there has been widespread interest in this regulation.
At the recent meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada, held in Toronto on April 10-12, the following resolution was passed: Whereas Canadian east coast fishing trawlers over 65 feet in length are required by Canadian law to fish outside the 12 mile limit off the mainland east coast, while all foreign fishing boats of any length are permitted to fish within three miles of the Canadian east coast mainland; and Whereas such regulation discriminates against Canadian fishermen;
Therefore be it resolved that the Canadian government be urged to repeal this law at the earliest possible date and give Canadian fishermen the same privileges and fishing rights as are enjoyed by all foreign fishermen.
The wording of this resolution parallels some of the speeches I have made in this house with regard to this problem, and now that the law is to be amended I think it only fitting that the original reasons for this regulation be placed on the record. The best source of information I could find on this subject was the report of the royal commission investigating the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen islands, as filed

at Ottawa on May 4, 1928. This is a comprehensive report on all the fisheries problems in the east coast area, but a particular section deals entirely with deep-sea trawlers and their effect on the ground fishing industry.
As most hon. members are aware, a trawler tows a large net or bag about 150 feet in length along the bottom of the sea. The mouth of this huge net is kept open by boards or doors called otter boards, rigged so they operate like kites. Once these trawlers reach the fishing grounds the fishing operation is continuous for at least six or eight days, when the ship returns to port. The net scoops up practically everything on the bottom, from a scallop to a 3,000 pound anchor, along with any fish that may be available; and the immature fish, or those unsuitable for processing and marketing, are thrown back into the sea.
From this brief outline hon. members can readily see that trawler fishing is more wasteful of the fisheries resources than the hook and line method, and it was for this reason that a large number of hook and line fishermen around the turn of the century raised strong objections to the operations of trawlers on the fishing banks.
According to the royal commission report there was only one trawler operating out of Nova Scotia ports in 1910, and between this date and 1927 the number increased to only 10. However, since these trawlers began to operate and dispose of their catch in Canadian markets they have been the subject of keen controversy in the maritime provinces. Their chief opponents were the shore and schooner fishermen who used the hook and trawl line method of catching fish. They argued that the trawlers towing their nets over the bottom destroyed the spawn of the cod and haddock; that they destroyed the feeding grounds of the fish; that they took large quantities of immature and unmarketable fish, causing the inevitable depletion of the fishing grounds; that they destroyed the trawl lines of the fishermen without making restitution; that they market an inferior product, and that they are responsible for over production and consequent glutting of the market, thus preventing the hook and line fishermen from disposing of their catch.
So strong was the protest that on September 9, 1908-and I am quoting from the royal commission report-an order in council was passed providing that "the use or operation of trawlers for the purpose of catching fish is prohibited within the three mile limit of the bays and harbours of Canada". This was obviously an admission that some trawling was injuring the shore fisheries and that it required regulation and restriction. However, 90205-6-267i
Fisheries Act
no changes were made. Protests continued unabated, and on February 5, 1912, with only two trawlers operating from Nova Scotia ports, the minister of marine and fisheries said in the House of Commons:
It is realized that if many steam trawlers are shortly placed in commission on Canadian coasts the hand trawls and long line fishermen will find it hard to compete, and anything that the government can do to protect them, it is anxious to do.
In the meantime protest meetings of fishermen were held in various places, notably in Canso, Lunenburg and Riverport, in Nova Scotia. From a meeting of the deep-sea hook and line fishermen held at Lunenburg on February 9, 1912, a delegation was sent to Ottawa to interview the federal government, with a petition asking that steam trawlers be prohibited from landing their fish in Canada and from obtaining Canadian coal and supplies. Well, that type of resolution would not go down too well today in view of the agitation from Cape Breton to sell more of our coal. However, during the session of 1912, the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia endorsed a resolution to the federal government strongly opposing the operation of trawlers on our east coast. The recommendation made on behalf of the fishermen of Riverport, Nova Scotia, was for prohibition or curtailment of otter trawling, and that a duty be enforced on all fish landed from trawlers of other than Canadian registry.
During the early summer of 1912 a conference was held in Washington attended by representatives of the United States, by the Canadian minister of marine and fisheries and by the prime minister of Newfoundland, as he was then called, with a view to investigating the whole question of steam trawlers and making observations on the results of their operations. After negotiation it was arranged that during the season of 1912 investigations would be carried out by each country independently, with the understanding that upon completion of the work a conference would be held with a view to reaching an agreement for the entire prohibition of trawling on this side of the Atlantic. Meanwhile the war had started, and it was decided to postpone the project and the international conference until the end of the war, but the proposed conference was not held.
In the meantime, in order to protect the hook and trawl line fishermen, the Canadian government in 1915 enacted a regulation under the Customs Act whereby the master of any steam trawler was required, before being granted a clearance for the fishing grounds, to give the customs officer a declaration that he would not fish within 12 miles from the shore. This regulation was to apply

Fisheries Act
to all steam trawlers clearing from a Canadian port on the Atlantic coast. This is the history of the 12 mile limit, and it has been applied since 1915 to the present day.
In fairness to the hook and line fishermen, the objections they raised were valid in their day. They were interested in the conservation of the fisheries. They were concerned with the loss and destruction of their property when trawlers, by day and by night, towed through their trawl lines and destroyed their fishing equipment. They were vitally interested in the serious economic consequences caused by the overproduction of fish by the trawler fishermen and the resultant glut on the market.
Today, however, the situation is considerably changed. The hook and line fisherman setting trawl lines from a dory is almost extinct. The once proud fleet of Bluenose vessels that numbered over 120 at one time out of the port of Lunenburg has now dwindled to a handful. They have been replaced by diesel powered trawlers ranging in size from 65 to 140 feet; by the long-liner which still catches fish on hooks by the use of a long trawl line set astern of the ship; by the gill net fishermen and the Danish seiner. The inshore fisherman is today using at least one of the types of boats I have mentioned, or he may be operating a deep-sea scallop dragger on George's bank, a type of fishing unthought of in 1915. In any event, it is rather ironic that the same areas which made strong representations in 1912 to impose the 12 mile limit on trawlers have been making equally strong representations to this government and to me since I was first elected in 1957 to remove this unfair and restrictive law.
This morning, I listened with interest to the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He complained about the confining sections of this bill. He said foreign draggers still pose the greatest threat to his inshore fishermen, and mentioned a Spanish trawler in particular. He said the minister and his colleagues must do something about these international trawlers, especially those operating along the coast of Newfoundland.
But I ask, Mr. Speaker, what does he propose? This problem, as I mentioned, has been in existence since the year 1900, when the first trawlers started operating on the east coast. All during the years his party was in office no action was taken. In my opinion, control of these foreign trawlers becomes an international problem. The hon. member further suggested that we extend our territorial waters by unilateral action to the 12 mile limit. This suggestion was supported this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena.
The statements made by both these hon. members show a remarkable lack of knowledge with regard to our fish marketing problem. I submit that unilateral action of this nature would cause serious repercussions in Canada's export markets, especially in the United States where approximately 80 per cent of our east coast fish production is sold. The New England fisheries association would quickly propose higher tariffs on our fish entering the United States, thereby creating further economic problems for the Atlantic provinces.
We on the east coast, Mr. Speaker, have suffered for 22 years because of this type of Liberal thinking. In my opinion any action taken to extend the east coast fishing limits must be by international agreement. The changes made in the Fisheries Act are a move in the right direction. I know it will meet with genuine approval of the trawler captains operating trawlers on the east coast. I again commend the minister for his foresight in providing Canadian deep-sea fishermen with opportunities equal to those enjoyed by fishermen from other nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us to amend the Fisheries Act has some provisions which I think will receive unanimous support in the house and others that will cause questioning. There are some omissions from the bill as well to which the attention of the house, I have no doubt, will be called. Certainly some amendment to the Fisheries Act is overdue. I understand there are some provisions in the present act which have not been changed since 1867, and conditions have changed somewhat since that time.
The bill we have before us was not one mentioned in the speech from the throne as something which was going to be introduced this session. It was not even mentioned last week when the Prime Minister gave the list of legislation which would be brought before the house this session. Perhaps the introduction of the bill at this time can be related to the constructive initiative of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who introduced a private bill amending the Fisheries Act. Shortly after that, Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced.
The bill, among other things, does remove some arbitrary powers which are now vested in officials under the act, and that is all to the good. But, as has already been pointed out in this discussion on second reading, the bill does not, in our opinion, go far enough in that respect to establish beyond doubt the principle of innocence until guilt is

proven. However, it does help to bring the existing act into conformity with the bill of rights.
There is one aspect of this bill to which reference has already been made and with which I wish to deal at this time. That is the question of territorial and jurisdictional waters. The bill has some provisions in that regard. It does remove the discrimination now suffered by Canadian draggers as compared with foreign vessels, and that is an improvement. In our view, however, the amendment should have gone further and established a 12 mile zone of jurisdiction enforceable against all vessels, Canadian or foreign.
The hon. member who just preceded me has indicated that this would be a very dangerous course of action to take unilaterally. He was very worried about the repercussions that action of that kind taken by Canada might cause in the United States, and the effect that such action might have on our market for fish in that country, the importance of which of course is recognized by all of us.
The hon. member criticized the Liberal approach to this problem of markets, the approach which I have also just indicated to the establishment of a 12 mile jurisdictional zone. If it had not been for the Liberal approach, implemented by legislation based on international treaty with the United States in 1936, there would not be the present market for Canadian fish in the United States. But the caution displayed by the government in this matter of taking national action to establish a jurisdictional zone, this timidity, if I may put it in that way-certainly was not displayed by the Prime Minister and the members of the present government when they discussed this subject in 1957 and 1958 during the election campaigns. At that time they were all for Canadian action to protect Canadian fisheries interests by the establishment by Canada of a 12 mile fishery zone. I only quote one excerpt from a report-and there are a good many others -of a speech of the Prime Minister on March 26, 1958, appearing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, when he declared for aid to fishermen and for protection of the rights of Canadian fishermen by a 12 mile limit to be established for all fisheries. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are asking for now. That is the stand we are taking and have taken as a party since 1957 in respect of this matter.
There are three ways by which Canadian rights over a jurisdictional zone wider than that of the territorial waters zone could be established. In this respect we must, of course, make a distinction between the zone
Fisheries Act
of territorial waters and a jurisdictional zone. Up to the present time we have accepted a three mile territorial zone established on the base line theory, the line from headland to headland, but we believe that beyond the territorial zone, whatever may be its agreed width-and we accept at the present time three miles-there should be a jurisdictional zone especially for fisheries protection and fisheries conservation purposes.
As I have just stated, there are three ways by which this might be done. The first and by far the most satisfactory way of doing it is by international agreement through an international convention. We all know that in recent years efforts have been made at international conferences under United Nations auspices dealing with the law of the sea to get general international agreement on the width of the territorial belt and also of the jurisdictional zone. The present government some time ago-I think it was at the beginning of 1960 or the end of 1959- issued a pamphlet on the law of the sea which explained in detail a Canadian proposal which had been put forward at the Geneva conference for this purpose. That Canadian proposal came to be known as the six plus six theory, and provided for a six mile territorial zone to which would be added a six mile jurisdictional zone, making a belt of 12 miles from the base line over which Canadian law could be exercised. Indeed, that Canadian solution-it really is in effect a 12 mile solution-was put forward, as this pamphlet indicates, as early as the eleventh session of the United Nations general assembly in 1956.
No agreement was reached at the first conference at Geneva with regard to the establishment of any international law of the sea. At the second conference held last year-I think it was in March and April, 1960-a further and very strenuous effort was made to get an acceptable international agreement on this extremely important matter. At that conference, as hon. members know, eventually four proposals were put forward, one by the U.S.S.R., one by Mexico, one by the United States of America and one by Canada. The Mexican and Soviet union proposals were dropped and were replaced, I believe, by an 18-power proposal, while the United States and Canada got together on a compromise one because the difference between their two proposals was not very substantial. The Americans at this time were not objecting, as I understand it, to the 12 mile jurisdictional zone or fisheries control zone, but they attempted to insist that historic fisheries rights or traditional fisheries rights be observed inside that 12 mile zone by the power which had jurisdiction over that zone, and that rights of foreign countries which had


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before the house must certainly be received with interest and, generally speaking, with approval because of its attempts to reform long existing legislation. However, its very nature and importance, particularly to us from the seaboard districts, are such that it does require very careful scrutiny by this house.
The bill is obviously intended to rectify existing legislation and bring it more into line with modern needs and thinking. In so far as it deals with pollution I think the suggested amendments are good, because under the old act the penalties were so light that a big operator could, if he wished, break the law with impunity. There are teeth in these amendments, teeth which I think should be there.
With respect to some of the penalties, however, particularly the seizure of gear, I agree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who pointed out that if a fisherman broke the law and his traps or nets were seized, he would be placed in a position where he would automatically be unable to earn a livelihood. For instance, if the nets which he used to catch bait were taken, his whole fishing season could be ruined.
Therefore it occurs to me that a very careful second look should be given to this matter of penalties and the type of penalties which should be exacted. We should carefully consider whether or not fishing gear or fishing property should be automatically confiscated upon guilt being proved. We should consider whether a fine or imprisonment should be instituted in place of confiscation, because there is no doubt that the confiscation of property can work real hardship, not only on the guilty party but on his fishing partners, his associates and his family. The actual penalty might in fact be far out of proportion to the crime committed, because the property or gear seized might be worth only a few hundred dollars but if it means the loss of a season's work it runs into much more money than that.
I am sure the minister and all of us want the punishment to fit the crime. In saying that, I should like to make it clear that I understand the necessity of making sure that the punishment does fit the crime and is not too light, because unless the Minister of Fisheries were in a position to enforce the
Fisheries Act
acts which are necessary for the conservation of the fisheries, the whole purpose of these fisheries regulations would be defeated; and without proper protection, certain fisheries may in time cease to exist.
Therefore in asking for a new look to be given to the penalty part of this bill I am not suggesting that flagrant violations of the law with regard to conservation should be overlooked. Rather I am trying to point out, if it is necessary for it to be pointed out, the desirability of having a punishment for violations whereby teeth could be kept in the regulations but it would not be necessary to cause undue and prolonged hardship to the person affected.
There is the matter of enforcing the regulations and the patrol of coastal waters. I agree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who appealed for more and larger vessels, but I go a step further than that. I do not think it would be economic to maintain the number of vessels which would be required to adequately protect the coastal waters of Canada. The Department of Fisheries would have to have its own navy. Well, they have one now, and a very good one. However, I think you would pretty soon, get into the law of diminishing returns if you built enough ships to patrol all the coastal waters of Canada. I do suggest that we should have more and larger patrol ships we should have patrol which can stay at sea in bad weather, as some fishing ships can. As the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) pointed out, more of these ships are certainly needed.
In addition, I would suggest an increase in the amount of air patrolling. At the present time I believe there is a limited air patrol carried out by the Department of Fisheries. I do think it would be highly desirable and highly effective if an air patrol were maintained off the coast of Canada. In this connection I think that the search and rescue unit of the R.C.A.F. which is already established at Torbay, for instance, as well as in other places, could provide such an air patrol or supplement the air patrol carried out by the Department of Fisheries. Such a patrol, working in conjunction with an adequate inspection fleet would do much to protect the waters off our coast.
Now we come to a subject to which reference has already been made by a number of speakers. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenberg (Mr. Crouse) have each referred to the question of the 12 mile limit. I agree completely with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon.

Fisheries Act
member for Burin-Burgeo. I disagree completely with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who seems to think that all the ills affecting the fisheries are due to Liberal thinking. The hon. member was using the word "Liberal" with a political connotation. I would say, using the word "liberal" in another sense, that we have been much too liberal in allowing foreign fishing vessels the free use of our territorial waters.
The presence of a Russian icebreaker equipped with helicopters to fly sealers into the ice fields off our coast this year is perhaps of more direct significance for Canada than the Russians having the first man in space. Certainly the waters off Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia and our west coast are Canadian waters and their use affects not only individual provinces but all provinces. I should like to strongly support the suggestion- made that Canada should have a 12 mile limit from point to point and that this 12 mile limit should be strictly enforced. This can be done.
As I have said on many occasions, the presence in our waters of so many ships belonging to our foreign competitors is bound to have an adverse effect upon our own direct interests and the growth of competition makes it highly desirable that Canada should take steps to preserve the rich waters off our coasts for her own use and for the benefit of her own citizens.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: have only a few words to add to the very interesting debate on this bill. I am chiefly concerned with section 64, or, to be more precise with section 64(a) of the act. I wish to draw the attention of the house and of the minister to what I consider to be something which may cause discrimination in the enforcement.
The hon. member who has just spoken emphasized the hardship caused by confiscation after seizure. Well, in some cases confiscation is necessary. My concern relates to the confiscation of goods when the owner is innocent or when the identity of the owner has not been ascertained. Under the bill, if a person is charged and defends himself, and is then convicted, the owner, if he is not the accused person, has 30 days after the conviction in which to make application to a judge for an order to have his equity protected.
However, on the other hand if at the time of the seizure no one is charged and the owner of the goods is not identified there is only a period of 30 days allowed. I hope that when the bill is in the committee stage the minister will give some consideration to extending the period of 30 days allowed for making an application for protection to a judge.

I am mainly concerned about goods owned by an innocent person for example after a theft. When goods have been stolen they can be used illegally or improperly by the thief and the innocent owner might not know of the offence until the period of 30 days had expired.


