1964-07-08

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at once on a question of privilege arising out of a statement made yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Villeneuve as recorded on page 5158 of Hansard. I was in the house when he commenced his remarks, but I was called out and was not present when he made these remarks, so it was not until this morning that I observed the statement. I quote from the translation at page 5158:
Mr. Speaker, that is nothing new for the Leader of the Opposition, since he stated in the past that family allowances were merely a piece of legislation to assist French Canadians in the province of Quebec. But I realized myself that in western Canada, and in the riding of the Leader of the Opposition, there were as many large families as there are in the province of Quebec.
Another point on which the Leader of the Opposition was wrong is that some years ago he was against family allowances because, he said, they were designed to help families in the province of Quebec.
Sir, there is not one vestige of truth in the suggestion that I, at any time, any place or under any circumstances, inside this house or outside, ever made the allegation or statement or any statement from which such inferences could be drawn. I want to make that clear now so that it will not be quoted later as not having been clearly denied.
Furthermore, as to the allegation that I was against family allowances, I simply recall to the attention of the house that when this matter was before parliament I was at one time alone in my support of family allowances: I stood for them knowing what the advantages were. Later on the entire party, with one exception, voted in favour of family allowances. I wanted to make these two points very clearly, and to state that the hon. gentleman's statement is unequivocally untrue.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks
concerning the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) about a statement I made yesterday to the effect that, as far back as 1945, he was against the passing of any measure respecting family allowances.
I maintain my statement and, further, I am not the only one to say so, because in this morning's newspaper Le Devoir we could read the following:
Diefenbaker: By favouring Quebec, the Liberals are destroying confederation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not the time-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, and I am sure he is a gentleman, will not persist in something that is untrue. I have not asked for a withdrawal. Withdrawals never catch up with falsehoods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Without an immediate reference to the authorities I understand that the long standing custom is that the statement of a member should be taken as final in the matter.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: Norih and Victoria):
1.	During the year 1963, how many wrecks and derailments took place in the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	How many were caused by (a) track conditions (b) journal failures (c) other causes?
3.	In total, what were the costs to the C.N.R. of all derailments in the Atlantic area during 1963?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Particulars of train accidents in the Atlantic region, which were reported to the board of transport commissioners for the year 1963 are as follows:

Questions	
Derailments	33
Collisions	3
Total	36
Due as follows:	
Track conditions	9
Journal failures	8
Other causes	19
3. Approximately $900,000.


REMOVAL EXPENSES, POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has treasury board made any arrangements for payment of removal expenses to prevailing rate employees who may be transferred to positions in the Department of National Defence or other government departments at other locations as a result of the reduction in national defence operations at the Point Edward naval base and, if not, are arrangements going to be made to cover removal expenses of such employees?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Authority already exists to pay the removal expenses of prevailing rate employees moved within the Department of National Defence. No provision exists for the payment of removal expenses to prevailing rate employees of the Department of National Defence being transferred to positions in other government departments. In the event that suitable employment can be secured for prevailing rate employees with another government department, consideration will be given to extending financial assistance to cover the costs of removal expenses.


*C.N.R. CONCESSION TO TRANSOL, INC.
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	On what date did the Canadian National Railways grant Transol Inc. a land concession in order
to establish a service between Levis and Riviere du Loup?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the directors of Transol Inc.?
4.	How many stations are served by this transportation company?


Mr. Canlin:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	There has been no transaction between the C.N.R. and Transol Inc. for either the sale or lease of land in connection with the highway service between Levis and Riviere du Loup.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	This company is not a subsidiary of Canadian National.

4.	Twenty two.


WORLD PAIR CONTRACTS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What works are being done under contract for the 1967 world exhibition?
2.	Were tenders called in each case?
3.	Who bid on each of these works, what was the amount of each tender, and to whom was each of these contracts awarded?
4.	What is the estimated completion date for each contract?
5.	As of May 31, 1964, how many contracts were there for which tenders had been called and contracts not awarded?

Answer:	1. The following construction
works are being done under contract: (a) MacKay pier, lie Verte bridge substructure;
(b)	MacKay pier, lie Verte bridge superstructure; (c) bridge approach at MacKay pier; (d) MacKay pier, stage I filling, as agents for national harbours board; (e) MacKay pier, stage II filling, as agents for national harbours boards; (f) rough grading, lie Verte and lie Notre Dame; (g) test borings, Theme buildings.
2.	Yes, tenders were called in each case.
3 and 4. (a) MacKay pier, He Verte bridge substructure. Close February 11, 1964. C. A. Pitts Construction (Quebec) Ltd., $1,443,955; Atlas Construction Co. Ltd., $1,898,720; Du-fresne Engineering Company Ltd., $2,362,976.40; McNamara Quebec Limited, $2,854,370; The Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., $2,369,732.25.
Estimated completion date: November 1, 1964. Awarded to Dufresne Engineering Company Ltd.
Explanation: The two lowest bids did not meet the corporation's specifications.
(b>
MacKay pier, lie Verte bridge superstructure. Dominion Bridge Company Limited, $8,574,000; awarded to Dominion Bridge Company Limited at $7,897,500. Estimated completion date: September, 1965.
(c)	MacKay pier bridge approach. Tenders close May 26, 1964. J. A. Levasseur Construction Inc., $836,328.11; Electra Construction Limited, $859,274; Dufresne Engineering Co. Ltd., $962,475.66; B.G.L. Engineering Co. Ltd., $969,557; Charles Duranceau Limitee, $1,021,695.
Estimated completion date: October 1, 1964. Awarded to J. A. Levasseur Construction Inc.
(d)	MacKay pier, stage I filling. Tenders closed March 10, 1964. Beaudry Limitee,