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: was interested in the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) regarding the unilateral establishment of a 12 mile limit. I am thinking, now, especially in terms of the Pacific coast. I think we should all like to see it, but there are some difficulties in establishing this limit unilaterally because of the nature of the boundaries between British Columbia and the United States. Such difficulties will arise particularly in such places as the straits of San Juan which in many areas are considerably less than 24 miles in width, in the neighbourhood of Hecate strait between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland, and along the southern part of what we call the Alaskan Panhandle.
I cannot see how we can establish a 12 mile limit unilaterally. I think it would have to be done by bilateral agreement. I believe that any attempt to establish such a limit unilaterally would result in a great controversy between ourselves and the United States and would inevitably result in bloodshed. I think the United States fishermen would resist an attempt to enforce such a boundary unilaterally in the same way as our fishermen would resist it in areas where a unilateral United States definition of a 12 mile limit was not in their interests.
I should therefore like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that his remarks apply with more force to the Atlantic coast. His suggestion might be feasible there-it might be practical-but I think if we were to try it unilaterally on the Pacific coast we would be asking for a lot more trouble than we could handle.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not intend to detain the house very long on this bill because, as hon. members will all appreciate, I make no claim to skill or knowledge as a fisherman, at least as far as sea fishing is concerned. The closest acquaintance with the art of fishing that I can claim-and it has been a very pleasant one -is, of course, by way of fly fishing, and perhaps I could take this opportunity to put in a boost for that splendid domestic fish known as the Kamloops trout, the finest sport fish in North America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I recognize, however, that this bill does not concern this branch of the art, and that it relates mainly to problems of no concern to inland fisheries.
I wish to take part in the debate for two specific reasons. First, I want to deal with some remarks which have been made as to the incidents surrounding the introduction of the bill. Second, I wish to deal with the understandable concern and interest of hon. members in the relationship between this bill and the provisions of the bill of rights.
First, with respect to the circumstances of the introduction of the bill; it has been suggested by some hon. members that the bill may have been introduced because of an attempt made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) to introduce and proceed with a private bill of his own. Let me assure the house that is far from correct. While we in this government do pay a good deal of regard to private members and their views, and are always anxious to obtain the benefit of their views, in this situation, while appreciating the interest of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, let me assure you that the bill now before the house was in preparation long before that purported bill of his saw the light of day.
This bill was in preparation in the Department of Fisheries last fall and has been considered in detail in my department, in the context of the bill of rights, as far back as last December.
Indeed it would be, in large part, correct to say that one of the main reasons for the introduction of the present bill was the concern of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) with respect to the situation in which he and his officers found themselves under the present Fisheries Act as a result of the bill of rights. I can assure the house that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries is, as are all members of the present government, most careful to review the legislation and the activities of the officers for which he is responsible to ensure that the legislation does not place him or his officers in a position where things are likely to be done contrary to the bill of rights. It was because of the concern of my colleague with regard to this matter-that was one of the main reasons-that he sought approval for the introduction of this bill to revise the Fisheries Act.
As has been pointed out by all of those hon. members who have spoken on this bill, it is a tremendous improvement, with respect to this kind of matter, over the Fisheries Act as it is presently. I should like to remind the hon. members of this house, when they are considering and recalling to their minds some of the things that were said at the time of the debate on the bill of rights-
Fisheries Act
that it would be of no effect, was nothing but words, and other suggestions made by members of the opposition-that we have here before us today a very concrete example of the effectiveness of the bill of rights. When you see the extent to which the Fisheries Act, a statute which has been on the books for many years, has offended the provisions of the present bill of rights, you will understand the important step forward made in introducing this piece of legislation entirely in conformity with that bill of rights.
I am not going to attempt to go far enough back into history to assess particular responsibilities for these objectionable features in the present Fisheries Act, but I do point out to you that our predecessors had 22 years of opportunity to remove them but did nothing about it, yet within a very short time of the passage of the bill of rights by this government we have this concrete example of the seriousness with which, under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), human rights and fundamental freedoms are observed.
I do not propose to go into a long dissertation at this point on the matter of the due process of law, which is that portion of the bill of rights of main concern in connection with the enforcement provisions of the Fisheries Act, but I do want to assure the house in general that I have been at pains to satisfy myself that this bill is in conformity with the bill of rights in every respect. Something has been said here with regard to the report of the Minister of Justice in respect of the bill of rights which leads me to believe that it may be well to outline to the house again the procedure that is to be followed in connection with ascertaining that legislation introduced in this house is not contrary to the spirit and provision of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should remind the hon. minister that I prevented the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) from questioning the minister or raising a question in regard to the process, procedure or machinery under the bill of rights because in my view it was not relevant to a discussion of this bill. A question in regard to whether this bill complies with the bill of rights is another matter, of course, and has been discussed by many hon. members, but I think it would be out of place, as the hon. member for Skeena has not been allowed to proceed, if the Minister of Justice were to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will endeavour to comply with your remark which, in my understanding, is that there should not be an attempt to go into the detail of the procedure by which I form my opinion but rather to

Fisheries Act
discuss the opinion itself. I might say just before coming to that point, in connection with the comparison between this bill and the present Fisheries Act, that while, as I said a few minutes ago, we do appreciate the views and interest of private members, I want to make it very clear that it was not the introduction of the bill by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that occasioned the introduction of the present bill by the Minister of Fisheries. It was far from that because, if you will examine the bill introduced by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, you will observe that far from actually seeking to eliminate any of the objectionable provisions of the Fisheries Act, which he appears to believe are contrary to the bill of rights, my hon. friend has solemnly attempted to re-enact every one of them.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to correct the Minister of Justice in that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is correcting the minister I suggest he will have the opportunity to do so in regard to any misinterpretation that the minister has put on his statements, but that is not a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have that opportunity if I am mistaken, but I do not think I am. The point I am making is that simply because-


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would elaborate on that point he has just raised by explaining what was wrong with my bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, you stopped me this morning when I attempted to discuss in detail what was wrong with the hon. member's bill. The point I am making now is that the hon. member's bill does not accomplish anything by way of removing the features which he says are objectionable in the present Fisheries Act, but rather expressly seeks to re-enact them. That seems to me to be a very strange way to go about bringing legislation into conformity with the bill of rights. We have on the one hand an hon. member who says he considers many provisions of the present act are contrary to the bill of rights, and on the other his introduction of a bill which in fact would re-enact them.
This government has had this under consideration since last fall, shortly after the bill of rights became effective, in order to bring in legislation which will remove the objectionable features so that the officers of the Department of Fisheries, from the minister down, will be administering a piece of legislation which is in conformity with the bill of rights.


Chesley William Carter: Will the hon. minister permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, gladly.


Chesley William Carter: Is the hon. minister maintaining that when a bill is introduced in this house it must be in perfect form and brought in with the assumption that no changes will be made during its passage through this house and the other place?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most hon. members have always proceeded on the assumption that when an hon. member invites this house to support a piece of legislation which he has introduced, he has introduced it considering it to be worthy of the support of this house, and not legislation which he considers should be thrown out. What kind of a farce would it make of our proceedings if hon. members asked support for a bill with the explanation that the purposes are worthy, and then, having received support, the bill does not seek to carry out those purposes at all?


Chesley William Carter: Does the hon. minister consider that changes made in the bill to make it conform to the bill of rights are not worthy of this house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that is not the
purpose of the hon. member's bill as it is drafted. The purpose of the hon. member's bill as drafted is to re-enact the present Fisheries Act-


Chesley William Carter: In conformity-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -which my hon. friend has said he considers to be inconsistent with the bill of rights.


Chesley William Carter: In conjunction with the report made by the minister as to whether it offended the bill of rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should call both hon. members to order. It seems to me that the other bill, although it may be referred to incidentally, cannot in itself be the subject of our consideration today.


Frank Howard: Will the minister permit another question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Frank Howard: Following up the reason advanced by the minister for the drafting of this legislation, preparation for which began last December, which reason he explained was to bring the Fisheries Act into conformity with the bill of rights, can we now expect that similar amendments to the objectionable features of the Feeds Act of last session and the Customs Act will be brought in this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member certainly is getting away from the subject matter before the house. 1 think I would be only encouraging an irrelevant discussion if I were to allow the question to be answered.


Frank Howard: The minister is saved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The problem of enforcement of fisheries legislation from the point of view of the bill of rights arises largely out of the fact that there are some pieces of fisheries equipment which are used for illegal purposes which, if not disposed of promptly, will in fact carry out that illegal purpose to the prejudice of the general public. It therefore becomes desirable to provide a method under which the offending equipment may be disposed of immediately in order that the public interest may be protected. It is in connection with the devising of a procedure that gives a speedy method of disposal, but which at the same time does not arbitrarily deprive an individual of his rights, that the problem arises. And it is that specific problem that the new draft bill before us has met and, in my view, has met fairly and successfully.
Under the old Fisheries Act it is true that wide powers of forfeiture on view were given to fisheries officers, with the result that where a fisheries officer felt that an offence was being committed, he had wide powers of seizure resulting in an automatic and complete forfeiture of the goods in question.
I should go on to say that an owner, even an innocent owner, had no recourse against such a forfeiture. I use the word "innocent" to describe an owner whose goods might have been used without his permission or knowledge for the offensive purpose; even that owner had no recourse against the complete forfeiture to the crown, which resulted from the unilateral action, without a hearing, on the part of the fisheries officer. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that that situation should be remedied and it has been remedied in the bill now before you.
The scheme of the present bill is that in general there should be no forfeiture without a hearing. The article with which the offence is alleged to have been committed must be ordered to be forfeited by a court under proceedings to be brought by the minister. It is true that the present bill does authorize fisheries officers to seize, and this seizure would have the effect of forfeiture if nothing else were done. It is provided here that since the forfeiture itself can only be ordered by the court, an owner shall not be effectively deprived of the right to his prop-perty by the minister refraining from bringing action. Hon. members will appreciate that
Fisheries Act
if the article is seized and nothing is done, the owner would otherwise be effectively deprived of possession. Therefore, we go on to provide that unless the minister brings action within three months from the date of seizure the goods shall be restored to their owner. In other words, if the minister finds that he has not got a case, or that the seizure was made in error, then he cannot simply let the matter drop and effectively deprive someone of his rights. If he does not bring action within three months the goods are automatically restored. As I say-


Chesley William Carter: Will the minister explain how that boat and equipment are going to catch fish while they are confiscated for three months?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to explain the scheme under which this very difficult problem of enforcement and of protection of the fisheries in the public interest has been resolved. It is true that with respect to one class of fisheries equipment there can be a forfeiture without the owner having been in effect notified, and that is in connection with lobster pots. My understanding is that frequently lobster pots are found out in the sea, in an area in which lobster fishing is prohibited, or in an area at a time when the lobster season is closed.
Those lobster pots are, of course, actually being used for an offence and there is not much point in leaving them there while the fisheries officer goes back to court. Further lobsters will crawl into the pots while the fisheries officer is off in court; the offender may come and remove them while his back is turned. Therefore, it is provided with respect to this particular item of fishing equipment that it may be forfeited and disposed of immediately as the minister directs.
However, it is further provided in the next proposed section that if there is an owner who is an innocent owner even of items in this class, he may within 30 days make application to the court, and if he establishes that the property was his and that it was being used without his knowledge or consent, then he is entitled to the return of his property, or, if it has already been disposed of, to the return of the equivalent value. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be generally agreed that in view of the really difficult problems of enforcement that exist, the scheme that has been devised is one which is reasonable and which protects the public interest without prejudice to the rights of individuals as they are declared in the bill of rights.
As I have said, I do not want to go into a long dissertation on this question of "due process", although it was around this point

Fisheries Act
that the main difficulty revolved namely, are we depriving people of their rights without due process of law? We have done some research on it and the house may be interested in a brief summary of the position. It will be appreciated, of course, that in connection with this phrase "the due process of law" there is not much jurisprudence in Canada, nor is there, indeed, in the United Kingdom. The main jurisprudence is found in the United States. While I do not suggest for a moment that the United States cases will serve as binding precedents, I certainly think it is not unlikely and not unreasonable that our courts would turn to examine the views of the courts in the United States to see what has been the thinking on this subject and the interpretation given to the due process section. Therefore, I think the house might be interested in a summary of one of the leading cases in the United States on this question.
I refer to the case of Lawton versus Steele in 1893, reported at 38 United States supreme court reports at page 385. It is interesting to note that this case arose out of a fisheries statute of the state of New York, which contained the following provision:
Any net, pound, or other means or device for taking or capturing fish, or whereby they may be taken or captured, set, put, floated, had, found, or maintained, in or upon any of the waters of this state, or upon the shores of or islands in any of the waters of this state, in violation of any existing or hereafter enacted statutes or laws for the protection of fish is hereby declared to be, and is, a public nuisance, and may be abated and summarily destroyed by any person, and it shall be the duty of each and every protector aforesaid and of every game constable to seize and remove and forthwith destroy the same,... and no action for damages shall lie or be maintained against any person for or on account of any such seizure and destruction.
This provision was attacked and alleged to be unconstitutional and void for the reason, amongst others, that it deprived a citizen of his property without due process of law. In coming to its decision, the court said as follows:
The extent and limits of what is known as the police power have been a fruitful subject of discussion in the appellate courts of nearly every state in the union. It is universally conceded to include everything essential to the public safety, health, and morals, and to justify the destruction or abatement, by summary proceedings, of whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance.
Perhaps I should pause here to observe, Mr. Speaker, that although we do not have the doctrine of police power developed in the same precise form as is the case in the United States, nevertheless it is apparent to all hon. members that powers of enforcement such as are contained in this bill rest on the doctrine of police power, namely that the governments, on behalf of the public, must do those things which are necessary and have

a right to provide legislative sanction for the doing of those things which are necessary for the protection of the public interest. However, all jurisdictions under our system of democracy have recognized, and it is inherent in the bill of rights, that the state cannot rely on the doctrine of police power to go so far as arbitrarily to deprive a citizen of what are his fundamental rights without due process of law.
The supreme court of the United States which, as I said, is a country where this whole problem of reconciling police power with individual rights has been exhaustively considered by the courts, went on to say this:
... To justify the state in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particlular class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.
I pause here to interpolate that under our bill of rights we have assured that provisions enacted by the legislature here are similarly subject to the supervision of the courts.
The judgment continues:
*-the preservation of game and fish, however, has always been treated as within the proper domain of the police power, and laws limiting the season within which birds and wild animals may be killed or exposed for sale, and prescribing the time and manner in which fish may be caught, have been repeatedly upheld by the courts.
The court then turned its attention to the act in question of New York state from which I have read and which, as I have pointed out, went so far as to say that any net, pound, or other means or device for taking or capturing fish, and being used in violation of any existing or hereafter enacted statute of the state, is a public nuisance, and may be seized and summarily destroyed. It was that provision to which the supreme court of the United States turned its attention, and they said this:
The main, and only real difficulty connected with the act in question is in its declaration that any net, etc., maintained in violation of any law for the protection of fisheries, is to be treated as a public nuisance, "and may be abated and summarily destroyed by any person, and it shall be the duty of each and every protector aforesaid and every game constable to seize, remove and forthwith destroy the same." The legislature, however, undoubtedly possessed the power not only to prohibit fishing by nets in these waters, but to make it a criminal offence, and to take such measures as were reasonable and necessary to prevent such offences in the future. It certainly could not do

this more effectually than by destroying the means of the offence. If the nets were being used in a manner detrimental to the interests of the public, we think it was within the power of the legislature to declare them to be nuisances, and to authorize the officers of the state to abate them.
Then, sir, the supreme court of the United States turned to a problem which has exercised us here. We have provided in the present bill that large items of property, expensive items, where either the value of the property or the ease of determining ownership, or both, make it patently absurd to provide a situation where they could be ordered to be forfeited simply because somebody says he cannot identify the owner-we have provided that shall not take place without a hearing in so far as fishing vessels or vehicles are concerned, and a determination must be made of the issue of whether or not an offence has been committed with such articles, at which time an innocent owner may be given an opportunity to come in.
However, in the case of these small items of the class I have mentioned, this problem is much more difficult. It is highly likely there will be no trace of ownership, no means of identification in the first place. In the second place, if they are being used to commit an offence, and they are of small value, then obviously no one is going to identify them because by so doing he renders himself liable to the penalty for committing the offence. Therefore, there will be no one coming along and claiming ownership, so the only practical result is that ownership may be forfeited by the very commission of the offence.
The supreme court of the United States said this in respect of this matter:
But where the property is of little value, and its use for the illegal purpose is clear, the legislature may declare it to be a nuisance, and subject to summary abatement. Instances of this are the power to kill diseased cattle: to pull down houses in the path of conflagration; destruction of decayed fruit or fish or unwholesome meats, or infected clothing, obscene books or pictures, or instruments which can only be used for illegal purposes. While the legislature has no right arbitrarily to declare that to be a nuisance which is clearly not so, a good deal must be left to its discretion in that regard, and if the object to be accomplished is conducive to the public interests, it may exercise a large liberty of choice in the means employed.
Finally, I should like to put this passage before the house dealing with items of this class:
The value of the nets in question was but $15 apiece. The cost of condemning one, (and the use of one is as illegal as the use of a dozen) by judicial proceedings, would largely exceed the value of the net, and doubtless the state would in many cases, be deterred from executing the law by the expense. They could only be removed from the water with difficulty, and were liable to injury in the process of removal. The object of the law is undoubtedly a beneficent one, and the
Fisheries Act
state ought not to be hampered in its enforcement, by the application of constitutional provisions which are intended for the protection of substantial rights of property. It is evidence that the efficacy of this statute would be very seriously impaired by requiring every net illegally used to be carefully taken from the water, carried before a court or magistrate, notice of the seizure to be given by publication, and regular judicial proceedings to be instituted for its condemnation.
That case is not exactly similar to all the cases that may arise under this legislation, but it is interesting I think to see something of the general approach which the highest court in the United States took to this matter, a court very much seized with the importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is interesting because in the general discussion, parts of which I have read here, they dealt extensively with this problem of the proper exercise of the police power, proper protection of the public interest on the one hand, as against the protection of individual property rights on the other.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the house through you that, in the drafting of this legislation, we have been scrupulously careful to ensure that every reasonable protection-and indeed more than reasonable protection-is given to property rights of the individual and that where it is physically and practically feasible to do so within the confines of an effective enforcement measure, no arbitrary powers of confiscation, seizure or forfeiture are given and no one is liable to have his property taken from him and disposed of without the right to a hearing and to defend his rights and his interests.
As I said, the bill was reviewed from this point of view in our department from as far back as last December. It has been examined by me in that process and I have no report to make to the house as to any inconsistency with the bill of rights. May I remind the house that, under the bill of rights, my obligation is to report inconsistencies; it is not my obligation to make a general report if I find no inconsistencies. Therefore, if there is no report that means that no inconsistency has been found. In every case, of course, a copy is required to be deposited with the Clerk bearing a certificate that it has been examined in the Department of Justice. That is required under regulations worked out between my department and Mr. Speaker for the efficient information of the house under the terms of the bill of rights. So that in so far as concerns the suggestion that an official report from the Minister of Justice is expected with respect to every piece of legislation, may I say that is not the approach that is taken. What is required from the Minister of Justice by the statute is a report if he finds inconsistencies between a piece of legislation and

Fisheries Act
the bill of rights; and in my view, there are no such inconsistencies in this bill.


Chesley William Carter: May I ask the minister a question-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: -or may I ask two questions? One is this. Did he find no inconsistencies in Bill No. C-76? What is the purpose of this report which he is required to make under standing order 40 if it is not to guide the house in the framing of amendments to take care of inconsistencies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your Honour has already ruled that a discussion on the process by which I arrive at my opinion is out of order and also has suggested that a discussion of Bill No. C-76 and whether or not it is in conformity with the bill of rights is not in order in a debate on this bill. This morning I commenced to indicate my opinion of Bill No. C-76 and the Speaker stopped me. This afternoon I have pointed out that with respect to Bill No. C-76, in the explanatory note and in the explanation that the hon. member gave when he introduced it, it was said to be a bill for the purpose of revising the Fisheries Act and bringing it into conformity with the bill of rights. However, the bill as drafted does nothing of the sort. It merely re-enacts the Fisheries Act. I do not think I should go any further in the course of this debate.


Chesley William Carter: Your Honour or Mr. Speaker said I would have an opportunity to contradict a statement or to correct a statement that the minister made. The minister has just now made another statement that is wrong and I want to quote-


Mr. Broome:: Speaking to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe the intent was that the hon. member would correct it in committee or at some succeeding place in the debate. He has already spoken on second reading. It is my understanding that an hon. member can speak only once on second reading.


Chesley William Carter: Speaking to the point of order may I say that it is common practice and within the rules to make a correction immediately after a misstatement has been made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course the hon. member may correct a statement made by another hon. member if the statement refers to what the hon. member has said and is a misinterpretation of what he said. If the hon. member wishes to rise and take the opportunity at the end of a speech, he may do so. But this is not the situation. The hon. member may not rise only to correct a statement of fact made by another hon. member. It

must refer to what he said. If that is the purpose of the hon. member I will give him the floor.


Chesley William Carter: That is right Mr. Speaker. I wish to correct a statement which the minister made just before he took his seat. I want to quote from the explanatory note in my bill just one sentence as follows:
The purposes of this bill.. . therefore are:
1. To determine whether any of the provisions of this bill are inconsistent with the Canadian bill of rights: in particular, the provisions of clause 35 which empower a fishery officer to accuse a person of violating the fisheries laws and then to adjudicate on that person's guilt or innocence;
I could quote more but I think I have quoted enough to correct the statement the minister just made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What the hon. member has quoted, far from correcting what I have said, confirms what I have said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this discussion is out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the guidance of hon. members I think perhaps I should read standing order 37 which states as follows:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.
I therefore think we should close the matter at that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member rose by way of a question first. Then the matter of Bill No. C-76 had been included in the comments made this afternoon. Then the hon. member commented on something I had said, and as he put it, he corrected me. I am simply seeking to point out that his bill when it is examined, clearly does not do what he says is its purpose. What it does is to re-enact the Fisheries Act, the very piece of legislation to which he says he has objections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A successful breach of the rules.


James Roy Tucker: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this important bill. However, because of the importance of our fisheries to our great dominion and because I represent one of the most important fishing industries and fishing communities in Canada I feel that I cannot allow the occasion to pass without saying a few words in support of the bill. In our fish industry we have a Klondike which is just as great as any gold claim that has ever been utilized or sold in California. Every year there are caught off our coasts both east

and west millions of dollars worth of fish of all descriptions. Reference has been made to this bill, to what the Liberal government did not do and to what it should have done. In my opinion for what it is worth, this bill was brought about because of the bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter).