$1,305,000; Charles Duranceau, $1,484,600; Montreal Dual Mix, $1,756,400; Miron Company Limited, $1,895,400.
Estimated completion date: June 24, 1964. Awarded to Beaudry Limitee.
(e)	MacKay pier, stage II filling. Tenders closed April 7, 1964. Royalmount Construction Ltd., $1,217,500; Compagnie Miron Limitee, $1,682,750; Beauval Inc. and Desourdy Construction Limitee, $1,704,500; Pine Beach Sand Limited, $1,783,125; Beaudry Limitee, $1,865,000; Montreal Dual Mixed Concrete Ltd., $1,951,250; Charles Duranceau Ltee., $1,959,250; A. Billet Ltee., $1,971,250.
Estimated completion date: September 19, 1964. Awarded to Royalmount Construction Ltd.
(1) Grading, shaping and retaining walls, lie Verte and lie Notre Dame. Tenders closed June 11, 1964. Desourdy Construction Limitee, $545,700; Montreal Dual Mixed Concrete Ltd., $633,475; Miron Compagnie Limitee, $637,706; C. A. Pitts Construction Quebec Ltd., $774,500; Pine Beach Sand Limited, $890,669; D. Lamothe Ltd., $1,143,500.
Estimated completion date: September 1, 1964. Awarded to Desourdy Construction.
(g) Test borings-Theme buildings. Tenders closed, June 26, 1964. National Boring and Sounding Inc., $8,900; Foundation Testing Inc., $9,650; Maurice R. Delisle, $13,840; Terratech Ltd., $14,000.; La Cie de Forage International Ltee., $15,212; Geocon Ltd., $18,500; Selby Subsurface Investigation Co. Ltd., no bid.
Contract recommended to National Boring and Sounding Inc. Estimated completion date: July 15, 1964.
5.	Three.


*SWING BRIDGE ACROSS THE NARROWS, LAKE SIMCOE
Mr. Rynard: Now that the Jake Gaudaur memorial bridge is almost completed, has the Minister of Transport any plans to modernize the hand-operated Canadian National railway swing bridge across The Narrows, between lake Simcoe and lake Couchi-ching. in order to expedite marine traffic on this stretch of water?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The railway is not at present contemplating any extensive modernization of this bridge. However, it is proceeding with the installation of improved navigation lights which should be of considerable assistance to marine traffic.
Questions


R.C.N. ARMAMENT DEPOT, LONGUEUIL, QUE.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence decide to close the R.C.N. armament depot at Longueuil near Montreal before the "integration" policy was announced and, if so (a) were some of the activities at Longueuil to be transferred to the naval supply depot at La Salle (b) who made this decision?
2.	If such a decision was made, does it involved extensive modifications to a storehouse at La Salle and, if so, what are they and what is the estimated cost?
3.	Has the Longueuil depot been declared surplus?
4.	Has United Aircraft of Canada indicated any interest in such surplus property?
5.	Is it part of the "integration" policy that individual services are not to arrange for the disposal of any property until the matter is examined by a committee or working group acting within the lines of "integration" policy?
Answer: 1. Yes, this was announced in the House of Commons December 5, 1963, page 5456 of the official report, House of Commons Debates; (a) yes, (b) the government.
2.	Yes, it involves alternations to a warehouse building to accommodate equipment being moved including increased electrical supply, the supply and installation of an overhead, travelling crane at an estimated cost of $243,000.
3.	It is anticipated that the R.C.N. armament depot, Longueuil, will be declared surplus September 1, 1964.
4.	Yes.
5.	Under long standing policy and practice, the Department of National Defence does not transfer to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation any real property that becomes surplus to the needs of an individual service until it is determined that the other services have no requirement for the property.


WEATHER DIALING SERVICE, MONTREAL AND TORONTO
Mr. Mather: 1.	What type of private advertising is to provide revenue for the operation of the government "dial the weather" service in Montreal and Toronto?
2.	Is consideration being given to extending the acceptance of private advertising to pay for other government services?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The service to be provided by "dial the weather" in Montreal and Toronto will not be a government service, although the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport will provide the meteorological information.
2. Not applicable.

Questions


CANADIAN CASE BEFORE UN HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER
Mr. Howard: Is there presently a case (reference number SO 215/1, resolution number 728 F (XXVIII)) of a resident of Canada before Mr. Stephen Landau, human rights officer of the United Nations and, if so, what progress is being made with respect to that case?
Answer: The Canadian government is not in a position to answer this question. The reference numbers mentioned in the question relate in the first instance to a general United Nations secretariat file and in the second instance to the following resolution of the economic and social council prescribing the United Nations procedures for processing complaints concerning alleged violations of human rights:
The economic and social council,
Having considered chapter V of the report of the commission on human rights on its first session, concerning communications, and chapter IX of the report of the commission in its fifteenth session,
1.	Approves the statement that the commission on human rights recognizes that it has no power to take any action in regard to any complaints concerning human rights;
2.	Request the secretary general:
(a)	To compile and distribute to members of the commission on human rights before each session a non-confidential list containing a brief indication of the substance of each communication, however addressed, with deals with the principles involved in the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and to divulge the identity of the authors of such communications unless they indicate that they wish their names to remain confidential;
(b)	To compile before each session of the commission a confidential list containing a brief indication of the substance of other communications concerning human rights, however addressed, and to furnish this list to members of the commission, in private meeting, without divulging the identity of the authors of communications except in cases where the authors state that they have already divulged or intend to divulge their names or that they have no objection to their names being divulged ;
(c)	To enable the members of the commission, upon request, to consult the originals of communications dealing with the principles involved in the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights;
(d)	To inform the writers of all communications concerning human rights, however addressed, that their communications will be handled in accordance with this resolution, indicating that the commission has no power to take any action in regard to any complaint concerning human rights;
(e)	To furnish each member state concerned with a copy of any communication concerning human rights which refers explicitly to that state or to territories under its jurisdiction, without divulging the identity of the author, except as provided for in subparagraph (b) above;
(f)	To ask governments sending replies to communications brought to their attention in accord-

ance with subparagraph (e) whether they wish their replies to be presented to the commission in summary form or in full;
3.	Resolves to give members of the subcommission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities, with respect to communications dealing with discrimination and minorities, the same facilities as are enjoyed by members of the commission on human rights under the present resolution;
4.	Suggests to the commission on human rights that it should at each session appoint an ad hoc committee to meet shortly before its next session for the purpose of reviewing the list of communications prepared by the secretary general under paragraph 2(a) above and of recommending which of these communications, in original, should, in accordance with paragraph 2(c) above, be made available to members of the commission on request.
1088th plenary meeting,
30 July 1959.


IMPROVEMENTS TO HAUL-OUT FACILITIES, WHITE POINT, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	On what date were tenders called for a contract for improvements to the haul-out facilities at White Point, Victoria county, N.S., and what was the closing date?
2.	Who was the contract awarded to and for those who tendered and the amounts of each tender?
3.	What was the contract awarded to and for what amount?


Mr. Deschaieleis:: 1. Tenders were called on May 16, 1963 and closed on May 28, 1963.
2.	Dunn Construction Co. Ltd., Baddeck, N.S., $1,292.
3.	As the only tender received was considered excessive, Dunn Construction Co. Ltd. was asked to give an alternative price on another method of carrying out the work. A contract was subsequently awarded on September 11, 1963, in the amount of $542, and completed in 1963. However, during the course of the work in 1963, additional work became necessary, for which Dunn Construction Co. Ltd. submitted a price of $240. An addition to the contract for this was issued October 24, 1963. Due to weather conditions, the additional work could not be carried out in 1963, and will be undertaken in the near future.


TEACHERS' SALARIES, NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fisher: What are the salary schedules for teachers employed by Department of National Defence including a job description for each level?
Answer: In Canada, teachers are employed in dependants schools in Canada by a contract negotiated between the teacher and the official trustee of the school board at each defence base. In accordance with the regulations and orders governing the operation of

these schools the salary schedules for staff members shall be on a parity with those of comparable civilian operated schools in the area. A supporting statement to this effect shall be obtained from the local provincial school inspector or other appropriate educational authority.
Overseas, teachers are obtained for D.N.D. schools overseas on a loan of service basis from their employing Canadian schools boards. The boards continue to pay their salaries in accordance with the salary schedule in effect and applicable to the teachers' qualifications and experience. The Department of National Defence reimburses the school boards for such salary payments.
Free quarters are provided to the teachers overseas or allowances are paid in lieu if the teacher elects not to occupy such quarters. These allowances are payable overseas at rates approved from time to time by the treasury board.


EXHAUST CONTROL DEVICES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to following the example of California and promoting by law or by conference with the provinces the making mandatory of exhaust and crankcase control devices for motor vehicles?


Miss LaMarsh:: Tested and approved crankcase control devices that reduce the motor vehicle contribution of air pollution by about 25 per cent to 30 per cent have been standard equipment on all new cars sold in California since 1962. Present standards require about a 70 per cent reduction in pollutants from auto exhaust.
The California state motor vehicle pollution control board have recently approved several exhaust control devices for installation on new cars sold in California beginning with 1966 models.
The United States automobile manufacturers association have promised to produce cars that will meet the California standards limiting exhaust contaminants for the 1967 model year.
In view of the above it is considered premature to promote a provincial conference on such devices until the equipment becomes available and satisfactory experience as to performance is forthcoming.


LAND TRANSACTIONS, ASSINIBOIA MUNICIPALITY, MAN.
Mi. Enns: 1.	Have recent land transactions been negotiated affecting properties adjoining the D.N.D. shooting
20220-330J
Questions
range in the municipality of Assiniboia, Manitoba?
2.	Did these involve properties along the trans-Canada highway and the perimeter highway?
3.	What were the terms of such negotiations?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The existing danger area of the St. Charles rifle range does not extend to the rear of the range a sufficient distance to permit the use of modern weapons. The range was, therefore, closed down for several months until arrangements could be made to acquire the necessary additional danger area. Recently, negotiations with two land owners were undertaken involving the exchange of uncultivated crown property for lands to form the necessary additional danger area. Specifically offers have been made to exchange:
(a)	Part of river lot 89 of the inner two miles of the parish of St. Charles containing approximately 252 acres for the northeast quarter and the east half of the southeast quarter of section 23, the north half of the northeast quarter of section 14 and the north half of the north half of section 13, all in township 11, range 1, east of the prime meridian, containing approximately 480 acres, and;
(b)	The northeast quarter of section 23 and the north half of the northeast quarter of section 13, containing 240 acres, for the southwest quarter of section 24, containing 160 acres, all in township 11, range 1, east of the prime meridian.
The parties to the proposed exchange are to be allowed to remove the 1964 crop and will be permitted to farm the land on a year to year basis, at their own risk, when the rifle range is not in use upon payment of the municipal taxes in addition to a per acre rental of $3 per annum.


EXPENDITURES ON FOREIGN SWEEPSTAKES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the government in a position to indicate with any accuracy the sums of money which are expended by Canadians on foreign sweepstakes and, if so, what is the estimated amount?
2.	Does the government intend to endeavour to ascertain the amount involved in order to better determine what the possible effect of the establishment of such a scheme might have on the recommendations as proposed by the Hall commission on health services?


Mr. Davis:: 1. No.
2. It would be impossible to make a reliable estimate.