Mr. Graffiey:: Nonsense.


James Roy Tucker: The fact that the Liberal government did not do anything to improve the conditions about which the Progressive Conservative government feels something should be done, does not excuse it for not doing anything. We are glad to see that steps have been taken by the Progressive Conservative government to improve our fisheries.
There are two important factors that are to be considered in connection with this bill. One is the enforcement of the fishing regulations and the other is the protection of our fisheries against foreign powers.
If we have not sufficient vessels to see that our rights are protected, I think this government or any government should take steps to see that the necessary protection is given to this important industry.
It seems to me that our officials are more concerned with enforcing the law upon our own fishermen than they are in seeing it enforced upon foreigners.
Last year I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean). My question is reported at page 2123 of Hansard for 1960:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has his attention been called to a report that a foreign sealing vessel is operating within the territorial waters of Canada and, if so, what action is his department taking?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, a telegram has been received in which the sender says it was reported to him that a foreign sealing vessel was operating within Canadian territorial waters.
The minister added that he had taken immediate steps to investigate the situation. At that time the minister had not received a report from his officers, but later he did receive a report and a plane was sent out to investigate the incident. Because of the type of investigation carried out, no grounds were found for the complaint.
I have here a flag which was taken from a vessel within the three mile limit. It is not the type of flag about which we have heard so much political propaganda in the house recently, but it was taken from a sealer and it is of foreign origin.


An hon. Member:: It is a red flag.


James Roy Tucker: It is a red flag, not a blue one. This brings me to the question of the 12 mile limit. Previous speakers have said they fear
Fisheries Act
what would take place if Canada were to put real teeth into the regulations to enforce a 12 mile limit.
I should like to read from an editorial in a recent issue of the Evening Telegram of St. John's:
Just over two years ago the government and the people of Iceland became very concerned about their livelihood, especially the portion that depends on the fisheries.
Whereupon Iceland, unilaterally, i.e. ''on her own hook", without consultation with any other maritime nation or world organization, extended her traditional three mile fishing limit to 12. This was vigorously opposed by Britain, an ancient friend of Iceland, which has been sending fishing ships to Icelandic waters since the Middle Ages. But Iceland was stubborn; there were incidents when her patrol vessels interfered with British draggers; at one stage British men-o-war went along as escorts.
After 13 years of the arbitrary establishment of fishing limits Iceland has agreed to proposals that future disputes should come under the jurisdiction of the international court of justice.
These proposals, which were published recently in London, provide for the immediate recognition by Britain of Iceland's 12 mile limit, with a three year phase out during which British vessels would be allowed to fish in certain areas up to six miles from amended base lines.
The case of Britain and Iceland shows that the latter did not lose her ancient friend, but instead won recognition of the vital nature of her own valuable fisheries.
As soon as we have the courage to state where we stand and look after our fisheries, I think the better off we will be.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on this bill. I agree with what the bill tries to do in general. How well it does this I suppose we will be able to discuss at the committee stage.
Like many other hon. members of this house, I believe that this bill has been hurried in its presentation because of the bill which has been given first reading and which was presented to the house by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). I commend the hon. member for the remarks he has made and for his efforts to have the Fisheries Act amended in order to bring it up ro date to meet present-day requirements.
Like many other hon. members of the house, I am a little bit concerned about the penalties to be imposed upon these poor fishermen. I speak with some knowledge of this matter because of those with whom I have had some dealings.
The type of thing that bothers me is this Let us take the case of a fisherman who is accused of committing an offence under the

Fisheries Act
Fisheries Act, whose fishing gear is taken away from him and who is afterwards found to be innocent; or perhaps after a period of three months it is decided to take no action and his gear is returned to him.
If we are talking about the lobster industry in Newfoundland, the salmon industry, or to a large extent the cod fishery, by the end of those three months the period in which this man could have made a living has expired. I think that preventing such a man from making a summer's wages, or a season's wages, as the case may be, imposes a very severe penalty upon him for an offence which he may not have committed.
Another thing that bothers me about this question is this. A man may have committed an offence under the act. I hold no brief for those who commit offences under the act; they should receive the full penalty of the law. But if a man has committed an offence under the act and has been punished by order of the court, must he also be punished by suffering loss of wages due to his fishing gear having been taken away from him?
Perhaps when we reach the committee stage on this bill we will hear from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) as to how this particular situation can be prevented. I believe that this question of the penalties to be imposed upon fishermen needs to be examined very closely.
This bill also makes reference to the protection of fisheries. I wish to refer for a moment or two to the protection of inland fisheries. I am referring particularly to sport fishing in Newfoundland. In the section of Newfoundland from which I come sport fishing brings to the area a large number of tourists every year, and has done so for more than half a century.
We feel that sport fishing is the attraction which brings so many tourists to our part of the province. We hope protection will be given to the inland fisheries so that sport fishing can be conserved for the future and will remain a drawing card for people to come to the province of Newfoundland during the warmer periods of the year. I feel that at the moment insufficient protection is being given to this particular industry.
I believe more guardians are needed on the rivers to see that the fisheries are protected. I believe, also, that they should begin their work before the season opens and that they should remain at work for a period after the season closes. I am going to suggest now -and I intend to do so again when the estimates of the minister are before the committee of the whole-that a complete survey

should be undertaken to determine what conservation and protection measures are required to safeguard the fishing of the west coast of Newfoundland and that having made such a determination we should carry out the protection measures required at the earliest possible date.
Coming from Newfoundland, or from the Atlantic provinces, I am, of course, concerned about fishing limits. On numerous occasions fishermen have told me that foreign draggers are fishing well within the three mile limit. I have no knowledge of this personally but neither have I any reason to doubt the stories that these fishermen have told me. We on the west coast of Newfoundland- and this may well apply to other parts of the province-have a situation where four or five miles off the coast there exists a fishing shoal, a fishing bank or fishing grounds. Fishermen from the nearby communities have fished these grounds for years and years.
In many cases the people who live in the nearby settlements have to depend upon these grounds for their livelihood; they find that they are their only means of employment. Yet draggers from foreign countries will come and in one season drag these grounds so that they are no longer able to provide a living for the number of men who have to live in the area. I recognize that some of these grounds are outside the three mile limit. Nevertheless, these foreign draggers are destroying the means which these people have of making a living and I suggest this is a matter which deserves very serious attention.
I regret the fact that in discussing these things today some of our speakers have got a little bit political. That might not be a good thing today as far as Newfoundland is concerned. Some of the things which have been spoken of here were all done by this parliament before Newfoundland came into the picture and if we were to go back further we should find that Newfoundland, in trying to solve her fishing problems, was not very well served by the federal government at a time when a Conservative government was in office.


William Heward Grafftey: Of course, you are not being political now.


Mr.   Ballen@: I am doing exactly what you were doing. I think we could have discussed this bill and left all these things out, especially as there is agreement-
Mr. Graff fey: Your objectivity floors me.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am not concerned about you. I would be enhancing the value of that remark unduly if I called it stupid.

Last year during the debate on external affairs I had some comments to make about the 12 mile limit and I believe the time is coming when Canada will have to make some decision about this question. There is no need here to make any further observations as to the importance of the fishing industry to Canada as a nation but I think one thing we should never forget is that when we are talking about the importance of an industry to the nation as a whole it is sometimes wise to pay attention to the importance of that industry to a particular region. An industry may not be especially important to Canada as a whole but it may nevertheless be of total importance to one small region. I think we sometimes have to view an industry in that way.
In the last few years world production of fish has increased by about 35 per cent while the total production by Canada has remained about the same. An odd thing about this is that the increase in world fisheries production, or a large percentage of it, has been taken from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Canada. In order adequately to preserve the fisheries in the northwest Atlantic I believe it is necessary for this country to institute fishing limits. These limits have been discussed internationally in the past. There was the Hague conference of 1930 and there was the Geneva conference in 1958, and while the Geneva conference in 1958 might not have arrived at the conclusion which we would have liked so far as territorial and fishing limits are concerned I would not infer from that that this conference was a failure. Far from it. I think it laid some very important groundwork upon which fishing limits can be based.
Then there was the conference of 1960. I think it was unfortunate that Canada came so close to having its contention acknowledged; it was unfortunate that the proposition which the Canadian delegation placed before the convention was not voted on in such a manner as to bring it to a successful conclusion.
I am wondering what could be done failing international agreement among all the nations who took part in that conference of 1960. Of the 87 nations represented at that conference, 54 voted in favour of the Canadian proposition, 28 voted against and five abstained. If it is not possible for all the countries represented at that conference to arrive at some conclusion, I am wondering if it would not be possible to have some agreement reached between those nations which voted for the Canadian proposition in 1960. I recognize that this would not constitute an international agreement but it may
Fisheries Act
be we shall find that reaching an international agreement on this question is going to take a lot of time if, indeed, it can ever be done.
In the meantime the failure of these countries to reach agreement is producing a reaction on our fishing industry which none of us wishes to see. As I say, it may be that one thing we could do would be to attempt to reach agreement with the 54 nations voting for the Canadian proposition. If that is not possible, perhaps it would be possible to arrive at some agreement between the nations which now fish in the northwest Atlantic. If this cannot be done I would have to agree that perhaps the only course we could take would be to declare unilaterally a 12 mile limit around the coast of Canada.
If every other proposition fails I think that is what Canada should do. There are many other nations in the world which have declared their fishing limits unilaterally, some of them recently and some of them years ago. In 1906 Norway declared a fishing limit of four miles. Last year Norway declared that her fishing limits would be increased to 12 miles according to a statement made by the foreign minister of Norway after the Geneva conference of 1960.
Let us examine the unilateral declarations made by other nations and the years they were established. In 1907, Argentine, 12 miles; in 1909, Spain, 6 miles; 1912, Italy, 7 miles; 1914, Greece, 6 miles; 1923, Colombia, 12 miles; 1933, Ecuador, 15 miles; 1938, Brazil, 12 miles; 1949, Costa Rica, 200 miles; 1951, Korea, 50 to 60 miles; 1952, the Dominican Republic, 12 miles; 1955, El Salvador, 200 miles; India, 100 miles and Ceylon, 100 miles. I have taken these figures from a table provided by the secretariat of the United Nations in 1958 when this discussion, in which I was particularly interested, took place in that organization.
If other nations have been able to extend unilateral fishing limits, and if no other method is found to solve our own problems, I would suggest Canada will have to declare unilaterally a 12 mile fishing limit. I recognize immediately that if we should do so many problems will arise regarding our relations with other nations, particularly the United States, in respect of our markets for fish. I believe, however, if Canada were to declare a unilateral 12 mile fishing limit it would be possible to enter into agreement with those other nations which are particularly concerned with Canadian fishing limits. I see no reason why we cannot enter into bilateral agreements with other countries in order to protect their interests while, at the same time, protecting our own markets.

Fisheries Act
I recognize that by declaring a fishing limit we give rise to various problems, particularly the patrolling of that area inside the limits. I believe that a solution can be found, that most countries would be willing to recognize Canada's fishing resources, and that protection must be given them. If no other method is found to solve this problem then I would suggest that a declaration of a unilateral 12 mile limit must be made.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member suggest that the 12 mile limit off the coast of British Columbia would be measured from Vancouver or the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands? What does he contemplate in this situation?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I would not be able to provide a good answer to that question. All the references I have made this afternoon have had regard to that portion of Canada with which I am familiar, namely, the east coast. I realize that fisheries on the west coast of Canada are very important to the people there, but I would not, with my limited knowledge of the coast of British Columbia, be able to decide just how the 12 mile limit should be imposed, whether it should follow the contour of the land or follow a line adjoining the headlands. I would think that hon. members from ridings on the west coast could certainly present some solution to the problem.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, this bill is particularly important to residents of British Columbia because of the fact that approximately half of the commercial fish in Canada are caught there.
The development and control of fisheries is a function of government. In respect of inland waters this is a responsibility of the provincial government; in respect of coastal waters, it is a responsibility of the federal government. Since our fisheries are almost entirely coastal water fisheries, and involve the great streams emptying into the Pacific coast-still salt water fisheries-the control is a responsibility of the federal government. In view of this situation any advancement in respect of this industry is dependent upon the action taken by the federal government.
Many of the changes proposed to the Fisheries Act have been requested during the past two years by representatives of that industry. I believe this proposed bill will meet the needs of those representatives. It may be of interest to hon. members that the fisheries association of British Columbia made a submission to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in which it was stated that commercial fishing represented the fourth largest primary industry in British

Columbia, and that it employed directly some 18,000 individuals, and indirectly, some 75,000.
One of the most important features of this bill is that clause regarding the control of the pollution of waters. This is becoming a very pressing problem. I do not intend to go into it in detail as I am sure there will be much said in this regard when the bill is before the committee for consideration. Generally speaking, what has been suggested is that the Fisheries Act be made to conform with the bill of rights.
I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered that penalties in regard to violations be set by regulation so as to permit adjustment upward and downward. Since 1932 the penalty provided was so low companies did not even change their methods of disposing of wastes. These companies felt they could afford to pay the penalty and continue discharging poisonous and toxic matters into the streams. The penalty as now proposed will certainly make this an undesirable course to continue.
We have listened to a great many references to international waters and the establishment of a 12 mile limit. It has been estab-listed by international arrangement, between the United States and Canada, that the waters lying from the south end of the Alaskan Panhandle, which divides the waters known as the Dixon entrance, south to the Queen Charlotte islands, and south again to Vancouver island, and the waters between those islands known as Hecate straits, to the mainland, are Canadian.
Foreign vessels do, however, operate in these waters. If at this time we were to declare the territorial waters lying between headland to headland, our jurisdiction in this regard is not being exercised. I realize that questions of reciprocal favours in regard to our fisheries may exist but if foreign vessels are to be allowed to fish in these waters it should be by sufferance and not by right. They should be allowed to do so perhaps by permission granted each year so that the permission can be withdrawn if it is in the national interest to do so.
One other problem has been puzzling me which the minister can perhaps consider. That is, how will the department prevent vessels in waters such as the straits of Georgia from jettisoning oil waste material into these waters? I might mention that in British Columbia we have a water pollution act which exercises a certain amount of control. It was brought into being because of the fact that the Fisheries Act, as it read, did not exercise control because of its inadequacy. There is a proposal in this bill to change that, and it will perhaps provide some control over

vessels operating in inland waters and prevent the discharge of waste material. I will reserve any further comment in this regard until we come to a detailed clause by clause consideration of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the second reading of this bill I do not intend to traverse the ground that has already been covered by my colleagues from Newfoundland. Suffice it to say that I agree thoroughly with the observations they have made about this bill. I must say I cannot refrain from making a brief comment-and a very brief comment, because I do not think it deserves much more-about the very laboured attempts of the Minister of Justice, using United States precedents, to show that he was introducing freedom, United States style, into Canada and in doing so justifying police methods which most people who supported the bill of rights thought were going to be ended by the bill of rights. I think perhaps until we get into committee that is all his speech merits by way of reply.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse)-he was in the house until just a moment ago and I wish he was here-I see he is here, but not in his accustomed place-[DOT] had something to say which I think merited more serious attention than the observations of the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who is, I am sure, just as anxious as everyone else who represents a fishing riding to have the fisheries of Canada adequately protected, was disturbed lest unilateral action by Canada, if it should be taken, would provoke retaliation from the United States. Well, I must say I regard that as a sensible concern, and I think every Canadian ought to regard as a sensible concern anything which might endanger our market for fish in the United States which is absolutely essential to the well-being of the fisheries. I certainly agree with the hon. member about that; but I felt it rather strange that the hon. member should have waited until May 2, 1961, to express this concern because he had a wonderful opportunity to do it in June of 1957. I happen to have in my hand a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. of June 4, 1957, which reports the peregrinations of the hon. gentleman's leader through Nova Scotia, and in this report I read:
During his day-long tour, with scheduled stops at Chester,-
A place familiar to the hon. gentleman.
-western Shore, Mahone Bay, Lunenburg and Liverpool, Mr. Diefenbaker criticized the federal government-
That was the Liberal government.
-for not making a stand regarding laws which allow United States draggers to fish within three
Fisheries Act
miles of the Canadian coast while Canadian draggers have to respect a 12 mile limit off their own coast. He said that the federal government apparently was afraid of annoying the United States, although "if the United States was interfered with they would immediately make their stand known."
I assume the hon. gentleman was under the wing of his leader on that occasion, but there is nothing in the Halifax Chronicle-Heraid that I can find to show that the hon. gentleman expressed his apprehension about the views that his leader was expressing at that time, apparently for the purpose of getting votes for the hon. gentleman. It seems to me that that would have been the time to express this fear, that would have been the time to point out to the Prime Minister that he did not really know what he was talking about, that he was going to lose the market for our fish by threatening the United States in this way.
Well, sir, I do not believe in threatening the United States; I do not believe in any of this nonsensical business of trying to appeal to the public in the way in which the Minister of Finance used to do when he was over here. "We will speak in no uncertain terms". We all know the way he whimpers in Washington now compared with the way he used to talk. But I do say, sir, that I do not believe that, having gone through what we have gone through in the interval between 1957 and 1961, there can possibly be any real danger of any such retaliation for this reason.
We have had the conference on the law of the sea at which the present government put forward the views that were outlined by the previous government, views on which both Canadian governments agreed, and I am glad they did agree because I think the position we put forward was in our national interest and it was a good thing that all Canadians should have agreed on that. We very nearly got everybody else to substantially agree on that at Geneva. With one amendment which, if we did act unilaterally, we would want to make as a condition of our action, we did secure agreement and got the co-sponsorship of the United States. If it becomes necessary to act unilaterally, I would not advocate for one moment that we should do so without prior consultation not only with the United States, but consultation with all those other powers, particularly those that are interested in fishing in the north Atlantic who were willing to agree to the convention on the law of the sea.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might call it five o'clock.

Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Ernest James Broome: Would the house consider continuing on with this measure from five to six? It might be possible to get unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member. Would he mind repeating his suggestion.