Questions


ORDERS FOR EXCESS BALLOT PAPERS
Mr. Hales: 1.	What are the names of the constituency and returning officers for the 20 ridings in 1962 and 25 ridings in 1963 that ordered an excess of more than 40 per cent of the ballots necessary as outlined in the Auditor General's report 1963, page 22?
2.	What is the name of the constituency and returning officer with 18,000 electors and who ordered 26,400 ballot papers in 1962 and 30,000 in 1963?
Answer: 1.
Electoral districts Kenora-Rainy River Prince Edward-Lennox
J oliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm Montmagny-L'Islet Roberval Stanstead
Queens-Lunenburg Provencher Mackenzie Acadia Jasper-Edson Macleod Medicine Hat Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes Compton-Frontenac Kamouraska Burin-Burgeo St. John's West Northwest Territories Yukon Territory
Names of returning officers W. J. Gray
James A. Clark
Maurice Majeau Gonzague Belanger Edouard Duchesne Louis Gerin
K.	J. Kenney Abram K. Braun
L.	A. Yaworski
M.	E. Taylor Chris Nielsen
John Arnoll Moorey Peter J. Keller
Jean-Paul Dorion Paul Beaudoin Benoit Dube Philip R. Hollett William J. Stoyles L. F. G. Borden C. T. Ravenhill
Electoral districts Beauce
Compton-Frontenac
Dorchester
Gaspe
iles-de-la-Madeleine Kamouraska Pontiac-Temisca-mingue Stanstead St. John's West Cumberland Charlotte Kent, N.B. Restigouche-Mada-waska Lisgar Marquette Selkirk Skeena Kindersley Meadow Lake Qu'Appelle Rosetown-Biggar Rosthem Acadia Jasper-Edson Macleod Vegreville
2.
Meadow Lake
Names of returning officers Roger Bolduc Paul Beaudoin John H. O'Farrell F. R. Sams Arnold L. Deraspe Benoit Dube
J. Denzil Moodie Louis Gerin William J. Stoyles William H. Wasson Frederick Garcelon Louis Felix LeBlanc
Dillon Arseneau Cecil D. Treble J. Morris Lavery Harold Johnson Alex Samuel Bill James Patrick Duncan Frank Buchan Milne F. Clifford Armstrong Arthur J. Flach George A. Birtles M. E. Taylor Chris Nielsen John Arnoll Moorey Terence Kenneth Cole
Frank Buchan Milne


HOUSING STARTS
[Stage Direction]
Algoma East	James H. Burt
Prince Edward-
Lennox	James A. Clark
Mr. Orlikow: What was the number of housing starts, by type of units, for each of the first five months in the years 1962, 1963, 1964, in centres of 5,000 population and over?

Answer:

Orders for Returns
Housing starts, by type of units, Canada total, for centres of 5,000 population and over for each of the first five
months in the years 1962, 1963 and 1964
Month
Single	Twodetached	family	Row Apartment TotalJanuary	
2,437	339	211	1,709	4,696February	
1,805	305	41	1,317	3^468March	
2,597	669	113	2,143	5,522April	
4,203	923	138	3,385	8,649May	
5,217	925	286	3,579	10,007Total	
16,259	3,161	789	12,133	32,3421963	January	
2,103	214	172	1,954	4,443February	
1,753	219	123	1,761	3,856March	273	251	3,189	5,940April	
3,637	455	359	3,689	8,140May	
4,704	836	427	6,508	12,475Total	
14,424	1,997	1,332	17,101	34,854January	
3,980February	
2,618March	
1,870April	
3,019May	
4,130Total	
15,617574	161	3,598	8,313349	54	2,994	6,015302	218	3,135	5,525420	182	4,719	8,340673	222	6,309	11,3342,318	837	20,755	39,527
printing of bill of rights in parchment



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

['1.\tHow many public works projects have been carried out in Compton-Frontenac since June 18,\n1962?\tx\t.\t..2.\tIn\teach\tcase,\twhat was the\tnature\tof\ttheproject, who\twere\tthe tenderers,\twhat was\tthe\namount of each tender and, who was awarded the contract?\n3.\tSince June 18, 1962, how many projects were carried out in Compton-Frontenac without calling for tenders?\n4.\tIn\teach\tcase,\twhat was the cost\tof\tthe\nproject, the nature of the work and, by whom was it performed?\nReturn tabled.\nMOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. J. B. Siewarl (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to notice No. 137. Will Your Honour please call notices Nos. 136, 138, and 139. I ask that the notices Nos. 133, 134 and 135 stand.']
Mr. Stewart:: At the present rate of sale the supply now on hand in both English and French should be adequate to meet sale requirements for at least one year.
cost OF DAWSON CITY FESTIVAL


['At the present rate of sale the supply now on hand in both English and French should be adequate to meet sale requirements for at least one year.\ncost OF DAWSON CITY FESTIVAL']
Mr. Laing:: 1. Nil. No festival was held in 1960.
2. N/A in so far as 1960 is concerned.



Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many Canadian military contingents are serving outside of the country?
2.	How many servicemen are in each of these contingents and (a) who are their commanding officers (b) where is each contingent stationed (c) how long has each contingent been at its station and (d) how much has Canada spent on each of these contingents since it was sent abroad?
3.	What is each contingent's mission?
4. How many military representatives does Canada have in the diplomatic service?
o.	now many Canadian military personnel are studying abroad or are abroad under military exchange agreements, and (a) where are they (b) what is their mission (c) how much does it cost the government in each case?
6.	Has the government any statistics on the number of Canadians serving in the American armed forces?
7. Are there any Canadians armed forces of other nations?
serving in the
8.	How many exchange or co-operative programs are there between the Canadian armed forces and those of other countries?

Motions for Papers
9.	Are the Canadian armed forces represented in any international or inter service research organizations and, if so (a) what are these organizations, (b) what has been Canada's participation in their activities, and (c) how much money has been spent in this connection?
10.	How many political science teachers does the Department of National Defence employ?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY, QUE.
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	How many public works projects have been carried out in Compton-Frontenac since June 18,
1962?	x	.	..2.	In	each	case,	what was the	nature	of	theproject, who	were	the tenderers,	what was	the
amount of each tender and, who was awarded the contract?
3.	Since June 18, 1962, how many projects were carried out in Compton-Frontenac without calling for tenders?
4.	In	each	case,	what was the cost	of	the
project, the nature of the work and, by whom was it performed?
Return tabled.
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. J. B. Siewarl (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to notice No. 137. Will Your Honour please call notices Nos. 136, 138, and 139. I ask that the notices Nos. 133, 134 and 135 stand.