Ernest James Broome: I was wondering whether the house might give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate continuing his speech?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Much as I like to talk, I do not think I myself would be able to give any such consent.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company -Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman,
when this bill was last discussed, which I think was some two weeks ago, we had another excellent contribution by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Once again he demonstrated not only his considerable knowledge of this particular subject but also his courage in standing up to what has been certainly very severe criticism in maintaining the stand that he has taken throughout this whole debate, a stand which I believe should recommend itself to many more of the party which the hon. gentleman represents. I was very glad to see the hon. gentleman take this stand, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, examples of courage of this kind are not seen too often, and certainly the hon. member must be made of pretty good stuff to stick to his guns the way in which he has.
We see quite a difference between his actions, for example, and those of another hon. member of his party who did differ on one vote and then disappeared when the matter was finally dealt with in the house. This criticism of the hon. member has gone on not only in the house but outside of the house as well. There is an article by Mr. Raymond Rodgers, who writes the Ottawa letter in the April 1, 1961 issue of Saturday Night. He has some comments to make on
TMr. Pickersgill.]
this situation and believes that some middle course should be struck on matters of this kind. This writer feels that some compromise could be reached between bloc voting and party anarchy.
This bill appears in many respects to be completely contrary to the announced policy of this government, of many of the cabinet ministers and even the Prime Minister. It is rather strange, therefore, to find only the hon. member for Vancouver South who seems to really believe this policy expounded by his leader and the other members of the cabinet. Certainly he has been the only one who has demonstrated during this particular debate that he believes what he says and that he really stands by what he says. One or two other hon. members have expressed some doubt about the matter, but that is as far as they were prepared to go.
I feel it is very important that we in this committee bend every effort to try to reverse the alarming trend toward more and more United States control of the Canadian economy. We have seen it in many fields, and we see it now extending into the natural gas and oil industries. I feel, and the rest of the members of this group feel, it is high time some steps were taken by this parliament to recognize this trend and to reverse it. We see a situation in which present company treasuries are becoming the instruments for extending United States monopolistic control over so many of our industries.
I hasten to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not anti-American. I certainly do not believe the hon. member for Vancouver South is anti-American. Two members of my family have become citizens of the United States. I have many relatives and many friends in the United States. I should like to state categorically that I am not anti-American. However, I am anti-American-control of Canada's destiny. I feel that Canada's destiny and Canada's industries should be controlled by people in this country who would have at heart first and uppermost the interests of this country. I do not blame the people of the United States for doing what they are doing in our economy. They would be silly if they did not. If our Canadian government is crazy enough to hand over our country on a silver platter to the United States industrialists, they would be crazy enough not to accept it.
As I mentioned before, the Prime Minister and many of our cabinet ministers have, on different occasions, made clear and strong statements condemning the former Liberal government for allowing this to happen. Things were going to change. Unfortunately, we did not see too much change and certainly the bill that is before us now represents no

change at all. This is another of the many unfortunate things we have seen in the past, and the bill is going to permit almost complete United States control of another industry. This has been the policy for the last 20 years, but certainly it has been accelerated as the years have gone by. We hear lots of fine talk, and then after the talk is finished we see a bill like this presented. Only one member of the government is prepared to stand up and fight for the very things for which the government professed to stand.
At the moment, Mr. Chairman, over one-half of our manufacturing industry is controlled from outside the country, mostly from the United States. Over three quarters of our mining industry is controlled from outside the country, again mostly from the United States. The bill which is before us is going to open one more loophole which will enable United States control to be exercised over our oil industry. This means that many of the decisions which are of vital importance to the Canadian people are going to be made by people who do not live in the country and whose allegiance and interests are not necessarily those of the Canadian people.
It could be argued, as has been done on many occasions here, that we need United States investment in Canada. We need United States investment for Canadian development. This could be true to a certain extent, but what we do not realize is that most of this so-called United States investment does not come from the United States at all. In studying the issue for 1959 of U.S. Business Investment in Foreign Countries, which is issued by the United States department of commerce, we find that less than 20 per cent of the money invested by United States companies in Canada actually came from the United States. This means that over 80 per cent of the so-called United States investment in Canadian industry has actually grown up right in this country. It represents income generated in Canada by industries controlled by people living outside of Canada. This money represents undistributed profits, depletion allowances, depreciation, all United States controlled and allowed to accumulate in Canada because of the softness of our tax laws. These tax laws are much softer than those of the United States which relate to the same situation. This, of course, is one of the reasons these investors are so eager to get over here.
What this points to is that we are now permitting the Americans to buy us out with our own money. Certainly this is something that should be of vital concern to all hon. members in this chamber. This is a trend that is going to have to be reversed. This is one of the reasons that you so often see
Private Bills
growing up in this country a kind of anti-Americanism which is not really based on facts at all. It is not realized just what the true facts are. In the Atlantic, the issue of May, 1961, I find the Atlantic report on Canada. It has some interesting things to say about this feeling that is growing up in Canada. It states:
During the last months of the Eisenhower administration, signs of a critical deterioration in Cana-dian-American relations were everywhere apparent in Canada. Canadians were simply in a mood to be unimpressed by anything attached to an American label, from the Bomarc missile misfires to the U-2 incident, the uproar over Cuba, and the curtailment of U.S. spending abroad. Yet this cultivated contrariness had almost nothing to do with the political complexion of the American administration. The greatest boom the country had ever seen was grinding slowly into a recession of major importance and the Canadians were taking out their frustrations on the suppliers of the capital-American industry.
Then it goes on to say this:
That "American" is a dirty word in Canada cannot be denied. But it is used completely without animus or rancor, in the sense that "Colorado" is used with potato beetles, "Spanish" is used with influenza, and "German" is used with measles. In Canada, "American" only means where the problem comes from and it means no more than that. The problem itself is the end product of a series of economic developments of the last ten years. Like an instalment-plan addict without sales resistance, Canada has lived on cloud nine for the better part of that period. It borrowed frantically to finance its development. Then it borrowed to pay interest on its foreign debt. It sold off its resources and it mortgaged its future.
I might add this, Mr. Chairman. That appears to me to be a much better assessment of the situation in Canada than we often see in United States publications. However, I think this bill before the committee today is one very good sign of where this trouble lies and where it is developing. I think this has been pointed out clearly by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I also note again today that neither of the co-sponsors of this bill appears to be in the chamber. In spite of the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Vancouver South the last time we debated this bill, apparently we are still not going to receive any answers to the pointed questions he asked with regard to this bill.
In view of the oft-stated policy of this government and in view of the situation and the problems I have outlined here today, I cannot see how, in all conscience, hon. members of the House of Commons can give this bill passage until these questions are answered. I do not know why we cannot receive any answers today. I do not know whether the sponsors-I refer to the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Winnipeg South-have lost all interest in this bill. Possibly, if the answers were

Private Bills
supplied to these questions that were asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South, hon. members would be of a different mind.


An hon. Member:: One of the sponsors is here.


Murdo William Martin: I am glad to see that the hon. member is back again. Since he is back I wonder whether he is prepared to answer the questions that were asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South when this bill was debated a few weeks ago.


Mr. Chown:: They have been answered. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South would agree to that statement. It would not change his position on the bill but I think he was satisfied with the answers I gave him and put on the record.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member for Vancouver South has demonstrated many times in the past that he is quite able to speak for himself, and I have not observed him to rise in his place and admit to the fact that he is satisfied with any answers he has received. In fact, the last time I heard him speak here he was complaining bitterly because answers had not been given. I recall full well that he said the other day that the answers had been given when he was away. He also pointed out that while he might have been away during one or two debates on this bill, he had carefully searched Hansard and had failed to find any answers to those questions.
Certainly, those questions have not been answered to my satisfaction, regardless of whether or not they have been answered to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Vancouver South. Until those questions are answered, I certainly do not see how hon. members sitting on the government side can salve their conscience in passing a bill like this one in view of the policy that has been so often stated on behalf of their party.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Regier:: 
William Heward Grafftey: You sound like a third-rate professor.


Erhart Regier: I may sound like a third-rate professor, but I am attempting to excite the Canadian people into defending their own interests. I regret very much the attitude that merely because a company or an individual has the money to bring a bill up to this stage, it has to be endorsed by the government, the party with the majority, regardless of whether or not the government endorses the basic principles of the bill.
I am very happy to see the Prime Minister in his seat. I should like to commend to him the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver South. If ever there was a sincere endorsation of the right hon. gentleman's own appeal to the Canadian electorate in 1958 it was the speech made in this house on this particular bill the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Frank Howard: I hesitated to rise because I thought the hon. member for Vancouver South had risen to speak, but I see he does not intend to intervene at this point. There are a number of important matters which have yet to be cleared up. I think that they might, perhaps, be attended to in a short while and then we would be able to proceed to assess the impact of other clauses of this bill on the nation's economy.
The hon. member for Vancouver South has on two occasions used words to the effect that this was a private bill and that consequently there was no party discipline or control attached to it, that members were free, in consequence, to speak and vote as they desired. The implication is, of course, clear, it being that on matters which are not private bills, private members on the government side are not free to vote and speak as they see fit but that they are instead required to speak and vote as the party machine dictates or decides.


John Cameron Pallett: Apparently the hon. member was not in the house on a previous occasion when I very carefully outlined the fact that

Private Bills
the private members' hour belonged to members of the house and that there was no question of members being obliged to vote or speak in a particular way. The hon. member may not have heard me say that, or if he did hear he did not understand.


Frank Howard: Well, if the private members' hour belongs to private members I wonder why the government insists on keeping its thumb on every bill put forward by a private member even to the point of insisting that such a bill should not be allowed to stand in accordance with the desire of its sponsor. Perhaps the hon. member for Peel was not here when that decision was reached by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and subsequently confirmed by the Minister of National Revenue who refused to follow the traditional practice of this house of allowing bills in the hands of private members to stand at the request of the private member concerned. That is certainly not in keeping with the concern for freedom and rights we have been led to think exist in connection with parliamentary procedure.


John Ferguson Browne: On a
point of order, the hon. member for Skeena is talking about something which is beyond the scope of this bill, and because of that we cannot proceed to discuss other bills which are of interest to hon. members. If there is any abuse of the procedures of this house it arises from the kind of speeches made by hon. members in that corner of the chamber; speeches made in a repetitious manner which is entirely unnecessary.


Jacques Flynn: I accept the point of order. I think it is clear. I would simply ask the hon. member for Skeena to return to the bill under discussion.


Frank Howard: I will speak to the point of order, if I may. The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway has just castigated this house for making a decision in so far as the rules are concerned and for saying that on Tuesdays between five o'clock and six o'clock private bills shall have precedence and that public bills shall have precedence on Fridays. That was a decision of the house, and if the hon. member does not agree with it he should say so.


John Ferguson Browne: I just wanted you to be relevant.


Frank Howard: I am being relevant. I was replying to a question which was raised by the government chief whip, the hon. member for Peel.
[Mr. Pallett.l


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member will realize that he has given a sufficient answer and that he should now return to the bill under discussion.


Frank Howard: Thank you for agreeing with me that the answer is sufficient. I hope the hon. member for Peel will also think it is sufficient.
However, because the hon. member for Vancouver South has expressed a difference of opinion-apparently his opinion differs from that held by other members on the government side-he has been accused in some circles-I think, wrongly and unfairly-of breaking party lines.


Ernest James Broome: On a point of order. The hon. member for Vancouver South is not under discussion today. It is Bill No. S-2.


Frank Howard: I am not discussing the hon. member for Vancouver South. I would not presume to do that in any circumstances. If we look at page 3765 of Hansard when Aurora Pipe Lines was under discussion on another day, namely April 18, we shall see some words spoken by the hon. member for Vancouver South right at the bottom of that page. In the last paragraph on that page, and then continuing over, the hon. member says:
I am not going to labour the points which have been pressed in this committee before with regard to capitalization stretching into millions to build half a mile of pipe line. The testimony in regard to this particular phase of the operation has been gone over in this committee time and time again. But it would be well for hon. members to read the testimony given to the standing committee and try to find out exactly what is being attempted. If they do I think there will be more of them come around to my way of thinking. The chief government whip has said that this is a private member's bill and hon. members are free to vote for or against it as they so choose to do. That is true.
I am relating my observations to those remarks which I have just quoted and to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South on an earlier occasion when he dealt with this same question of party control and whether people were free to vote for or against this particular bill. I am dealing with Aurora Pipe Lines in the light of the relationship between the ownership of the pipe lines company and the announced policy of this particular government in office, should this particular measure obtain the approval of parliament. I am dealing with the effect of that ownership upon our economy. This is where my remarks will lead.
As I said, I think the hon. member for Vancouver South has been unfairly charged with having crossed party lines. In my opinion he is the only member on the government side who really agrees with the Tory

policy; it is the other hon. members on his side of the chamber who have crossed the party line and who are in disagreement with the announced policy of this government as set forth in the speech from the throne in two separate places and as announced on a number of occasions by ministers of the crown who have spoken in this chamber to the effect that they intend to do everything possible to ensure a greater degree of Canadian ownership and control of industry in Canada. That is the party line, and the hon. member for Vancouver South agrees with it. But every one of his colleagues obviously disagrees with it if they support this particular bill, because the effect of the establishment of this company by virtue of this bill, having in mind the international financial relationships which exist between Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, the parent company, and the United States-controlled Continental Oil Company will be greatly to strengthen the interests of another country in the development and use of a basic Canadian raw material.
In view of the internal financial relationship existing between the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company and the United States controlled Continental Oil Company it is apparent that someone on the government side deviated from the concepts contained in the speech from the throne. I do not say this with any intent to derogate the speech from the throne or His Excellency, but do so in view of comments made by government members both in this chamber and outside, in regard to the fact that it is desirable for this country to develop Canadian ownership and control of our natural resources. In this regard I commend the hon. member for Vancouver South who apparently is the only hon. member holding true to the concepts therein contained.
We could go into discussions regarding the interpretation of the National Energy Board Act, but this has been done often in the past. I would suggest that it should be uppermost in our minds in order to protect the development of our national resources in favour of Canadian industry, economy and workmen, to curtail, as far as we possibly can, ownership falling in the hands of interests other than Canadian. This subject has also been discussed on many previous occasions, and information in this regard has been placed on the record by many hon. members, with the exception of hon. members belonging to the Liberal party who have not done so because of the tenderness that exists there in regard to pipe lines.


Mr. Peters:: Once bitten, twice shy.
90205-6-268
Private Bills


Frank Howard: Information in regard to the ownership and control of this company has been brought to our attention. Canadian national ownership is something that should be kept in mind during any discussions we may have regarding bills of this type. I do not think it is in keeping with the best sense of direction in respect of the ownership and control of our industries and resources to authorize this particular company to become established with a capital and share structure as is now proposed, because it will be contrary to our voiced concepts in this regard. I suggest companies that are established by virtue of the passing of private bills in this house should have share structures enabling them to discharge their duties with the best possible result to Canadian people and Canadian economy, and should not be allowed to be in a position where, because of outside ownership, their primary concern is the serving of interests in another nation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South, the co-sponsor of this bill, and perhaps the sponsor in lieu of the hon. member for Bow River, has placed quite a bit of information on the record which is contained in a letter I understand was addressed to him. This information appears at page 3766 of Hansard for April 18, 1961. This information was provided in answer, at least in part, to some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South with respect to ownership of the company itself.
This information shows that on December 31, 1960 Canadian ownership of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited was 2.96 per cent. This was apparently an increase in ownership from 1957. The increase in total shareholdings was the difference between 306,000 and 525,000. The 2.96 per cent represents an increase of approximately 75 per cent in ownership of shares held in Canada since 1957. When one considers that 67.77 per cent of the shares are held by the Continental Oil Company, controlled in the United States, the 2.96 per cent is a drop in the bucket, and quite inconsequential. I would suggest that the increase in the number of shares held by Canadians, which has taken place over this three year period, is also inconsequential.
A further letter addressed to the hon. member for Bow River was read into the record and appears at page 3428 of Hansard for March 28, 1961. It also dealt with the question of Canadian ownership. It is suggested in that letter that it is desirable that Canadian ownership in the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited be increased. This suggestion is then qualified by the statement that the officials would like to see this increase take place. Because this has been a

Private Bills
concern of the hon. members of this committee for some time I would suggest it is natural for those officials to make such a statement. There were further statements made but perhaps I should not trust my memory in this regard. I will read from the letter as it appears on page 3428 for March 28, 1961:
At the present moment the company does not have any need for additional equity capital to finance its operations and accordingly, cannot make any definite prediction as to the timing or possibility of a further issue of treasury shares which could be offered to the Canadian public. However, we believe the past actions of the company in making a distribution of a portion of its capital stock back in 1957 before there was any strong public clamour for such action is the best possible kind of indication of the company's attitude and thinking on this subject.
While it may be outwardly desirable on the part of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company to have this percentage of ownership by Canadians increased, I wonder what is the attitude of Continental Oil Company toward relinquishing its 67.77 per cent ownership? The desire of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company is expressed in the letter, and it may be taken at its face value. Its desire, it says, is to have more Canadian participation in ownership but, according to the letter, this can only come from the issuance of additional shares from the treasury. This means that the percentage of Canadian ownership will not bear the same relationship as it does now.
If for argument's sake, they issue a certain number of treasury shares, then Canadians will have to buy in the same ratio as they now hold in order to maintain the same percentage of ownership in the particular company. If the amount of stock issued is increased and if the value of the stock increases because of activities on the stock exchange resulting in the turnover of shares-and the value of the stock could easily change the other way; but even if all this should happen-what about Continental Oil Company's 67.77 per cent ownership?
Is Continental Oil Company going to issue the shares that it already owns? Is it going to relinquish its 67.77 per cent control over Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company? Is it going to put on the market the shares that it holds? Is it going to sell them on the Canadian market through the Toronto stock exchange or some other exchange in order that Canadians may have the opportunity of purchasing them at whatever the going price may happen to be at that particular moment?
This is an important question. If it were not analysed from this point of view it may lead some people to believe that within 10, 15 or 20 years we may expect Canadians to have not 2.96 per cent ownership but 3.96

per cent, or 4.96 per cent ownership in Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. But, without the action of Continental Oil Company, which has the controlling interest, in so far as offering or selling shares that it now holds is concerned, regardless of the number of Canadian shareholders, Continental Oil Company of the United States will still have the controlling interest in Aurora Pipe Lines through Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. By that means, the ownership of the industry exploiting these resources will still, psychologically if for no other reason, be serving the interests of Continental Oil Company of the United States rather than the interests of the Canadian people.
These are questions which I think we must keep uppermost in our minds when considering whether this particular bill should be passed, or whether any changes can be made in it by the committee itself. I do not know whether it can, or whether it is desirable that it should. But I say that if we look at this from the principle established in the debate or by the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South who I think did a commendable service for this country and the committee by taking the attitude he has and by using the approach he has, if we look at it from this point of view, from the point of view of serving Canadian interests and developing Canadian resources and owning an industry in Canada so that it serves the interests of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people we will be much better off in considering this bill than if we degenerate into-and I am guilty of this myself at times- lowering our sights and talking about relatively inconsequential differences of opinion as to what the national energy board should do or what the Alberta gas conservation board may do, has done, or will do.
This is the approach we must keep in mind. We must keep our sights on this particular question. I think if all hon. members will do that they will, as the hon. member for Vancouver South said-I think I can dig out his words very quickly as they appear on page 3765 of Hansard of April 18:
If they do I think there will he more of them come around to my way of thinking.
This is what the hon. member for Vancouver South said. I am not using my own words. I would not advocate that hon. members on the government side come around to my way of thinking because I know what the immediate reaction would be. The hon. member for Vancouver South used this approach and made his appeal from the point of view of Canadianism, from the point of view of announcements in the speech from the throne and from the point of view of his own party's

public pronouncements. Perhaps they should do what I am attempting to do now, even though on some occasions I may have gone a little overboard in niggling differences of opinion about side issues.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The hon. member can relax; it is six o'clock.


Frank Howard: So soon? I had so much to say. Mr. Chairman, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond perhaps you would call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLean (Queens) for the second reading of Bill No. C-86, to amend the Fisheries Act.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned this debate at five o'clock I was dealing with the fears that had been expressed by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) to the effect that if we undertook to establish a 12 mile jurisdiction over the fisheries contiguous to our coast the United States might retaliate. I said that this was a legitimate consideration which we should take very seriously. I reminded the hon. gentleman that his leader, in peregrinating through the hon. member's riding in 1957, had promised to talk tough to the United States about this. At that time the hon. member, so far as the record shows, expressed none of the fears, none of the apprehension, that he expressed today. I suggest that perhaps that would have been the right time to do it.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you do it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why didn't I do it? I was
not campaigning to put a Conservative government into office in this country. I was not trying to do anything to deceive the people of this country, either.
Mr. Pallet!: Not at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor at any other time.
Why is it so important that there should be jurisdiction for the government of Canada over the fisheries out to the 12 mile limit? I think the best reason is the very reason 90205-6-268J
Fisheries Act
given by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg when he explained to us why it was that Canadian trawlers were kept by Canadian legislation 12 miles out from the Canadian mainland provinces on the Atlantic coast. It is very important, not only to give a reasonable opportunity to the trawler fisheries but also to give proper protection to the inshore fisheries.
I was rather astonished that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg should have said, as he did this afternoon, that the inshore fisheries did not seem to matter very much any more. I am afraid the hon. member would find it difficult to obtain much support for that view. I have here in my hand an extract from the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax for Saturday, April 29, three days ago. The article contains a report of a speech made by Dr. Henri Fougere, who is on the staff of the fisheries technological station at Halifax. In the course of his speech, as reported here, Dr. Fougere pointed out that as recently as 1959 the inshore fishery accounted for 78 per cent of the cod landed in the Atlantic provinces. This means that the inshore fishery is extremely important.
As long as we are going to consider, sir, that under international law we have to allow foreign draggers to come within three miles of our shore it is no longer tolerable to keep Canadians 12 miles away from the coast of Nova Scotia. It is an indefensible position. It has been an indefensible position for some time. The only reason it has been allowed to continue-I am not blaming the government for this-is that the government has sought a solution of this problem by international means which would give the government jurisdiction over all trawlers, both foreign and domestic. I do not believe it would be reasonable to keep all trawlers out beyond the 12 mile limit everywhere along the coast. I do not think it would be reasonable, but I am not an expert. However, in those areas in which there is a flourishing inshore fishery, it is a shocking thing to have gear torn up by draggers, either foreign or domestic. This is the situation, and the inshore fishery is being ruined by these draggers.
If we had jurisdiction domestically, if we Canadians could decide where and under what circumstances fishing could take place, then there is no doubt but that we would be able to reach some reasonable modus vivendi with those countries such as the United States, Portugal, Spain and France which historically have fished in these waters, and perhaps even some of the newer countries, for a 10-year period of phasing out such as was defined by the proposal the United States co-sponsored. I would think,

Fisheries Act
sir, there should be support for the suggestion which was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) a year ago to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and to which the Leader of the Opposition referred again this afternoon, that we should seek agreement among the 54 nations that voted with us and the United States for our joint resolution. We should do so quickly, and should not dawdle about. Having reached an agreement with them, then we should do what many another country has done successfully, Iceland being the most recent example, and make a unilateral declaration that we consider our fisheries jurisdiction extends out to the 12 miles, and that we are going to endeavour to enforce it.
If we cannot get agreement among the 54 nations, then we should go to the half dozen nations that do fish in the northwest Atlantic to see if we can get a reasonable understanding among them, as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) suggested a few moments ago. If that is not possible then surely if the 150,000 people living away up on the edge of the Arctic circle in Iceland can assert their sovereignty against the majesty of the Britannic crown surely a great country like Canada is not going to be afraid to protect what is our patrimony, what is our birthright, and what brought our ancestors to this country in the first place, the fishery of the new world.
I cannot believe, sir, that the United States government, which co-sponsored the proposal in Geneva, would repudiate that action. I grant that the United States has had historic rights. I am one of those who believe that we should always seek understanding with the Americans. I do not believe in making idle threats or in talking in no uncertain terms. I think there is a great deal more to be said for talking about these matters in certain terms, in moderate and calm tones and in sweet reasonableness wherever possible. In the free world today it seems to me that we have so many things in common and are faced with such great hazards that I would not feel that determined, reasonable and quiet negotiators would have any great difficulty in reaching agreement with the United States about this matter.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not do it before 1956?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, I think, asked why we did not do it before 1956. We started on a course in 1956, as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this afternoon. We started in 1956 on a course which has been followed precisely by the present government. Indeed, we
EMr. Pickersgill.]
had an example-and perhaps I have been provoked into saying this by the hon. gentleman-of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), at the very opening day of the session a year ago, producing this little booklet on the law of the sea and distributing it to all of us, so confident was the hon. gentleman that he was going to be able to accomplish what the Leader of the Opposition had started when he was in office. It was perhaps a little like the Columbia river matter. Perhaps hon. gentlemen anticipated their success a little before it had arrived. In any event, they were taking the absolutely essential first step. Obviously, the right thing to do is to get international agreement, if possible. I commend the government for following that course. I commend them for the zeal and vigour with which they acted at Geneva. The only thing I cannot commend them for is that they did not succeed.
I am not blaming them for that. I just say that I cannot commend them for it because they did not succeed. We all regret that fact but we must face it. This is a matter really of life or death to the oldest industry in Canada, the first of all our industries. It seems to me that it needs to be pursued with a good deal more vigour than that with which it has been pursued in the last year since the failure at Geneva.


Edmund Leverett Morris: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Howard@: Are you a fisherman too?


Edmund Leverett Morris: -it is always refreshing,
although not necessarily convincing, to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) admonish the rest of us to sweet reasonableness. I must say at the very outset that I thought that his remarks were a great deal more reasonable than were those of some of his colleagues. Indeed, in some of the remarks he has just made he was in fact giving the answer to those on the Liberal side who spoke earlier this afternoon. I am glad for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I was a little bit concerned about him yesterday when on agricultural rehabilitation and development he got himself out pleading the case of the western wheat grower. I suppose today, having thought the matter over, he decided he ought to get back closer to the hearts of his constituents.
I had not intended to speak on this matter at all. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asks me whether I am a fisherman.


Frank Howard: A fisherman too.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The answer to that question is that I am no more or no less a fisherman than is the hon. member for Bonavista-

Twillingate. Indeed, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not now even what he described himself to be in his last nomination papers. He is no longer a ship owner and ship operator.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you sure?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. gentleman asks me from his seat whether I am sure. Of course I am not sure because all I have to go on is his own word.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is more than one ship on the sea.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I wish to speak very briefly on one of the principles-for that is what it is-in the bill now before us and so defined by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) who led off in opposition in the debate on this item earlier today. I refer to the item dealing with the 12 mile limit and the three mile limit.
Hon. members who were in the chamber this afternoon may now recall that during his remarks I asked the hon. member for Skeena, who had recommended unilateral action to enforce the 12 mile limit, how he would propose to enforce this 12 mile limit. I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has remained in his seat throughout the debate because the issue of enforcement has been neatly avoided, in my opinion, by hon. members who have spoken here this afternoon. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition-a man who has experience in international diplomacy and who knows that much more than fishing is involved in the breadth of the territorial sea-said that, in his opinion, I had chosen a very poor symbol when I inquired about enforcement.
For example, I asked what the hon. gentleman would do if a Russian trawler sought to enter the sea. The Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. member for Halifax -if I am paraphrasing him correctly-is apparently not aware that the Russian area is 12 miles. I do not like to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition. In the field of international affairs there are vast areas of knowledge which are not in my possession. However, it just happens that I did know that fact. Indeed, I think I knew a little bit more about it than the Leader of the Opposition put on record as his knowledge today. There appears to be confusion in the house when we speak about territorial limits and fishing rights limits. The position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is identical wth that which it commenced in Czarist days. Since 1909 the Soviet union observed a 12 mile territorial area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Soviet union had not come into existence then.
Fisheries Act


Edmund Leverett Morris: I said earlier that the Soviet union had followed the same principle as that initiated by the Czarists in 1909. This was to define an area of 12 miles as the territorial sea.
Hon. gentlemen who are provoked or inspired by today's debate could consult the publication of the Society of Comparative Legislation and International Law available in the library of parliament. It was consulted earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten). I have no doubt that other hon. gentlemen have seen it. It gives a synoptic table of national claims to the breadth of the international sea and the territorial sea. Therein they will find, as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's listed today, claims varying from three miles to two hundred miles. But this was not the Canadian position. If I understand the matter aright-and in responsible representation of my constituents I hope I understand it aright, and I have thought that I did so-at the Geneva conference the Canadian position was that we should like to see enshrined a three mile territorial sea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Six.


Edmund Leverett Morris: If the hon. gentleman will desist from interrupting me I will presently come to the full story. I quite accept the proposition that it was ultimately resolved at six miles, but I should like to tell my own tale about this. The position taken originally by the Canadian delegation was for a three mile territorial sea, but with an additional nine miles in which the coastal state would have exclusive fishing rights.
We already have rights, some of them extending beyond three miles, for other activities of government. I think we claim customs jurisdiction out to nine miles. It may be that my recollection is correct and we have customs jurisdiction out to nine miles. Various nations have claimed jurisdiction for sanitation, fiscal policy, immigration, the breadth of the territorial sea and fishing areas.
The original Canadian position at Geneva was for a three mile territorial sea and a nine mile exclusive fishing area. The United States' position was not this at all. The compromise position was a six mile territorial sea and a six mile additional sea, which the Canadian delegation would have accepted for exclusive fishing rights, but the United States' position would have confined this to a nonexclusive fishing zone wherein would be granted the so-called traditional rights in perpetuity.
Indeed, this was carefully explained to the house on July 25, 1958, by the then minister

Fisheries Act
of northern affairs and national resources. I will cite what the minister is reported as having said as reported at page 2683 of Hansard of the House of Commons for that date:
-in the final analysis the central issue before the conference was not whether there should be a fishing zone but whether it should be subject to existing traditional rights as proposed by the United States or whether it should be exclusive and without impediment as proposed by Canada.
So in respect of the area of territorial sea Canada has not laid claim to a 12 mile area. Yet today, if I paraphrase the remarks of hon. members correctly-and I seek to do so-we heard the hon. member for Skeena recommending unilateral action. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Tucker) said, if I heard him correctly, that all that was required was courage to go out to 12 miles.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) was more modest and said that we ought to seek some understanding with the 54 nations who voted with us.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I said nothing about territorial limits.


Edmund Leverett Morris: That is quite right; the hon. gentleman did not say anything about territorial limits. I accept that. I did not identify him or any hon. member as being individually confusing and confused about this matter. I am simply saying that in the debate this afternoon, and I can become more vigorous about this-


An hon. Member:: Please do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -hon. members talked about unilateral action towards the development of a 12 mile limit but desisted from saying how it would be enforced.
It is all very well to say that all that is lacking is courage. It does not take any courage to be a braggadocio. It often takes courage to be reasonable and to take reasonable steps. I am sure the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate will forgo in patience the reading of his newspaper to hear the reiteration of that sweet word describing a characteristic which he so often himself admonishes us to manifest. Reasonableness may be a more sure and courageous ground than what is described as courage. In the press of other business it is easily forgotten that at Geneva we did not have the support of the United Kingdom, the United States of America- which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate says we should now seek to obtain- nor did we have the concurrence of China, France or the U.S.S.R. Indeed, I believe that was the first occasion upon which a simple

majority had been carried over the objection and negative vote of five permanent members of the United Nations security council.
The question that I asked this afternoon still begs an answer. How would we enforce a 12 mile limit? The hon. member for Humber-St. George's has referred to a Batin American nation which lays claim to a 200 mile limit. At the time the hon. member looked at me quizzically because I was shaking my head, by which I intended to convey to him the impression that he surely did not mean to suggest that this was a valid or enforceable territorial sea. It is violated, if one may use that phrase; it is certainly entered, traversed and countertraversed many times every day because other nations do not accept it as the territorial limit.


Herman Maxwell Batten: But they declared it as such.


Edmund Leverett Morris: They have declared it as such. The hon. gentleman and his colleagues, if I understand them aright, would have us declare a 12 mile limit for Canada but they will not answer the question of how to enforce it. What purpose is served by legislating for domestics and nationals a law which cannot be enforced?
This afternoon I used the example of a Russian trawler. I do not wish to pursue that because in other matters affecting marine life and the conduct of other fishery in the high seas we are making, and we hope we will continue to make, good progress with Russian negotiators. We are all responsible here, even private members, not to exacerbate international relations which are apparently progressing to the good service of our people.
With regard to the Icelandic experiment in which Iceland declared a 12 mile limit, I was interested in the interpretation put upon this by several hon. gentlemen this afternoon. They said this proved that you could enforce a 12 mile limit. With all respect to their opinion, the Icelandic situation has appealed to me more as a case which proved, not that you can get agreement but that you almost cannot get agreement.
Is there anyone in the house, least of all the Leader of the Opposition, who will say that dealing with the government of the United Kingdom, which has a tradition of fair play reasonableness and justice running back centuries, if you are Icelandic, is like dealing with the U.S.S.R.? If it is, it has not been apparent in years of negotiation to which all of us have been witness.
I conclude by drawing the attention of the hon. gentleman to the convention on the territorial sea and contiguous zone which was arrived at in Geneva. Article 14, says in part:

Subject to the provisions of these articles ships of all states whether coastal or not shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
Thereafter it says:
Passage of foreign fishing vessels shall not be considered innocent if they do not observe such laws and regulations as the coastal state may make and publish in order to prevent such vessels from Ashing in the territorial sea.
That is very clear. It defines the innocent passage of a fishing vessel for the purpose of our debate. But the territorial sea in Canada extends for three miles, and the most we ever tried to achieve was six miles, not 12. As to the additional six miles, we came to no effective result because of a divergence between the position taken by Canada that the additional miles should be reserved exclusively for our nationals and the United States' contention that regard should be paid to the traditional rights in perpetuity of other fishing nationals. The convention says:
The coastal state may take the necessary steps within its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
Then, further on:
The term "high seas" means all parts of the seas that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state. The high seas being open to all nations, no state may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty.
The burden of what I wish to say is this. The anomalous situation which has prevailed since 1952-and I wish to arouse no partisan disaffection with regard to this matter-has, of course, given rise to criticism. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said correctly that the proper course to have taken was to have sought international agreement. The position I take is that this is still the correct course of action, and that the use of the term "unilateral action" is-and this is the harshest word I shall speak tonight, for want of a better-grandstanding. Here is a situation which presents a great anomaly. Foreign vessels are fishing up to three miles of the Canadian coasts while Canadians are required by statute-by the Fisheries Act enacted under a previous administration- not to come within 12 miles for the purpose of fishing, and this is the situation which has been left until now for amendment by the present government. Canadians are required by statute to stay out to a limit of 12 miles.
Hon. gentlemen opposite know that this angers, irritates and arouses Canadian fishermen. What do they offer as a solution? The grandstand technique of saying that Canada could and should unilaterally move out to 12 miles. Well, the test of that is whether it can be enforced.


Chesley William Carter: Are we enforcing the three mile limit?
Fisheries Act


Edmund Leverett Morris: We are enforcing the three mile limit because it is internationally accepted.


Chesley William Carter: We are not enforcing the three mile limit. All you are talking is nonsense.


Edmund Leverett Morris: All my talking is not nonsense, but we shall leave that to other judges. The internationally agreed territorial limit has been three miles, and hon. gentlemen well know that. We are enforcing the three mile limit upon other nationals. What 1 am trying to say is this. If you say that unilateral action to 12 miles is a desirable course, how do you propose to enforce it? Would you enshrine in statute form a law which could not be enforced? To limit the breadth of the territorial sea, important as that is to our fisheries, is not solely confined in its significance to that industry. It has important defence repercussions, and hon. gentlemen well know, or should well know, that the U.S.S.R. at Geneva let it be known in informal talks that it would stand firm on a 12 mile territorial sea because there are things which cannot be done in a 12 mile territorial curtain of sea that can be done between 12 miles and three miles off the coast.
Earlier today I put a question to the hon. member for Skeena. We shall come to this matter again when we consider section 55 of the Fisheries Act and the amendments thereto. I asked the hon. member: how do you propose to enforce this? If a Russian trawler or another foreign trawler did come within 12 miles, what would you do? How would you be prepared to enforce it?


Herman Maxwell Batten: What do you do inside the three mile limit?


Edmund Leverett Morris: We enforce the Canadian domestic law upon those who are proper subjects of Canadian law, that is, upon nationals of Canada.


Chesley William Carter: Do you not enforce it on foreign boats?


Edmund Leverett Morris: We enforce the three mile limit because it is generally accepted internationally.


Herman Maxwell Batten: You will have to tell it to somebody else.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I may have to tell it to somebody else. The point is that we are not discussing the three mile limit now. We are discussing a 12 mile limit. The solution put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite is to go out to 12 miles but nowhere in this grandstand play has one of them proffered a definite assertion that the opposition, if it had the responsibility, would take the responsibility for enforcing the statute should

Fisheries Act
some other national come in and call our bluff. The proof that the opposition would not do it resides in the fact which was simply and correctly stated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
If hon. members who sit with him will read his remarks tomorrow they will discover that he has pulled the rug from under them. He said quite properly that the opposition, when they formed the government, had sought an international agreement. They had the opportunity then to go to 12 miles and the action they took is generally known. It is no use at all telling our fishermen we can enforce a 12 mile limit unless we mean to enforce it, and this cannot be done unless we are prepared to go to the extremities of enforcement.


Chesley William Carter: Have we not enforced it on our own people?


Edmund Leverett Morris: It is always a matter of perplexity to me to understand what transpires in the hon. gentleman's mental apparatus.


Chesley William Carter: That is mutual.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I may say this to the hon. gentleman. During his remarks, when I asked him a question he very discourteously told me that I could make a speech later on. I should like to be able to make that speech, if the hon. member does not mind. However, if he wishes to engage in a debate there will be one winner and one loser.
It would be widely acceptable to my fishermen if we could get out to 12 miles. But how do you get out there? How do you enforce it? Would you ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) to send Royal Canadian Navy forces to fire shots across the bows of foreign vessels? The United Kingdom did this in the waters off Iceland. Are we prepared to do it? What I am suggesting is that the unilateral action which was recommended here, except by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, is not the right solution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman is not consciously seeking to misrepresent what I said. He has repeated that statement two or three times but it does not happen to be a fact. I said if we could not secure any kind of international agreement we should make a unilateral declaration, and I stand by that statement. I would prefer that the hon. gentleman would not go on, by repetition, appearing to create the impression that I said something different. I think that all other courses should be taken first.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I did not intentionally try to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. Today he made one of his few lucid speeches, but it

is usually difficult not to misrepresent him. I agree that he said every course should be explored but, in saying that, he did not agree with his fellow hon. members. The other hon. members wanted unilateral action. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Tucker) said all that was needed to go out to the 12 mile limit was courage. If that hon. gentleman really meant that, let us see him get behind a gun shield and enforce it, because if he does not mean to enforce it, it would not be good law and should not appear on the statute books.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman, before he, in a manner of speaking, takes his seat, would permit me to ask him one question? The hon. gentleman talks about grandstand plays. Would the hon. gentleman say whether, when his leader was travelling around Nova Scotia promising that if he got into office he would establish the 12 mile limit, he described that as a grandstand play and asked the right hon. gentleman how he was going to enforce it?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of defending the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) against a man who was born in Winnipeg and now sits in a Newfoundland seat in respect of which he has not even had a nominating convention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was not born in Winnipeg.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Lucky old Winnipeg.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I intend to review for a few moments some of the contributions that have been made to the debate this afternoon. Before doing so I would like to point out that as far as the action in respect of amending the Fisheries Act is concerned, we have seen over the last year and a half to perhaps two years, a classic example of an age old gambit indulged in by the opposition. This is perfectly within their rights so to do. I have no objection to those members of the opposition doing so at all. The tactic is, of course, to try to pressure a minister, by repeated questions and suggestions from time to time, into making premature statements with regard to government intentions, or ill conceived statements on government policy so that if, because of events which subsequently transpire, the government is not able to make good in regard to the statements the opposition will be in a position to belabour them.