CLOSING OF RADAR STATION, ST. SYLVESTRE, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137-Mr. Pigeon:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of letters from citizens in the constituency of Lotbinifere and of resolutions by municipal corporations in the constituency of Lotbiniere addressed to the Prime Minister or other cabinet ministers, protesting the government's decision to terminate the operation of the radar station at St. Sylvestre.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-Mr. Mariineau:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house the full and unexpurgated version of the film "Mr. Pearson".
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman whether he does not think that this motion, having perhaps served its immediate purpose, might be withdrawn. First of all, this is not the property of the crown or of the government of Canada. In any event, is it not most unusual to ask the government to produce a commodity? The [Mr. Latulippe.l
hon. gentleman might ask us to produce papers, but to ask us to produce a commodity is surely to ask for something which cannot be achieved even by this administration.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I attach a great deal of importance to the request made by the minister. Still, although it is somewhat unusual to ask for the showing of a film in this house, I think Your Honour will admit that a situation such as that brought about by the film "Mr. Pearson" is also rather unusual.
That is why I cannot accede to the minister's request and withdraw my motion.
On the other hand, I believe the house would be willing to debate the matter. I therefore ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH POSTMASTER, THETFORD MINES, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and letters exchanged between the Postmaster General, his executive assistant, his parliamentary secretary, or the deputy minister of his department and the postmaster at Thetford Mines, from January 1, 1960 to June 30, 1964.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: I should like to assure the hon. member that all the correspondence he has asked for is intradepartmental and therefore privileged. In view of this fact I suggest he may wish to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Langlois:: I should like to have this motion referred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry in connection with the Kitsilano property in Vancouver, British Columbia. Has the hon. gentleman been advised that Vancouver city council yesterday unanimously passed a motion that

a request in writing be made to the federal government for a 99 year lease for the whole of the said site? Further, has he been advised that the mayor of Vancouver and the city council strongly protest and reiterate that they are absolutely opposed to the C.B.C. taking over any portion of the reserve, and that the present zoning of the area is residential only.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I have in my hand a copy of a telegram from the mayor to the Prime Minister making the points the Leader of the Opposition has made. We have not yet received from the city of Vancouver the proposals to which reference is made in this telegram, and are therefore not in a position to deal with them.


John George Diefenbaker: Until the representation from the city has been embodied in a letter placed before the minister, will the minister assure the house that the C.B.C. will not be given any consideration with respect to the 15 acres which Mr. Ouimet desires to secure, and every opportunity has been given to the people of Vancouver, represented as they are by their council, whose wishes were made clear in this unanimous resolution?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that no decision will be taken in this matter until the representations of the city of Vancouver as well as the proposal from the C.B.C. have been received and considered.


Mr. R. W. Prifiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if either the Minister of Industry or the Secretary of State could inform us whether the city council of Vancouver have made any firm proposal to the C.B.C. concerning a downtown site in place of the Kit-silano park site.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any concrete proposal made by the city of Vancouver to the C.B.C.


Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, is it government policy to instruct Crown Assets Disposal Corporation regarding the sale of assets turned over to its jurisdiction?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Crown Assets Disposal Corporation acts under and in conformity with an act governing its operations passed by this parliament.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT
INQUIRY AS TO SUBSIDY FOR TRUCKING INDUSTRY On the orders of the day:


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the situation in which the trucking industry finds itself in Canada, does the Minister of Transport intend to grant subsidies to that industry so it can face the increase in operating costs without raising its rates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the answer would be no to that question, sir.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Is it his intention to exempt from income tax the trucking companies which are faced with such a situation at the present time?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think government policy in respect of taxation should be discussed on the orders of the day.



SASKATCHEWAN-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the box car shortage. I have had urgent calls this morning from the Weyburn area again stating that the elevators are practically all filled to capacity. Could the minister inform the house whether he has had a reply from the Canadian wheat board with regard to what they propose to do about the box car shortage?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. gentleman, as soon as I received notice of his question I was in touch with the wheat board, and they have told me that with particular regard to the C.P.R. Moose Jaw-Weyburn line they have placed shipping orders on the points situated on this particular line to provide for a quota of 8 bushels per specified acre plus a supplementary quota of 10 bushels per seeded acre for spring wheat.

Inquiries oj the Ministry Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):	A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce realize that shipping orders mean nothing at all if cars are not available?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering the deadlock to which have come the negotiations between the federal government and the Quebec government concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos, does the Acting Prime Minister intend to take steps toward changing the federal negotiators in that matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this suggestion is justified. In my opinion the question is out of order. At any rate, the answer is no.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he agrees with Mr. Rend Levesque who accuses the federal government of showing arrogance and favouritism with regard to Eskimo affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion the last two questions are out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is a serious charge, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Is the cabinet aware of the manner in which the negotiations are proceeding at present in this matter, and does it intend to make recommendations to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in order to improve those discussions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet is looking into all those questions, including the one mentioned by the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. I believe I put an appropriate question to the Acting Prime Minister, since he is the one at the head of the government in the absence of the Prime Minister. I feel that my question was relevant and that the answer from the Acting Prime Minister was far from satisfactory; moreover, the Acting Prime Minister has not given us any information on what we asked him.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order-


Mr. Starr:: This is a subterfuge point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe is rising on a point of order. If it is in connection with the last three questions, those three questions were out of order. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The three questions were out of order in the first place; consequently there is no point of order.