I have been asked time and again what we intended to do about amending section 55 of the Fisheries Act which, in certain areas of Canada, the maritime provinces, requires large Canadian trawlers to stay 12 miles from our shores. Intermingled with this question have been a great many questions about the law of the sea, a subject which is actually entirely different. Hon. members are out of order in discussing it on this particular bill, although it is closely related. I have no apology to make when I say that it has been my habit, perhaps partly from training, and partly by nature, to be rather reticent when questions of this sort have been put to me in the past.
The second move open to the opposition is an attempt to guess what government intentions are. Having satisfied themselves that they have guessed, members of the opposition then announce as their own policy what they think the government is about to do and, therefore, try to claim credit for it. This is all strictly within the rules but is, of course, a strategy as old as oppositions are. I am not finding fault with these tactics at all but I would not want those members of the opposition to think they have discovered some new tactic in this regard. I hope they have not deceived themselves into thinking they have succeeded in creating the illusion that they thought of these tactics first, and that they forced the government into panicky action practically against its will, because nothing could be further from the fact.
A number of hon. members expressed the opinion this afternoon that the government was panicked into suddenly taking action to amend the Fisheries Act because a private bill was introduced on March 22. I do not want to detract in any way from the initiative of the hon. member who introduced that bill. However, I would not like to let him or anyone else in the opposition think that these were the facts of the matter, that this proposed bill to amend the Fisheries Act was thrown together in panic by the government.
I should like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members, that these amendments are put forward now as a result of long study, the accumulation of knowledge with regard to the deficiencies of the present act, and as a result of complaints that have been made on the one hand by individuals of the public who felt they had been discriminated against and, on the other hand, by the staff of this department which has from time to time reported that, because of the way in which the act was drawn enforcement was from time to time frustrated.
The Leader of the Opposition cited, as proof of the theory presented, the fact that this bill was not mentioned in the speech from the throne. I think it is common knowledge that 90205-6-269
Fisheries Act
a government is not obliged to mention, in the speech from the throne, each and every bit of legislation which it proposes to introduce in a session of parliament. The fact that this bill was not mentioned therein does not in fact prove anything. I find this exercise on the part of the members of the opposition quite amusing because of my familiarity with it, having sat in the opposition perhaps longer than most of the hon. members now there. As I have said, these are not new tactics at all. I would suggest, however, with the passage of years the present members of the opposition may develop more skill in this regard so it will not look so obvious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Methinks the lady-or in this instance the laddie-doth protest too much.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I welcome the implied support for this bill because, after all, imitation is perhaps the greatest means of flattery. I am sincerely appreciative of the fact that most hon. members, regardless of where they sit in this house, although they have naturally had certain reservations and criticisms, generally conceded that this was a step in the right direction. It may be grudging support, but nevertheless I accept whatever measure of support they see fit to give the bill.
I hesitate to say this because I fear it might sound condescending but I do not mean it in that sense at all. I was in opposition for quite a while. This business of trying to guess what the government is going to do and then jumping on the bandwagon is quite a fine tactic if it is executed with finesse, but in doing this an opposition member is in danger, when he jumps on the bandwagon, of reducing himself to the status of the fly in the Aesop fable who sat upon the axle tree of the chariot wheel and said, "What a dust I do raise". I certainly would not want that to happen to any of my hon. friends in the opposition, but I think we should look at what are the facts of the matter.
Last year on the estimates, when the question was raised of amending the Fisheries Act with regard to the insufficiency of penalties for permitting the pollution of waters to occur-I believe this was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) -I said that this was under careful examination with the idea of bringing the act up to date in that regard. Then the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised the question whether the bill of rights when passed would be in conflict with the Fisheries Act. I remember I told him on that occasion that since the bill of rights had not passed this was a hypothetical question and therefore I had nothing further to say except it was the

Fisheries Act
concern of my department to see that there was no conflict in the legislation which I had the responsibility of administering. There were other questions. I was asked by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), I believe, whether section 55 of the Fisheries Act would be amended, and I answered him on that occasion by saying that the problem was being studied even then, and further back than that, which is the fact.
We come now to March 22 of this year when the private bill was introduced. Hon. members suggest that this was what prompted the government suddenly to introduce this amendment to the Fisheries Act. I should like to point out that on March 14, eight days before the bill was introduced, I had this to say in the house with regard to amendments to the act, as reported at page 2963 of Hansard:
I am hopeful that it will be introduced. We have been working on suitable amendments to the Fisheries Act for several months and I am hopeful that we shall have a bill to bring before this session of parliament.
As I said, I have been reticent about making flat statements as to what is going to happen in the future. I think it cannot be said that this was something that was thought of after March 22, when I said on March 14, as reported in Hansard that we had been working on this very amendment for many months. I do not intend to belabour the point, but I want to clear up the situation and give credit where credit is due, namely to the officials of my department who are concerned, as I am myself, with protecting the resources of the sea and making sure that those renewable resources are protected so that those engaged in the fisheries will in perpetuity have the opportunity to win their livelihood from those resources of the sea.
Various members devoted a great deal of time to the question of territorial waters. As I have said, strictly speaking, I think this question is out of order so far as this particular measure is concerned and I do not wish to impose on the house but I should like briefly to say that the question of the law of the sea affects many departments of government. Besides the Department of Fisheries, it affects customs, transport, defence and many others. Therefore, these various interests are brought together in the Department of External Affairs in dealing with other countries. Because the law of the sea is an international problem therefore it is the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs.
I should like to mention at this point that an excellent job was done through external affairs by the Canadian delegation at the two

conferences on the law of the sea in Geneva. We almost won success; we just missed it by one vote.
A great deal has been said about the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his actions during previous election campaigns in saying that we will stand up to the United States and see to it that the rights of Canadian fishermen are protected out to 12 miles. I should like to point out that this government has gone about this problem in a logical way. We made an attempt to seek international agreement on the widening of the territorial limits and an exclusive fishing zone contiguous to it, and gained a great measure of support from the nations of the world in this regard and had the success of eventually having the United States come to common ground with us as far as this problem is concerned.
As I said, this is the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs and I do not presume to speak for that department, but I can say that the government is continuing to address itself to this problem with undiminished zeal. The fact that the anomalous situation which has existed for years has increased in severity under changing conditions because of section 55 of the Fisheries Act has no direct connection with the wider problem. The fact that this anomaly is now being removed by this measure does not indicate in any way that the other problem is hopeless, or that there will be any diminished effort to gain international agreement with regard to a wider territorial limit and/or a contiguous, exclusive fishing zone.
This particular problem of our own larger trawlers not having the same privileges as foreign trawlers in certain areas is a domestic problem which is being rectified by our own legislation, as it should be. The fact that this is being done does not imply, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) seemed to think, there has been no progress in the field of achieving agreement in the wider field of international affairs.
A great many members suggested that the thing for us to do was to take unilateral action. The Leader of the Opposition and some other members seemed to think that the situation had now got to the point where this was the only course left open to the government. That is not the case. I want to assure the house that no avenue will be left unexplored, no stone unturned, in order to secure action which will result in greater benefits for Canadian fishermen in the waters adjacent to our own coasts.
However, this matter of just declaring unilaterally that we are widening our territorial waters or exclusive fishing zone, is not as simple as that. We have to be able to establish sovereignty if we choose to follow that

course. This is not something that is easily accomplished it other nations do not accept the stand taken by Canada. I think there is still good hope of international agreement being achieved in this field, at least among a major group of nations.
The Leader of the Opposition deplored the fact that there was no amendment to this act to declare unilaterally we were widening our territorial waters. I should like to point out that this act is concerned only with the regulation of the fisheries. I should like also to add that the act of parliament which gives the government power to declare what are and what are not our territorial waters for fishing is the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The government has power under that act, if it deems wise so to do, to declare certain waters to be territorial waters for the purposes of fishing without any further legislative action. If the government proposed to declare a zone for exclusive fishing rights, that might be a different situation and might require some legislation or amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
I do not intend to say anything more on this subject because, Mr. Speaker, I feel that strictly speaking I have been out of order for the last 10 minutes or more. I think Your Honour, in fairness, would not call me to order since other members who preceded me have been given considerable latitude in connection with this matter.
Several hon. members expressed some doubt about the wisdom of the right of seizure of fishing equipment by fisheries officers. At least one hon. member said that it was not at all reasonable that fisheries officers could seize equipment and then the minister be under no obligation to return it for 90 days if no legal proceedings were taken in the meantime. I should like to point out that at the present time there is no time limit. I believe that everyone will agree that a limit of 90 days is an improvement over no limit at all.
I should like to point out further that this 90 days is the maximum in practice. If equipment is seized, legal proceedings are taken as quickly as possible. If and when this amendment to the act is passed, it will be for the courts to decide whether or not the equipment is forfeited. I think this will be a great improvement on the present act under which the minister and the fisheries officers have very wide arbitrary powers so far as the seizure and forfeiture of equipment is concerned.
The fact remains, however, it is necessary under some circumstances to seize gear, especially gear that is illegally set. If it is left alone, it continues to take part in the breaking of the law. If it is not seized, the 90205-6-269i
Fisheries Act
law will continue to be broken until the person responsible comes back to recover not only his gear but his illegally caught fish after the fisheries officer has gone. In many cases, this equipment is part of the evidence and it is impossible to convict without it.
I want to add, though, that the law is designed to protect the vast majority of Canadian citizens who are law abiding. I am convinced this act will place no hardship on them. It is directed against people who are breaking the law. I might say that ignorance of the law is no defence. The purpose of the seizure of equipment is to protect the law abiding fisherman and the resources upon which he depends for a livelihood so that his efforts to earn an honest living will not be sabotaged by those who would, for their own quick gain, destroy the resources on which the majority of the people depend. I am proud to add that the vast majority of fishermen agree with this point of view. They insist on strict enforcement of the law when they see it being flagrantly broken by someone who has no regard for it.
I might say, too, that this power of seizure does not necessarily mean forfeiture. Whether or not the equipment is to be forfeited will be decided by the courts. If it is forfeited, that may be part of the penalty or the court may order the equipment returned. In this way, as one hon. member expressed it, the punishment will fit the crime. That is not the case at the moment. In many cases now equipment is seized but the court does not order that it be returned nor does the court order that it be forfeited. Often the guilty person is fined. In some cases the fine is small and is imposed in anticipation of the fact that the equipment that has been seized will be forfeited by order of the minister. The party who was found guilty of an offence then appeals to the minister for the return of his boat, truck or whatever it happens to be. He cites the small fine which was imposed as an indication that the infraction was regarded as a minor one and, therefore, he should not suffer this additional punishment. These matters will now be considered by the courts and if forfeiture is ordered, it will be ordered only as part of a larger penalty or it may be the whole punishment.
I think it goes without saying that it is not the purpose of this act or of the Department of Fisheries to make life difficult for those who try to abide by the law. If the law is broken inadvertently on occasion we try to temper justice with mercy, so to speak. I think the situation is as fair as it is possible to make it.
There is little I want to add, Mr. Speaker, except to say that many of the amendments

Fisheries Act
which we now propose to this act are introduced so that no penalty will be suffered by anyone until a determination has been made as to whether or not he is guilty of any infraction of the Fisheries Act or the existing regulations by the due process of law.
In that way we hope that the interests of innocent parties will be protected to a greater degree than they have ever been protected before. These amendments are not perfection but I am convinced that they are a vast improvement on the Fisheries Act as it now exists and has existed for a great many years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-"Fishing vessel".
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, it is usual for a minister, when winding up the debate on his bill, to spend the greater part of his time replying to criticisms that have been made on second reading. This evening the minister occupied at least one third of his time, I would think, in trying to refute an argument, which was put forward not by me but by some of my colleagues, that this bill had been hastened because of another bill which I had introduced some time earlier this session. I made no such claim and I do not think it is important enough to spend all that time upon it. However, from the fact that the minister took so much time in trying to disprove this point, when added to what the Minister of Justice said earlier today, it seems that we have touched a sensitive point. As my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out in his quotation from Shakespeare, "Me-thinks the lady"-or laddie-"doth protest too much".
We have certainly had a great deal of protesting here today. We have had much more protesting about this matter than we have had argument. A clever man once said that if you throw a stone in the dark and a howl comes back, you know that you hit something. It seems as though my colleagues happened to hit something here.


Mr. McCleave:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Chesley William Carter: Later I will answer any question the hon. member wants to put to me.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does that remark apply to boomerangs?


Chesley William Carter: It is not important who thought of this first. I can put on the record the fact that I had made a draft bill three years ago. Then we had the bill of rights. However, there is no point in doing this. The important thing is that this bill is before the House of Commons today and I am happy, and I expressed my delight. Whether it speeded anything up or whether it had no effect at all, certainly the fishermen are going to benefit by the fact that this bill is before us much sooner than we had a right to expect either from the speech from the throne or from the list of legislation which the Prime Minister gave us only a few days ago.
My chief reason for taking the floor is to reply to some of the arguments made this evening by the hon. member for Halifax. I do not know how we are to distinguish him from his colleague. I think perhaps we can do it by calling him the shorter member from Halifax. The hon. member is a fine example of a person who, if he does not succeed in convincing anyone else either by his logic or his oratory, leaves no doubt that he himself is thoroughly convinced. This evening it seemed that he was carried away by the exuberance of his oratory and talked himself into a bit of a trance.
The hon. gentleman made a great deal of the question of enforcement. I dealt with that point of enforcement this afternoon. I said that in my province we did not have the means of enforcing even the three mile limit and that we were not able to enforce it this winter. I have case upon case which I can cite in order to prove that statement. I put one case on the record when I cited the Spanish trawler by the name of the Santa Amalia which violated the three mile limit and destroyed the gear of our fishermen.
We cannot enforce the three mile limit with the small ships we have. I made that point quite clear. I said that we wanted not only ships that were five times larger than the ones we have now but that we wanted five times as many of them. This is an example of the talking in circles that was performed by the hon. member for Halifax this afternoon. He took the position that it was impossible to enforce a 12 mile limit. Just a few minutes ago the minister told us, as he told us yesterday-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I was not in the
chair when the discussion on second reading started, but the minister has raised the point that it was out of order to discuss this question of the 12 mile limit. Before the debate continues on that line, I should like to hear what the hon. member who has the floor or any other hon. member has to say on this point. If the changing of the three mile

limit would involve an amendment to an act other than the Fisheries Act, it seems to me that the point made earlier by the minister would be well taken. Even if this matter was discussed on second reading, the hon. member will realize that a discussion on clause 1 of a bill in committee is not necessarily the occasion on which to continue the debate which has been closed.


Chesley William Carter: On the point of order may I say this. I feel that I should have the right to reply to arguments that have been made in this chamber this evening by an hon. member. That is all I am seeking to do. I would call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that I have not mentioned territorial waters. I have used the term "12 mile limit". I do that for a purpose. It is a phrase that is meaningful to the fishermen in my constituency. When we say "12 mile limit" we are not splitting hairs about whether it is territorial water. We are mainly concerned with the fishery and the protection of fishing rights. Whether you call them jurisdictional waters, an area of jurisdiction, or zone of fishery rights is immaterial. As far as we are concerned, it is a zone of water in which the fishermen's rights to fish are protected. If you wish me to be technical I will refer to it as a zone of fishing rights; but that is all I mean by the phrase.


Jacques Flynn: I have to be technical, as the hon. member realizes, because we are studying the bill clause by clause. If the hon. member agrees with what the minister has said, that to extend the three mile limit for territorial waters, or fishing rights to 12 miles would necessarily require an amendment to another act, he will agree with me that it is out of order to discuss it now.


Chesley William Carter: Surely, Mr. Chairman, I have the right to reply to argument that has been made in the house this evening by another member.


Jacques Flynn: As I have indicated to the hon. member, the debate on second reading has been closed. We have to be relevant in committee in discussing the bill clause by clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may make an observation since you invited observations from other hon. members on the point.
I think it has been the custom of the house, and a custom that was frequently reiterated and almost codified by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, particularly when he sat on this side of the house -though I have not heard him argue so strongly for it from the other side of the house-that a brief general discussion on the
Fisheries Act
first clause of a bill, the kind of argument that arose in the debate on the principle of the bill, has always been permitted. Not extended speeches, but a brief discussion has been allowed.
I think it would probably save the time of the committee, considering that the debate was largely concentrated on this particular point, if the one or two hon. members who wish to clarify one or two points in this connection were allowed to proceed, as has seemed to be customary. I do not anticipate that many hon. members will wish to speak on this matter.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word on the point of order, I think that even those who are quite skilled in international law and various other aspects of this matter may find it difficult to arrive at a line of demarcation between the amendments proposed here and the larger problem of the law of the sea.
In view of the fact that such a wide range was allowed in the former debate, I suggest that perhaps there would be no great objection if some latitude were given in this regard. I think it might expedite discussion of this bill, rather than prolong it.


Jacques Flynn: Very well, as long as I am relieved of any responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will be tolerant, sir.


Chesley William Carter: The hon. member for Halifax belaboured the point over and over again, how are you going to enforce a 12 mile limit? We have been enforcing a 12 mile limit on Canadian nationals and there is a clause in this very bill which is going to remove that 12 mile limit for Canadian nationals. Surely there is no difference as far as the means of enforcing a 12 mile limit is concerned. The means of enforcing it in respect of one ship will also be the means of enforcing it for another.
This is done by ships, the same as is done in the case of a three mile limit. It is the same thing. The means will be the same, but you will need more facilities to carry out the enforcement. You will need more ships, more patrols. You will probably need naval ships and air patrols. But the machinery and methods that work in the case of Canadian ships will certainly do the same job in the case of foreign vessels.
The hon. member cited the experience in Peru. Has the hon. member forgotten that even though Peru has extended her area of jurisdiction 200 miles out to sea, it is not so very long ago that she confiscated three whaling ships belonging to another power-I think

Fisheries Act
they were under Greek registry-and took them into her home ports. That is what we would have to do.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Chairman, may I just draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that I did not mention Peru at all. It is pretty obvious that he was not paying any attention to my remarks. I do not know where he gets his information from, but I said nothing about Peru.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The record will show.


Chesley William Carter: I am pretty sure I heard the hon. member mention Peru, and I will look at the record tomorrow. However, we do not have to rely on Peru. We have the example of a little nation like Iceland. We have the example of a small nation like Norway, which is smaller than Canada. Norway has found some way of doing it.
Surely, if little countries like Iceland and Norway can enforce a 12 mile limit, what logic is there in saying that Canada cannot do the same?
It may be all right for my hon. friend; he may not have many constituents who are suffering because of the encroachment of foreign draggers. But I can assure the hon. member that last winter foreign draggers did affect not only Newfoundland fishing ships but mainland fishing vessels that were operating out of Port aux Basques.
I should like to tell the committee what happened in this case and I will quote one or two excerpts from a telegram I received from Mr. T. J. Hardy of Channel, Port aux Basques. This gentleman sent me a telegram on behalf of the fishermen of that area.
For the information of hon. friends I may say that Mr. Hardy is one of the most enterprising fish operators in my province. He is a man who owns and operates a fish plant. If one of his skippers becomes sick, he can get aboard that dragger, take her out and set his gear the same as any skilled fisherman; and he can build his own ship and fit her out. That is the kind of man we have in Newfoundland, and he knows what he is talking about.
This is what happened. The fishing in this area was good-


Ernest James Broome: How many copies of that
speech are you going to send out?


Chesley William Carter: -and the fishermen were bringing in catches of 150,000 pounds of fish a day. The foreign draggers came, and the catch fell from 150,000 pounds a day to 20,000 pounds a day. It does not take much imagination to realize what effect that has on the livelihood of these fishermen.


William Heward Grafftey: Read the telegram.


Chesley William Carter: Not only were our people
deprived of their livelihood, but the fish that were being caught were largely wasted. The fishermen were not able to handle the catch on board these foreign ships; the weather was cold; it was freezing a little and too fast for them to handle the fish. They had to throw the catch away, or it was washed away. There were so many dead fish floating around in this area that it was possible for people who worked in the offices there to pick up, after office hours, 1,500 pounds of fish per person. That is the sort of thing that is happening.
This was wealth of which my constituents were deprived and it was wealth that was being wasted. It was not doing anybody any good. This sort of thing goes on over and over again, year after year. My hon. friend thinks we should be satisfied to let that situation continue indefinitely. We are not going to let it continue indefinitely. We are getting pretty well fed up with it. It is all right to be sweet and reasonable, but how long can you be sweet and reasonable when your family is starving and when your livelihood is being taken away from you?
The answer to that situation is this. I think the hon. member himself put on the record this afternoon that at the Geneva convention 54 nations were in agreement on a six mile territorial limit plus a six mile zone of fishing rights. If those 54 nations were sincere in reaching that agreement, what is there to prevent them from getting together themselves and making that agreement work? How long should one remain sweet and reasonable while all those 54 nations who agreed to it in principle and supported it in Geneva and worked out a solution delay in putting it into effect?


An hon. Member:: What would you do?


Chesley William Carter: I say we have been pussyfooting long enough. The time is coming when we must stop pussyfooting, and if it means taking unilateral action, I say we should take it.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Perhaps I can make a few brief remarks. I was not in the chamber when the hon. gentleman said that for the purpose of definition he would call me the smaller member for Halifax-


Chesley William Carter: The shorter.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Perhaps I could refer to that. Heretofore, Halifax, which is an anomalous constituency resembling that of the hon. Minister of Fisheries inasmuch as it is represented by two members, used to have what was described by hon. members as a senior and a junior member. I always thought this was somewhat pompous and I must say I would be delighted if the hon. gentleman cares to distinguish between my colleague and

I by referring to the longer and to the shorter hon. member for Halifax. I can tell the hon. gentleman that it is in no way offensive. The best things in the world come in the smallest packages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a reflection on your colleague.


Edmund Leverett Morris: It is not a reflection on my colleague at all. It is simply an assertion that we do not have a senior and junior member in Halifax as used to be the case.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but, frankly, I think the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is a great deal more convincing when he is talking the language of lake Couchiching or Mackinac island, than when he is talking about taking unilateral action. Moral ReArmament comes much stronger from him than these statements that we should go it alone and do this and that. Certainly reasonableness should be the language of M.R.A. rather than talk of unilateral action. It is gratuitous of the hon. member to say that I am not concerned. I am concerned. We are all concerned. I am concerned about the Newfoundland fishery because I am a Canadian and because I am a member of parliament. I have said nothing here which should have aroused the hon. gentleman's vigour or acerbity in any way. I simply ask whether those who recommend unilateral action are prepared to enforce its consequences.
Hon. members opposite say that we can now enforce the three mile limit. The answer is very simple. It is elementary. We have jurisdiction under Canadian law over the nationals of Canada both in Canada and abroad but we have no jurisdiction over the nationals of another state. What would hon. members opposite advise doing if nationals of another state came inside the 12 mile limit? Is the hon. gentleman prepared to get into a boat and fire the first gun? That is the question he has not answered.


Chesley William Carter: The answer is very simple. We would do exactly the same as we would do if they came inside the three mile limit, and if the hon. gentleman was not so dense he would know. The chief duty of any nation and of any government is to defend its nationals and to protect their livelihood. That is our duty here. The livelihood of our people is at stake and it is being jeopardized by nationals of some countries who themselves claim or at least try to claim a 12 mile jurisdiction. The hon. gentleman has spoken as though the three mile limit were something sacred, something handed down from Mount Sinai. It was only the range of an old time cannon. That is all the three mile limit was, and then a number of nations agreed on it. Well, we have
Fisheries Act
outgrown the three mile limit. We have outgrown the cannon. We are out in space now. We are orbiting around the world. The cannon with the three mile range is out of date and we have to bring ourselves in line with events.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I intend to be very brief. I made my contribution this afternoon. However, I must make a comment or two about some of the observations made by one of the hon. members from Halifax. I shall be very careful how I refer to him because I was in the kindergarten group that he lectured a little while ago when he climbed onto Mount Olympus and looked down on us from a great height.
Despite the fact that the hon. member spent some time talking about the 12 mile limit, only two things seem to emerge. One was that he seemed to think that any extension of sovereign power beyond the three mile limit would be an act of aggression against, I presume, the rest of the world. The other point was expressed by his repeated question, how would we enforce it? The hon. member inferred that any attempt to extend our rights to 12 miles would automatically involve armed action. That was the inference, although it was not stated in so many words.
My own impression is that Canada, which has been active in negotiating the extension of territorial waters, could, if she negotiates long enough and hard enough, win by means of negotiation alone. The prospects are by no means hopeless. In any case I think our position would be so well established on moral grounds by general agreement that, helped out, perhaps, by a little of that braggadocio about which the hon. member talked, the 12-mile limit would become an accomplished fact.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We have just seen precisely in the last two minutes the contradiction of which I spoke in my remarks on second reading. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo said "Take unilateral action." The hon. member who has just sat down said "The situation is not hopeless; I believe in negotiation".
This is precisely the point. I did not say anything in my remarks against the 12 mile limit. My remarks were directed against unilateral action to try to secure it. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said he would resort to unilateral action only as a last resort, by which he meant he wants to have the best of both arguments. I say it is perfectly apparent that hon. members opposite are not prepared to enforce a 12 mile limit. It cannot be enforced. If a law cannot be enforced, it is not a good law, and if it is not good law it should not be on the statute books. I believe in negotiation. Now

Fisheries Act
that this matter has come out in free wheeling debate, I may say I was appalled to hear a former Nobel peace prize winner come into this house this afternoon and advise taking unilateral action. Negotiation is the only way to achieve a 12 mile limit. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not check his script with that of the Leader of the Opposition because they said opposite things. You have got to negotiate because you are not prepared to enforce it. If we can establish a six mile limit it will be better for our fishermen than a three mile limit. I am saying that I do not believe in unilateral action at this time. I do not believe the hon. gentlemen, who have said they do, are prepared to take the consequences in the way of enforcement. What could be clearer than that statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman seems to know better what I said than I do myself-


Edmund Leverett Morris: That is possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -perhaps I can put this in a way that even that hon. gentleman, who has neither the will nor perhaps the capacity to understand, will find it hard to misrepresent. My position is not necessarily that unilateral action be taken and that was precisely the position taken by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the people of this country will be rather more impressed by the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition as to what might be possible in international politics than they will by the shorter hon. member for Halifax. The fact of the matter is that they all know that a little country like Iceland, having made a unilateral declaration, has succeeded, as I pointed out earlier, in getting the majesty of Great Britain to accept it, reluctantly, and in some instances with some difficulty. I do not believe that we are such pusillanimous people, that we Canadians are so frightened by our own shadows that if we can get a convention, by agreement in advance with other countries concerned, we will not do so. I do not believe that if we set our hands to this task we will fail. In fact, I am quite confident that we occupy such a position in the world that we would be successful in doing this.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: How long would it take?


William Moore Benidickson: The Conservatives will take too long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the members of the government are as much interested as the hon. member for Halifax in securing this, it will certainly take until after the next election,

and until my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition becomes prime minister.


Mr. Ricard:: That will take another 25 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When that happens it will not take very long, as it will not take very long to get this country moving again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have listened this evening to the debate since 7.45 and have found some of the remarks most interesting indeed, especially those made recently by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I wrote some of them down. He said, we enforce the 12 mile limit on Canadian nationals and they obey the law. It is only natural that all east coast fishermen who are good Canadians would certainly obey the law. The hon. member went on to say, if we can enforce the 12 mile limit on Canadian fishermen we can enforce it on fishermen from other countries. He said it was easy to do this. He suggested that all we need is more patrol ships and more air patrols and that we, like Norway, could enforce a 12 mile limit on any ship operating off the east coast.
I believe tonight that the opposition has really gone on record in so far as the east coast fisheries are concerned. I do not believe that hon. members want to see large trawlers leaving Halifax, Lunenburg, Louisburg or St. John's, Newfoundland, under protection of gun boats supplied by the Royal Canadian Navy, and aircraft supplied by the Royal Canadian Air Force. If that is the position of the Liberal party, and I think it has been well stated, I am pleased to see that it has finally been placed on the record. I do not approve, as the member for one of the largest fishing ports on the north Atlantic coast, and I raise strong objection to the remarks put on the record by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I believe this government realizes that it has a duty not only in respect of deep-sea fishermen, but inshore fishermen as well. I have both types resident in my riding and I recognize the value of inshore fishermen to the Canadian economy. It is evident that the Liberal party does not wish deep-sea fishermen to have equal chances, as do fishermen of other nations. Members of that party discussed the situation in such a way that they have led us to believe they want our fishermen kept 12 miles off the coast without the opportunity of enjoying the same rights as those fishermen of other nations. I think this is a wrong approach and would suggest, under this government, that there will be no second class citizens, no second class fishermen. We intend to protect their rights.

We have heard other statements made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggesting that I was not interested in inshore fishermen. In my riding of Queens-Lunenburg there are a large number of inshore fishermen, lobster fishermen, as well as ground fishermen, and I should like to go on record as stating that as long as I represent that riding I will endeavour to see that they receive a fair share of the harvest from the sea.
Clauses 1 to 13 inclusive, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill for the second reading of Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of Bill No. C-77, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for introducing this bill. I want to say at the outset that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that have come before parliament this session. This bill is of great importance to the people of my riding and I personally feel that it will have the effect of raising the standard of living of many people in the area.
The interlake area is primarily an agricultural area and is composed mostly of mixed farming. In the Selkirk constituency we have some excellent land. We also have some marginal and some submarginal land. This legislation is designed to raise the standard of living of those engaged in agriculture and primarily of those on marginal land. I can see that this legislation has great possibilities of doing that for farmers in my constituency.
The interlake area has never been included in a P.F.R.A. district. The reason given for excluding it was that the P.F.R.A. was set up for drought areas and conditions in the interlake area were the opposite. No matter how you look at it, damage caused by soil being too wet or flooded is every bit as bad as or worse than damage caused by drought.
Under this legislation the interlake area will now receive the benefits that other areas have received under the P.F.R.A., and therefore this area will probably see more immediate benefits than many other sections. Farmers will now be eligible for assistance
Marginal Lands Development for dugouts and the greatest benefit will come from the establishment of community pastures.
This piece of legislation is bold and imaginative. It deserves the support of all the people of Canada. If this plan for rural development succeeds, and if the federal and provincial governments advance the money to make marginal farm rehabilitation successful, this legislation will have important social and economic results for agriculture and for Canada.
In the past the trend has been for farmers to move off the farms and when several leave the same district it makes that particular community poorer. If this legislation bolsters the income of marginal farmers and of other more successful small farmers as well, it can revitalize the whole rural scene and renew prosperity for small business in rural areas as well. It is important that this legislation be supported by provincial and municipal governments. It offers social and economic benefits to rural people, and it will stop the exodus of rural people to the large cities. It is important that local chambers of commerce, service clubs and other organizations render support to this rural rehabilitation and development program. If everybody digs in and gets behind this legislation it cannot help but succeed.
When the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) was speaking on the bill last night he adopted a rather negative attitude. He did admit that he was supporting the bill but nevertheless he found fault with the preamble. Actually, the preamble is an excellent one. It reads as follows:
Whereas agriculture in Canada is undergoing technological changes that necessitate adjustments on the part of many Canadians engaged in this basic industry in order to maintain or raise their standard of living;
And whereas all Canadians, and Canadians engaged in agriculture in particular, may benefit by projects providing for the alternative uses of agricultural lands that are marginal or of low productivity, by projects for the development of new opportunities for increased income and employment in rural agricultural areas and by projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada;
And whereas such projects can best be advanced on the part of Canada by the undertaking of research and the providing of assistance to provincial governments and agencies thereof with respect to such projects;-
From the preamble hon. members can see that the bill covers a very wide scope and deals with the alternative uses of land and rural development projects. It is true, as has been said in the debate previously, that some of those projects will not give immediate benefit. It will take time for them to show real benefits to the people.

Marginal Lands Development
I wish to make a passing reference to the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). In speaking on this bill last night the hon. member referred to having lived in the bush of northern Manitoba. These remarks can be found at page 4186 of Hansard. This was the second time during this session that the hon. member referred to Ashern as being in the bush in northern Manitoba. The first reference may be found at page 3657 of Hansard. I am sure that the people of that town and the surrounding area do not appreciate being referred to in these terms, since this type of reference gives the impression that they are backward. This is directly opposite to the truth. The town of Ashern and the surrounding area are a very progressive community.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Having two cabinet ministers at the same time.


Eric Stefanson: That is correct, but I do think that the hon. member himself has got bushed and is completely out of touch with the conditions in Manitoba. The people of this district are industrious and proud of the opportunity of being able to help themselves. Through their hard work and initiative they have prospered.
When speaking on this bill last night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate went on to refer to being in the bush of northern Manitoba. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Jorgenson), interjected, as reported at page 4186 of Hansard:
In one of the areas that will benefit most by this bill.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said "no". This indicates that he has lost touch with Manitoba, or else he just does not understand the bill. It is true that the farmers in the area are growing oats, wheat, barley and some specialized crops. However, there is only one grain elevator located on the C.N.R. line north of Warren and that is at Moosehorn, nine miles north of Ashern. This does indicate that the area is not a heavy grain producing area. The main revenue for this district is derived from livestock and livestock products. There are four creameries located in the district at Lundar, Eriksdale, Ashern and Moosehorn. This area, being a heavy livestock area, will benefit greatly from this legislation. Farmers will now qualify for assistance for dugouts, stock water dams, irrigation, irrigation projects and the greatest benefit of all to this type of area can be community pastures.
Throughout the years the people of the interlake area requested to be included in the P.F.R.A. district but their requests fell on deaf ears. These requests were made through
[Mr. Stefanson.l

the rural municipal council, and the council of the rural municipality of Signes was one of those councils making a request. Anyone who looks at a map of the P.F.R.A. district can see that the interlake area sticks out like a sore thumb because it has been left out of the green area which is the P.F.R.A. area. I have a copy of the 1958-59 report for anyone to see.
These municipal councils have passed resolutions at their district and annual conventions requesting the federal government that their areas be included in the P.F.R.A. district. I am sure the people of that area of Manitoba will not forget the shabby treatment they received at the hands of the former government, a government of which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member. About a year after I was first elected I submitted this report to the government. At that time these people had given up hope of ever getting any action on this type of legislation. The report I submitted to the present government was received with sympathetic consideration and is now being implemented through this piece of legislation. The interlake area will now receive the benefits which it was previously denied, that is the benefits that are granted under P.F.R.A.
The hon. member also mentioned that he had been in that part of the interlake area in 1911. I came to that area a little later with my parents in 1915, and not to the town of Ashern because they settled in the district of Vestfold. The only difference is, however, that I have a far greater assocation with the district than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate since I arrived there in 1915 and have lived there continuously except for eight years spent in Winnipeg. This particular piece of legislation will bestow many benefits upon the interlake area because it deals with alternative use of land. We have many small farmers in that area who are located on a quarter section of land which is not good farmland. I am sure that in time, through the instrumentality of this measure, these people will be relocated.
The people of the area will receive a great deal of benefit as a result of the establishment of community pastures. I want to refer to the district where I first settled in 1915 with my parents. There were many settlers living in the district of Vestfold at that time. Today there are only a few farmers left. There have been great improvements made in the breed of cattle. In those days most of the farmers did not have good stock, but today you will find some of the finest cattle herds in Manitoba in that interlake area. A farmer by the name of Albert Thorgilson from Vestfold, Manitoba, exhibited two animals at the winter fair in Toronto last

fall. This indicates the type of stock being raised in the interlake area. In addition, a hog producer, Clarence Edwards, from Stonewall, for the past two years won an award for marketing the largest number of grade A hogs in the province of Manitoba. I believe he has marketed 90 per cent or better in grade A hogs, so you can see that the area produces quality hogs.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that I feel this bill deserves the support of all members in this house and the support of all the people throughout this great land of ours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not the slightest
desire to quarrel with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). We are very good friends, and I hope will remain so. I do think he misrepresented what I said last night, and I should like to correct him. When I went to Ashern in 1911 there was a good deal of bush. Even in 1915, when the hon. gentleman came to that part of the country, there was still a lot of bush. If the hon. gentleman had read on from the word "No" in the middle of page 4186 of Hansard for yesterday, he would see that I said this community would not need the benefits of this kind of legislation because of the progressive things that had been done by the people there. The hon. member mentioned those things in his speech, the wonderful cattle and the wonderful hogs being raised there. The people have done these things for themselves, and it was in seeking to praise that that I said what I said last night.


Mr. Harris Rogers (Red Deer):: I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the minister on his appointment and I commend him for bringing down this legislation. Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, a man with a stout heart and a skeleton outfit could set himself up as a farmer with fairly good prospects of making a success. In other words, he could get a foothold on a quarter section of marginal type land and make a success. Time and the advent of mechanization have changed all this. Tractors and power machinery are very expensive. They require larger units of land for economic production and operation.
The operator of the family farm soon found himself in difficult circumstances, with rising costs barring the way to expansion, while retarded produce prices tended to limit and depress his standard of living to the point where the very existence of the traditional family size farm was seriously threatened. This was and is a problem all across the world. It is certainly not confined to Canada. Some countries surrendered to the trend and concentrated their agricultural operations in huge collective and corporate farms, while
Marginal Lands Development others instituted immense programs of subsidization, control of production and so on.
This government has committed itself to a different course of action. First, it believes that the independent family farm is the backbone of our economy as well as of our traditional democratic way of life. Second, Mr. Speaker-this is the point I want to stress- the government believes that the custody of our most precious natural resources, the productive topsoil of our arable areas, can most safely be entrusted to the care of family ownership where conservation and continuity of interest go hand in hand to preserve this heritage.
To qualify this statement a bit, may I say this. I mentioned the trend in different countries toward such things as collective or corporate farms. It stands to reason that management and workers on this type of operation would not have the down to earth feel of the soil. Their interest under pressure must be to take out as much as possible, without giving much thought to the preservation of the soil for future generations. Family ownership, on the other hand, can be entrusted from generation to generation to take care of the soil.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an incident that happened to me on an Ontario farm when I was very small. One day in talking to me my grandfather picked some soil up in his hand and rubbed it a bit. He said to me, "Son, you be good to the soil and it will be good not only to you but to future generations". I think this is an important point. Years hence when we have exhausted our oil and mineral reserves, our top soil if properly protected will go on producing in perpetuity.
Third, this government believes that Canadian farmers, if given an opportunity, would be fully capable of reorganizing their industry into economic family units, each capable not only of producing a good livelihood for the operator and his family but of repaying long term credit.
These convictions led the government to set up, for instance, the Farm Credit Act which reflects a new concept of agricultural credit. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this measure has set up a creative process which should revitalize agriculture and do so on a self-liquidating basis. I think the fact that such a solution is possible is in itself a tribute to the basic soundness of Canadian agriculture and to the character of the Canadian farmer.
The previously mentioned legislation and other measures that have been brought down are only part of a major offensive. The Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act-I refer to Bill No. C-77-apart from

Marginal Lands Development working in certain specific areas of marginal and submarginal lands, will co-ordinate and make use of all these provisions previously mentioned in order to resolve the problems facing the agricultural industry today.
This legislation encompasses the widest participation and will enable the federal government to enter into agreements with the provincial government. The minister has stressed the fact that this participation must be started at the grass roots something which is the saving feature. In other words, it must start with a firm foundation and work up from the people themselves, rural and urban, through the municipal level to the senior governments. It is what I call a nationwide project. This measure provides our non farmers as well with an opportunity to take part in this national revolution. I should like to remind them that the health and welfare of our farming industry is fundamental to the health and welfare of our whole economy.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the future of Canada is not dependent upon the wealth and resources of the country but rather upon the character of its people. I submit that this legislation provides an opportunity for the expansion of a sound economy and, as well, the development of a strong character in our people.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, at the resolution stage, we, on this side of the house, have supported the principle of this bill. However, we supported it because the minister had given it a tremendous build up.
I am sorry that this legislation should come before the house at a time when the committee on agriculture and colonization is sitting, as was also the case last night. I also regret that the government whip saw fit, last night, to accuse us of not being present at committee sittings. As a matter of fact, as reported on page 4186 of Hansard he stated:
There is not a Liberal member down here.
Mr. Speaker, I find this statement quite strange, as he himself was present at the beginning of the sitting, and I want to rectify the gratuitous statement he made last night in the house.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we did approve the principle of Bill C-77 with regard to the proper use of soil, and more particularly to the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.


As a matter of fact, we have been promoting this principle for a long time, because, if I am not mistaken, the Senate committee appointed by the former government went thoroughly into the matter.
We all know that farm revenue in some districts is inadequate; the minister stated so himself at the resolution stage, when he said that, in the province of Quebec, only 47 per cent of the farmers would benefit from this bill. Yet, when the resolution was discussed, the minister said he had great hopes of being able to consult the provinces as well as the farm organizations between the time the resolution was submitted and the discussion of the bill itself. That is what he said, as reported on pages 3263 and 3264 of Hansard:
Following the introduction of the resolution in January I thought there would be a debate for two days. Then I intended to go to each of the provinces, see the provincial governments, sit down with them and work out the general framework for a series of agreements that I thought we should work toward, especially the areas where research has to be done before agreements can be completed. Following that meeting with the provinces there will be a time lag, as they work on this, in some instances of three or four months. I want to discuss with them the terms of the bill to see if it is broad enough to cover the various types of agreements we have in mind. Second, I want to go to the farm organizations, who have been most co-operative and helpful over the years in suggesting this idea, show them the legislation and ask if they have any ideas for broadening it.
When the minister closes the discussion, I hope he will tell us whether he took these steps by getting in touch with the provinces and farm organizations.
Moreover, on March 23, 1961, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) made the following statement, which appears on page 3278 of Hansard:
Let me read to the committee the recommendation of the minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan, Hon. I. C. Nollet-
Now, Mr. Speaker, comes the part of the recommendation quoted by the federal Minister of Agriculture:
1.	Provision of financial assistance in connection with agreed upon projects, on an approved basis.
2.	Making top level technical and professional advisors and consultants available, as requested by the province.
I wonder whether this bill includes a particular formula, as it seems to be rather general in scope.
Yesterday, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, it was his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Jorgenson) who introduced the bill. He stated among other things, as reported on page 4183 of Hansard for May 1:
The bill itself fits into the broad philosophy of this government in respect of agricultural policy.