REQUEST FOR STEPS TO PRESERVE HISTORIC ARTICLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has he received some 100 telegrams from individuals and others in the Yukon concerning the preservation of historic articles of national importance and, if so, what action does he intend to take in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely this is a question for the order paper.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Finance. Would the minister inform the house whether he and/or the government have decided permanently to shelve the legislation with regard to foreign publications, which was mentioned in the last throne speech?
Hon, Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance): No, they have not, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that yesterday the Soviet union presented their plan for a world police force to the United Nations secretary general and the ambassadors of the United States and Britain at the United Nations, does the government have any word of this plan either from our representative at the UN or direct from the Soviet union?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have not yet received any formal communication.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Would the hon. gentleman say whether, in view of this initiative on the part of the U.S.S.R., the Canadian government would now consider taking steps to enlarge the proposed limited conference later this year of countries interested in a permanent force? I should also like to ask the minister this. When discussions took place in connection with this conference, was the Soviet union invited? Because apparently there was criticism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to the right hon. gentleman may I say the Canadian government has already given an indication to the original invitees that, for reasons put forward by one of them, the conference could be expanded. There is no question of the proposed participants being only NATO countries, as has been charged in Izvestia. The original invitees were not all NATO countries. Discussions are now taking place in a preliminary way to see whether this conference could be extended to include countries from Africa and elsewhere that have had peace keeping experience.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I discussed this general subject with the ambassador for the Soviet union in Ottawa about a month ago and told him of our intentions. I said in answer to the article in Izvestia that the proposed conference was not intended to be restricted, but would include the countries which had had significant peace keeping experience of whom there are over 30.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the secretary of state say who were the original invitees who received an invitation from the Canadian government in this connection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The countries which were originally included were Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway.


John George Diefenbaker: Have any other invitations gone out during the last month since the conversations to which the hon. gentleman has alluded, which he had with the Soviet ambassador, in an attempt to increase the ambit of the conference and enlarge the number of countries involved?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No invitations have been issued, but there have been discussions at the United Nations with the countries concerned.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if, in view of the very great interest in the developing situation in Cyprus and also the interest in this house in the peace keeping proposals of the U.S.S.R., he is considering making a full report on the matter to the standing committee on external affairs where questions could be asked and the matter gone into thoroughly?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I have been considering this, Mr. Speaker.


AGREEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF ATOMIC INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Cenlre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry if he will make a statement soon to the house concerning the implications for Canada of the document tabled on June 30 by the minister for external affairs dealing with a new nuclear agreement among the parties to the North Atlantic treaty for cooperation regarding the exchange of atomic information?
5204	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I propose at some time to do this. This is merely an agreement among NATO members pursuant to an amendment of the atomic energy act in the United States making information available to members of the North Atlantic treaty alliance. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons as such. It is just to give NATO members greater opportunities for the exchange of atomic information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was not referring to nuclear weapons. This is a new agreement replacing an old agreement. I was wondering if the house might be informed as to the changes inherent in that new agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to do that.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could the Acting Prime Minister inform the house if it is the intention of the government to register the Columbia river treaty with the United Nations if it is ratified?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason for the "if". Under the charter of the United Nations there is an obligation on all member states to register treaties, and of course Canada lives up to its international obligations.


BAY OF FUNDY-ACTION BY ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport involving the Atlantic development board. In view of the apparent shelving of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project by the United States, is it the intention of the Atlantic development board to speed up their study of the feasibility of harnessing the bay of Fundy tides from a power point of view?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to speed up the study, because it is going at top speed already.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister read the dominion bureau of statistics report indicating a further substantial increase in the cost of living during the month of June? If so, is the government taking any action to prevent this increase getting out of hand?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have seen this report but, as my hon. friend will appreciate, there are usually fluctuations from month to month.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monieilh:: Always upward ever since this government came into power.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the hon. member will recall, there was no increase in the month of May. If he studied the report carefully he will also be aware that a big part of the increase, in fact far more than the over-all increase, was due to a rise in the seasonal items included in the food index, particularly vegetables, which is customary in the month of June. I might say that non-seasonal food items declined marginally.


An hon. Member:: What about construction materials?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The 11 per cent tax.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he has read the d.b.s. returns for the past three or four years which indicate no such increase during the months of May, June or July?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not read returns which show that at all.


REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING POVERTY IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When he said, while in London, England, that the Canadian economy was prosperous, was the minister aware of the studies made by Professor Firestone of Ottawa University, who stated that 3,800,000 Canadians were living in poverty?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think there was general agreement, Mr. Speaker, both in London and in this country that my statement to the effect that the economy is doing very well was correct.


WHEAT-EXTENSION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the international wheat agreement. Could the minister inform the house whether any negotiations have taken place among the signatories to the international wheat agreement? If so, will the agreement be continued in its present form, and has agreement been reached as to the price of wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on June 25 the international wheat council made a statement about the status of the negotiations, which reads in part as follows:
The council unanimously decided to recommend to member governments that the 1962 international wheat agreement, which expires on 31st July, 1965, should be extended in its present form without amendment. The duration of the extension will be discussed by the council at its November session but will not exceed two years.


Reynold Rapp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the price set in 1962 will continue?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the council's recommendation is accepted that would be the implication.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, notice of which I gave him. Has the minister received an urgent communication from local 1937 of the international association of machinists requesting action to provide further aircraft repair contracts for the Charlottetown plant of Enamel and Heating to prevent the closing of this establishment? If so, has he been able to give the union any assurance on this important matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of the question. I have had a search made and no record can be found of any communication from the union local in question. I have had, however, on behalf of the plant in Charlottetown representations made to me by my colleague, the minister from the island.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the desirability of our dealing with the question of capital punishment when we are not involved with any particular case, and in view of the fact there will now be no hangings for the next couple of months, would the government consider either providing government time for Bill C-12, in the name of the hon. member for Danforth, or bringing in its own bill to abolish capital punishment in Canada?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and give it consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question that has just been asked, now that it is no longer a matter of impropriety to ask questions regarding the postponement of execution in the Georges Marcotte case, would the minister table the order in council in which the governor general in council decided that the law should take its course and, second, the order in council delaying the execution for one week?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we will be pleased to table immediately any orders in council relating to this matter.



SOCIAL ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning a matter which has been raised in the house before, the answers to which have not been fully satisfactory. I am referring to the question
5206	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of the missing missive from Saskatchewan. The minister of welfare of the province of Saskatchewan claims he has written a letter to the federal government. The parliamentary secretary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that no such letter had been received, and the minister said yesterday she had received no such letter. I now ask the Minister of Finance to look at his records to see if any letter has been received from the minister of social welfare in Saskatchewan concerning recipients of social welfare payments working for what they receive.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. friend was referring to missives or missiles, but I will be glad to see if the missing missive is in my department.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry concerning the administration of ARDA in Canada. Since he is supposed to have met the Quebec minister of agriculture lately, can he tell the house whether his comprehensive plan is exactly equivalent to the plan of the Quebec minister of agriculture and whether the ARDA program is acceptable at this stage of the operations?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed on the interpretation to be given to ARDA in the province of Quebec.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Could he tell the house whether they have also agreed to help the farmers?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Could he tell us what will be discussed at the federal-provincial conference on ARDA?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I have already announced that we will meet at the end of August or the beginning of September probably, to review the federal-provincial agreements respecting ARDA.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry a question following the meeting held at Mont Joli, over the week end, to deal with ARDA.
Could the minister tell us whether, besides general agreements signed by the ten provinces in October 1962, the federal government has concluded agreements made with the province of Quebec in 1962?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the house might allow me to take that question into consideration and give an answer to the hon. member tomorrow.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in view of the prolonged absence of the federal Minister of Agriculture and of the urgency of the matter, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government intends to introduce, during the first part of the session, in case we have a vacation, legislation to reduce the cost of feed grains for eastern farmers, in view of the fact that Quebec agriculture is going to the dogs?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, you might allow me to reply and say that we are now considering the matter. I think that next week we will probably be in a position to announce a decision concerning the payment of trucking charges for feed grains for all farmers in eastern Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry did not answer the question I put to the Acting Prime Minister. I asked the hon. gentleman whether the government intends to bring forward, during the first part of the session, legislation enabling eastern farmers to obtain feed grain at a price below the prevailing prices and that, during the present year. Moreover, the minister should travel a little more through Quebec, through eastern Canada, instead of going to Europe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time for speeches.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry. Can he tell the house whether the studies in progress at present include the suggestion made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the catholic

farmers' union, regarding the setting up of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the fault is mine, since I have permitted a few questions which really, in fact, should be on the order paper. The last question is a very good example of a question which should be placed on the order paper, since it requires a detailed reply.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry and "rural removal". Can he tell the house whether, during the conversations he had with the minister of lands and forests and the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec, they talked about the contribution the federal government could make to help farmers who have lost all their sugar crop this year?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to direct an associated question to the Minister of Forestry concerning the statement he has promised the house tomorrow. The question I should like to have answered in his statement tomorrow is this. Will the minister make clear the requests of the province of Quebec concerning the extension of shared programs with the federal government? As I understood the statement at Mont Joli, Quebec is going to ask for an increase in shared programs in connection with ARDA. In his statement tomorrow, will the minister consider making this position clear?


Maurice Sauvé: I will, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF GRANTS TO FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture or in his absence his parliamentary secretary. I am wondering if the government would consider the immediate reinstatement of grants to agricultural societies in regard to class A and B fairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



REPORTED STATEMENT BY VANCOUVER FOOTBALL PLAYER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister take note of an article on the sports pages of today's Globe and Mail in which a player for the Vancouver Lions football club is reported as stating he will apply for Canadian citizenship if the football club makes it financially worth while? Having noted the reported comment, will the minister make it known to this young man that we Canadians value our citizenship, and it is not to be made available to professional athletes so they may improve their bargaining position with the club which employs their services?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I shall bring the question to the attention of the minister.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the government study on reviving the Canadian merchant marine proceeding at top speed, to use the minister's own words, and in particular will the minister give details of the engagement of several economists to study the economic feasibility of reviving the merchant marine, as announced recently?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to look into all the implications in the hon. gentleman's question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister keep in mind that the revival of the merchant marine is very necessary in order to replace the orders the shipyards lost when the Minister of National Defence so ruthlessly scrapped the navy program?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have duly noted the nonpartisan observations of the hon. gentleman.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Minister of Industry. Has the minister discussed with the Quebec provincial government the possibility of establishing either the Renault or the Peugeot car industry in that province and, if so, has the minister any information to give the house today?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of the provincial government on this question, but I have no statement to make.



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I presume the minister has a statement to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The standing committee on marine and fisheries carefully studied this matter after the bill had been referred to it. I need not repeat evidence given before the committee, except to point out that in addition to my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and myself, there were representatives of other government departments involved.


Mr. Barnett:: On a question of order, some of us on this side are interested in what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to say, and I am wondering whether some of his non-fishing colleagues might be pleased to give us that opportunity.


The Chairman:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was saying I hoped, in view of the discussions we had in committee, that it would not be necessary to make an additional statement. However, I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean).
The committee on marine and fisheries had a thorough discussion of the proposal in this bill for the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone, and agreed with its provisions that the government be given the necessary power to establish straight base lines.


In the committee I indicated that it was the intention of the government, when this bill was passed by parliament, to establish without delay the fishing zones of Canada, and I indicated that this might be done by bringing into effect those portions of the bill relating to fishing, while deferring until a later date proclamation of the rest of the bill. After this testimony my colleagues and I considered the matter further, and subsequently the Minister of Fisheries stated on my behalf in the committee that the government did not expect any undue or substantial delay in bringing the entire bill into force. Therefore the situation is that there will be no delay in proclaiming the bill in its entirety after it has passed through the house and received royal assent.
I should like to take this opportunity to emphasize one or two points which my colleague and I mentioned in the standing committee. When the bill is proclaimed the immediate effect will be that the fishing zones of Canada will be established from existing base lines. These base lines will follow mainly the sinuosities of our coast line, pending the drawing of straight base lines by the governor in council under clause 5 of the bill.
Those countries with which we are not having negotiations will therefore be immediately excluded from the fishing zones, and their vessels will be subject to penalties under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act if they operate in those areas. This will be of great importance to Canada in view of the rapid development by certain countries of large, modern fishing fleets capable of operating very far from their home ports.
I would like to inform the committee that during the next few months we will be having another round of talks with a number of countries that are affected by the action we are taking. Negotiations with France and Britain will take place in July, and with others later in the summer and autumn.
In order to maintain the friendly atmosphere in which our negotiations with these countries have been taking place, and to facilitate their conclusion, we do not propose, as I have already informed the house, to interfere with the fishing of these particular states during this temporary period of our negotiations. When the bill is proclaimed the coastal fisheries protection regulations will be amended to allow the countries with which we are holding discussions to continue fishing pending conclusion of the negotiations, when final arrangements will come into effect.