The subjects of bills that have been introduced into this House of Commons and have been passed as legislation include the following: a program of price stabilization to alleviate the effects of the fluctuation of prices owing to economic conditions beyond the farmers' control; the introduction of a crop insurance program designed to minimize the effect of fluctuation in yields caused by weather conditions beyond the farmers' control.
I was quite surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary boast about the crop insurance act, as we all know that very few provinces have yet availed themselves of this scheme and that in fact, the scheme is being tried out in only one of the provinces, namely Saskatchewan.
The parliamentary secretary went on to say:
The bill outlines in three separate phases the intention of the government. First of all there are the projects for the alternative uses of land.
The minister has on several occasions indicated what he has in mind in this respect. He has outlined that many areas of Canada which are presently being used for agricultural purposes could be put to better use for the production of trees or as reforestation projects.
Here again, I think the act is too general and raises some doubts, because if you look at this year's estimates, you find that the Department of Forestry will spend $400,000 on reforestation. In future, will reforestation be carried out by the Department of Agriculture under this act, or will it be carried out by the Forestry Department? That is a question I should like the minister to clear up.
Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary, on page 4184 of Hansard, quoted yesterday from a report wherein it was stated that in any such plan, all levels of government, and I quote:
-will be involved and voluntary organizations such as chambers of commerce, agricultural societies, and community development corporations must lend their assistance to a co-ordinated program.
Therefore, it means that once again the government is counting on the co-operation of organizations for the implementation of this bill. It should not however be inferred from this statement that chambers of commerce and farm organizations have not done their share in the past to help the cause of the farmers.
I said the bill is unusually brief and that we are unable to detect any definite project in it.
In addition, I frankly admit that the statement of the parliamentary secretary caused us to wonder further when, as reported on page 4185 of Hansard, he said that this statement was taken from an item in the Canadian
Marginal Lands Development Federation of Agriculture news and information bulletin of January 1961 and entitled "A Rural Development Project in Quebec". This is what he said then:
There are many mountains and hills in that area-
He was addressing himself to the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).
-and some of the farms are of a marginal type. One young farmer, Real Boulanger, a confirmed skier, decided that the community had real potential as a skiing resort. He and his family and friends organized Mount Sutton, Inc. in February of 1960, and purchased 2,300 acres of land on the north side of Mount Sutton, the highest peak within 100 miles of Montreal. Then came the development of a first-class ski resort.
A little further, we read:
Jean Lessard, one of Canada's 1960 Olympic skiers, has agreed to provide skiing lessons. What has it meant to the community? Sutton is a rural community, and most of the local businesses were dependent upon the farm. The resort has brought new business. Twenty five people have been employed on the project, and it will provide fulltime employment for from 15 to 20 people all winter.
I say that this bill is too wide in scope, since everything seems to come under agriculture. We have reached the point where we are dealing with the development of ski clubs.
I wonder if indeed the object of this bill, and the purpose of the minister, is to promote such developments on submarginal farms.
And so, we can think up almost anything, or contemplate any project at all under a bill as vague as this one.
Moreover, as I was saying, this bill provides for no clear-cut project; it rather deals with such things as studies, researches and enquiries. Naturally we approve the principle of the bill, but it must not be limited to research, enquiry and study; it should also provide for projects that could be undertaken on submarginal farms.
This bill offers nothing in the way of definite projects with the result that, when it is passed it will be impossible for us to tell farmers on low yield land that such or such project may be undertaken on their farm. We were expecting something better and we feel that the bill could contain specific projects. Moreover we believe that if the bill is passed this year, the act could not be put into force immediately, since there is no provision for it in the estimates. It means that no subsidy will be paid this year unless we are requested to approve a supplementary vote.
During the debate last night, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston), a government

Marginal Lands Development member, said the proposal would be very expensive. He surely meant that the government would be providing large amounts so as to make this legislation practicable. It is rather hard to assess the government's generosity because we still do not know what the program covered by this legislation will be.
There has been reference to conservation in western Canada and to development of marshlands in the maritimes. There again, it is nothing new since both items are in this year's estimates for agriculture.
Last night, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to reforestation and forest products. As I said a few moments ago, we can well wonder whether the proposed new legislation, in the matter of reforestation, will be administered by the Department of Agriculture-which already had a similar division-or by the Department of Forestry.
As can be seen on page 4199 of Hansard, the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Danforth) said that the opposition is disturbed.
We certainly are not, because we feel there is really nothing here to disturb us. This legislation is too vague to enable us to discuss properly projects that might come out of it.
Mr. Speaker, we are relying on the Minister of Agriculture, and we shall find out after a while whether this bill will give the results which the minister promised at the resolution stage and promised previously in the build-up given this bill, which had inspired confidence among farm organizations of the province and throughout the country.
However, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we approve the principle of this bill.
(Text):


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: At the outset I should like to voice my disapproval of a statement made last night by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to be found at page 4188 of Hansard. It reads as follows:
This legislation is not going to contribute in any way at all to the solution of any of our immediate problems. Indeed, it may do the reverse unless we are very careful, because at the present time it would be a very grave error indeed to take anyone off a subsistence farm in order to consolidate holdings and make someone else's farm more efficient and put the person removed from his farm in the slums in one of our cities on relief.
I just want to say that provision is made in Bill No. C-77 for certain action to be taken which would refute that statement. I
do not know what the hon. member means by "immediate". I know it could be soon.
This bill has also as one of its objectives the arresting of migration from the land. The main part of the hon. member's statement implied that persons removed from farms by the application of this bill would go to the slums. That is a reflection on our rural people.
This legislation is unlimited in the benefits it can render to the whole nation, especially to rural life. This bill is of particular interest to me owing to the fact that agriculture is the largest industry in my riding. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to support it.
Bill No. C-77 provides an incentive for constructive and visionary thinking. It creates an atmosphere of awareness of the vast scope of possibilities which can be useful in the improvement of farm income and the restoration of certain natural resources so vital to the accomplishment of the desired result.
This bill, with all its ramifications, when implemented in co-operation with provincial governments or agencies thereof should provide a wide field of diversification for rural people, and as a result many families will be able to maintain their way of life on their limited holdings.
In my constituency of Grey North and the surrounding areas we have some fine farms and progressive people. We also have many marginal and submarginal farms which do not make sound economic units. Many of these farms are being vacated and sold to holders or larger units. However, others on these farms, where they have perhaps spent their lives, as their parents before them did, are reluctant to leave. Anything that would supplement their income so that they could continue living on these locations would be acceptable. With these people in mind, I will make some suggestions which I think will be helpful.
The government could assist by soil testing and other research necessary to provide a sound basis for any of these operations.
Financial assistance will be a necessity in some of these fields of endeavour. I am thinking now of enterprises that could be satisfactorily adopted by family units. We have many areas suitable for blueberry production on which the Department of Agriculture has up to date information. Other low lying areas could be utilized for the

production of cranberries. Marked success has been achieved by several in this field. This could also be said about blueberry operations, especially in Newfoundland where this is a million dollar industry.
Game farming is relatively new and offers excellent possibilities. Pheasant and other game birds are raised to supply the ever increasing number of hunt clubs. A few others offer sportsmen the opportunity to hunt pheasant and other game birds on their farms on a per day or per bird basis. These birds are produced on the farm and released when stock on the preserve is in need of replenishment. Many more of these farms will be required to supply the thousands of sportsmen who would like to hunt where game is available.
While I am on the subject of catering to sportsmen, I would like to mention fish farming as another means of bolstering the rural income. We have thousands of sport fishermen searching the country for streams, ponds or lakes which might yield some reward for their hours of angling. Many farmers own excellent locations for the development of fish farms. I might add that thousands of fish farms are being operated profitably in the United States. We do have some such farms operating successfully which derive most of their revenue from supplying large hotels and restaurants with their requirements of speckled and rainbow trout. Many more people could be absorbed in this industry.
Fur farming has made a worth-while contribution to rural life in Canada over the past 50 or more years. However, expansion in the field of mink and fox production is not warranted at this time. We did, however, import over $71 million worth of Persian lamb skins last year. It is claimed that these can be produced profitably in Canada and could, of course be maintained on submarginal land during the pasturing season. This production would not create a meat problem as the lambs are killed shortly after birth.
We also imported in 1961 over $2 million worth of muskrats which could be produced on our own marshes and lakes. The provision in the bill for water conservation and resources management should remedy this situation and add substantially to rural income. Other fur imports to Canada in 1961 amounted to nearly $14 million. This is perturbing when one considers that we are traditionally a fur producing country.
Not far from my home in Grey North there lives an enterprising young man, Mr. Arnold Kuhl, who can rightfully claim to be the
Marginal Lands Development originator in Canada of a promising young industry known as "farm vacations". The idea has now spread to several provinces and each year more farmers will identify themselves with the enterprise and share and expand its possibilities. These farmers supply accommodation in their homes to urban families seeking an opportunity to enjoy rural life. This sort of holiday is becoming very popular because whole families can now enjoy a splendid vacation at reasonable rates in an environment that is healthful and appealing to children. Many farms through the country possess spacious homes which provide ideal circumstances for the promotion of farm vacations. Of course, these people are quick to provide other attractions, of which there is a large variety. Farm vacations open an avenue by which farm people may secure a larger share of the tourist dollar.
A sugar bush can be maintained on rough areas which are unfit for agriculture and, properly managed, can be the source of extra revenue to the family farm.
These sidelines which I have enumerated could be promoted on family units over a wide area of the country. Some of the projects would also lend themselves to specialization. I draw attention to them in the hope that provincial governments, or agencies thereof, through the provisions in this bill, might promote them among the rural people, 20 per cent of whom now operate farms that yield less than $1,200 a year to their operators.
It has been mentioned that marginal and submarginal farms could be converted to forest or tree farms. The Christmas tree farm is the only part of this program that would make a practical operation for individuals. Other reforestation of any magnitude is a long range program and would of necessity be the responsibility of large pulp and paper companies, the provincial and federal governments, or all three working together. This bill provides for such action, which should be one of the projects for immediate consideration and expansion.
Reforestation of large areas which have been timbered is taken care of to some extent by nature, but these areas, if properly managed and if proper trees are introduced, would, in the years ahead, be much more productive. This holds true in my part of the province where we had many fine stands of hardwood, but now these areas are cluttered up with tree tops and brush. They are of little value as pasture land and reforestation is the only hope of putting such properties back into useful production.
Since we have such large areas denuded by timber exploitation and erosion, our water levels have dropped so that many wells go

Marginal Lands Development dry for several months of the year. The minister through Bill No. C-77, hopes to rectify this situation, and I feel sure this can be accomplished with an accelerated reforestation program. I would suggest an immediate survey be made of the facilities available throughout the country for the production of seedlings. If more accommodation is required to supply the quantities needed, steps should be taken, in co-operation with the provincial governments, to get these establishments under way promptly. Reforestation, it seems to me, offers the best means to the end result which we hope will be accomplished by Bill No. C-77; that is, to state it briefly, to promote conservation in all elements and create better circumstances for rural people in the unsatisfactory income brackets. The benefits of reforestation would affect our whole economy. We have much secondary industry dependent on forest products. Wood has never been replaced as man's most valuable servant. Instead, thousands of new uses have been found for it and old uses have been continually improved.
Most of western Ontario is vitally concerned with the matter of water. Cities are exploiting the areas adjacent to them, and farm people in many localities are transporting water to their farms by tanks and milk cans. Reforestation, in the proper places, can do much to relieve this situation.
In our county of Grey, there is the highest point of land in Ontario, 1,735 feet above sea level. This is the great watershed of a vast territory of western Ontario. This great ridge, which embraces approximately 40,000 acres, should be completely reforested. In so doing, results would be forthcoming and, in a comparatively short time, the Grand, the Humber and the Credit rivers, which flow south, the Saugeen which flows west, and all the streams and rivers flowing north into Georgian Bay, could be restored to their natural flow, and with the assurance that spring floods would be at a minimum. The same program could be instituted at the head waters of all western Ontario rivers or in any other province where such conditions exist.
Without a doubt, the day is not far off when this program will be an absolute necessity, and I would commend it for early consideration, under this bill, with the co-operation of the provincial government.
These 40,000 acres of which I speak could also serve the purpose of a national park and game sanctuary. Under the authority of this bill more suitable areas should now be designated for national parks while choice virgin timbered locations are still available. Fire and exploitation have lost to our people some ideal territories for this purpose.

More game sanctuaries are required if we are to maintain our wildlife populations. We have thousands more joining the ranks of our hunters each year, and sport magazines continually report the scarcity of game in widespread areas. This is particularly true of the white-tail or red deer. Submarginal land or waste land could be converted to suitable game refuges.
Our local conservation authorities are to be commended for the contribution they have already made toward restoring our natural resources. Bill No. C-77 provides legislation that will extend the help and direction the authorities have hoped for, and of which they will not hesitate to take advantage.
This government should give some thought to introducing legislation in respect of the future settlement of all new areas in our country so that many of the obstacles we are now legislating to correct would be avoided.
Surrounded by a wealth of natural resources that seem inexhaustible, the pioneer in any area naturally shows more energy in using what is at hand to keep himself fed, warm, clothed and in business, than foresight in preserving any of it.
I am not in agreement with cutting our wheat acreage. This is a commodity that can be stored for lengthy periods. It is used for food the world over. It is not difficult to handle or transport. It could be our most potent weapon for maintaining peace. It could save millions of lives. It could save our own if great catastrophe overtook us. Our great western plains are reputed to be the bread basket of the world and, as such, they should continue. More of our wheat should go to those now starving. This will not hurt our market as these people are not in a position to buy. However, such humanitarian treatment could win them over politically now and for mutual economic advantage later.
I am in full accord with the remarks of President Kennedy when he said in his inauguration address "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it can never save the few who are rich".
In conclusion, 1 compliment the Minister of Agriculture on his initiative in respect to Bill No. C-77, the effects of which could permeate far into the future and affect many generations.
I would remind this house of what the scripture says through the prophet Isaiah:
"They that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places, Thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations, and thou shalt be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of the paths to dwell in."
(Translation):


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, representing a riding where

there are many farmers, I consider it a privilege to comment tonight on this piece of legislation, one that is most important not only to the fanners in my area and farmers generally, but to everybody in Canada. (Text):
Mr. Speaker, at this stage in the debate three things have become most clear in the present legislation which is before us. First, it is legislation designed to keep Canadian farmers on the farms. Second, it is also designed to raise farm income in every section of this country, be it in the west or east. Third, it is legislation designed to give the farmers of this country a fair share of the national income. This is something that this government has striven for in the past, as it is striving for now.
In my brief remarks I would like to state that the legislation before us adheres to certain definite principles which this government always keeps before it in promoting legislation. In reading the present bill, hon. members will see that it is realized that the provinces and the local people know best what is best for themselves. Unlike other administrations, the present administration consults rather than dictates. Thus this is very broad legislation which sets out the purported agreements with the provinces on a local level. I repeat that this government believes most forcibly and truly in the principle that people know best what is best for themselves on the local level.
Another principle of this legislation relates to the notion that this government and this party have an obligation to the future. Up to the present time many speakers have outlined the fact that this legislation has to do with conservation and reforestation which will bear much fruit for farmers of future generations.
In past debates much was said about this pamphlet entitled, "A.R.D.A.," coming out in contravention of the rules of this house. There is nothing in this pamphlet which implicitly states that an act of parliament had already been passed. This pamphlet just goes to show that this government and this party do not dictate to the people what is good for them. We consult the people.
I can inform all hon. members that the farm forums right across this nation and all farm groups are taking a particular interest in this legislation. They are reading this pamphlet; they are discussing it in their farm forums in all parts of the country. I repeat, this pamphlet recognizes the fact that it is best first to consult with the people when legislation of this kind is put before parliament. I repeat, we consult, sir, we do not dictate.
Marginal Lands Development (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I wish also to congratulate and thank the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Jorgenson) for his remarks concerning the Mount Sutton development in the Brome-Missisquoi riding.
I can say that this project will be helpful not only to farmers in my area, but to the economy and to people in general.
I also wish to congratulate the Boulanger family, of Sutton, and their associates for their noteworthy initiative. This is a good example for many regions of our young country, Canada.
(Text):
I should just like to mention, sir, the initiative that is being shown by the citizens of Sutton regarding the development so ably mentioned by the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Jorgenson) the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. With him, I should like to congratulate the citizens of Sutton on the initiative they have shown in the Mount Sutton development. So far as this bill is concerned, it shows what can be done when action and enterprise of this sort are undertaken. The present legislation is being discussed by farmers and farm forums throughout the length and breadth of this land.
In his remarks yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate tried to suggest that possibly while the government did not intend this to happen, farmers earning a gross or a net income of $1,200 a year or less would be forced to leave the farm. Such is not the case. The real intent behind this legislation is to raise farm income and to keep farmers on the farms. I think it would be irresponsible to suggest that either directly or indirectly this is legislation which will encourage farmers to leave the farms. It is most irresponsible to suggest, as was done indirectly by certain hon. members, that this legislation will drive farmers in the low income brackets off their farms. I know this was suggested in my own area by certain individuals and I should like to deny this rumour right here and now. As I said at the outset of my remarks, this is legislation designed to keep farmers on the farm, to raise farm incomes and to give the farmers of this nation a fair share of the national income.
I am sure it is legislation which will be received well not only by farmers in my area but by the farmers in all sections and in all provinces of this country. For that reason, along with other hon. members who have just spoken, I should like to commend it to hon. members.

Business of the House


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a western member and representative of one of the best farming constituencies in Canada, I am very happy to have this opportunity to rise and support Bill No. C-77. Since it will take more than two minutes to outline my support, may we call it 10.30?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it is 10.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can suggest to the house leader that we go on with legislation tomorrow. We seem to be making pretty good progress with legislation and it might facilitate the conclusion of the session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I welcome all these suggestions, Mr. Speaker, but I think we will follow the program as outlined. Tomorrow we shall carry on with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. If they are finished tomorrow that will shorten the session and then we shall go on with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, followed by the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. According to the time which was spent on these departments last session, we should finish the three by Saturday evening. If not, we have available the estimates of the Department of Transport.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Howard: 1. Has any agency or department of the federal government undertaken a survey or appraisal of
2, 1961	4271
Question
the value of the land and timber of the Kitwanga Indian reserve which was used or destroyed by the government of the province of British Columbia for highway 16?
2. If so, what, in detail, are the results of the said survey or appraisal insofar as area of land, volume of timber by species, and valuation is concerned?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Land valuation
Kitwanga reserve No. 1-59.4 acres at $20 per acre	 $ 1,188.00
Timber reserve No. 2-19.42 acres at $20 per acre	 388.40

(5) Timber valuation
Kitwanga Indian reserve No. 1
Material	Cordwood cords	Price	Value	Logs BM	Price	ValueCottonwood	... 1,220	$1.00	$1,220.00	60	$2.50	$150.00Birch	... 700	1.50	1,050.00	Spruce	... 285	1.00	285.00	38	4.50	171.00Pine	... 125	1.50	187.50	Hemlock	Cedar	... 30	1.25	30.00	$2,772.50	$321.00Timber reserve No. 2	Material	Cordwood cords	Price	Value	Logs BM	Price	ValueCottonwood	... 222	$1.00	$222.00	81	$2.50	$202.50Birch	... 210	1.50	315.00	Spruce	... 106	1.00	106.00	68	4.50	306.00Pine	... 30	1.50	45.00	Cedar	... 128	1.00	128.00	Hemlock	... 136	1.25	170.00	$986.00	$508.50
Plus 3,000 lineal feet of cedar poles at 2 cents
60.00 60.00 $4,648.00

Wednesday, May 3, 1961