The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), whose own experience in this matter is extensive and who has been very helpful in the discussions on this matter both in this chamber and in the committee, mentioned the need to table promptly in parliament all orders in council made under the proposed act, in particular orders made under clause 5, relating to the delineation of straight base lines. Such tabling is required by the Regulations Act, but even if it were not so required I would be glad to assure the committee that every order in council made under this bill will be tabled in parliament without delay. I mentioned this matter privately to the hon. gentleman, I believe yesterday, and he raised a certain point. I find that the situation is as I have stated, and I do not believe he need have any concern in that regard.
This bill will have implications not only for Canadians now living but for future generations. It means a great deal to the fishing communities in our country. I would hope that this parliament would speak with one voice in the passage of this bill. In doing so parliament would be declaring to the world that the government, in taking this action is speaking for all parties in the House of Commons; and this, I am sure, would be a very important factor in the remaining portion of the negotiations upon which we will be embarking. I need not say anything more at this stage.
This bill will establish a 12 mile fishing zone in Canada. It will enable the government to establish the straight base line system. The straight base lines are not spelled out, for the reasons we gave in the committee, because this would interfere with the negotiations that are under way. This is following the practice established by other countries who have initiated new fishing zones based on the straight base line system, countries such as Norway and Iceland, and other countries I mentioned in the committee.
I commend this bill to the committee as being in the interests of Canadian fishermen and Canadian fisheries, and in the interests of Canada as a whole.


John Angus MacLean: I wish to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his statement. I might add that this bill has been carefully and thoroughly studied by the standing committee on marine and fisheries. Witnesses appeared before us representing various interests, and a very complete study of the measure was made.
Of course this legislation is a stage in a long process which has been going on for
8, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones a number of years, the process of obtaining for Canada as far as possible exclusive rights for Canadian nationals in waters adjacent to our coasts. There is a difference of opinion on this, so I will not take up the time of the committee by restating arguments already made, but I personally think it is a great pity the legislation before us is not the culmination of this process. In my view the situation today would be more satisfactory if this could have been the case. I think the government now recognizes some of the stumbling blocks and difficulties which exist. It is not just a case of making some unilateral declaration which no other country is going to question, because other countries feel they have rights, and in any case they have means of retaliation should they wish to use them, if this question is not handled in a reasonably diplomatic fashion.
I believe the government is doing that. I am not criticizing the actions the government has taken, but I am criticizing the background which has been created and against which this bill is being introduced. I have no evidence to suggest that either of the two ministers who are now responsible were guilty in this regard, but a great many loose statements were made during the election campaigns to the effect that this was a simple matter; that all you had to do was make a proclamation and foreign fishing vessels would disappear. Indeed, it was suggested that the only reason this had not been done long since was that other governments, previous governments, were dilatory or did not take their responsibilities seriously. Of course anyone who is familiar with the situation knows that this is not the case.
I appreciate the generous remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the efforts made by the previous government and by myself and other people in this connection. I should like, if I may, to digress for just a moment to pay tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the negotiators on behalf of Canada. I am thinking chiefly of senior civil servants, who have been an excellent negotiating team for Canada in this connection.
As I said earlier, I do not agree with the sequence of events. I would have hoped the government would not feel it was obliged to bring in legislation at a given time. I admit at once that this bill will have one helpful effect; that is, it will declare an exclusive fishing zone measured from our present base lines. But how much better it would have been if, before the end of May, as

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones no doubt the government hoped, negotiations could have been completed to the stage where this legislation might have included the results of those negotiations so the minister could have made specific statements to parliament about what had been achieved. He could, for example, have told us what conditions had been agreed upon with regard to the tapering off period with respect to historic rights. A statement could have been made explaining precisely what the geographical co-ordinates were, and so on.
In this regard I should like to ask the minister a question which he may be able to answer later. I wish to refer to a news item which emanated from Washington last December. It reads as follows:
The Canadian government has surrendered a point upon which it strenuously insisted at the law of the sea conferences in Geneva in 1958 and 1960-that U.S. fishing rights within 12 miles of Canada's coasts cannot be maintained unlimited and in perpetuity.
Both external affairs minister Paul Martin and fisheries minister Hedard Robichaud said here yesterday that historic rights of U.S. fishermen will not be affected when Canada establishes a 12 mile national fishing zone, as it is proposed to do next mid-May.
I realize that some of this terminology may be loosely applied. I gather the government does not contemplate entering upon any negotiations to withdraw from or abrogate any treaty rights. But the report uses, I believe, the term "historic" in this case, and I should like to know whether the report is accurate when it says the government does not intend to negotiate with the United States on the question of historic fishing rights apart altogether from the treaty rights. Are these historic rights to remain permanent? That is a question I should like to have answered if at all possible.
This legislation, as has been said, is permissive for the most part. It does establish an exclusive fishing zone, but as far as the following are concerned, that is to say the establishment of the base lines, the geographical co-ordinates upon which the base lines are to be drawn, and the establishment of national waters by including them inside base lines

and I am referring here to bodies of water such as the gulf of St. Lawrence- this bill is only permissive. I hope the legislation will not, in these circumstances, become a ruse or a stratagem to have people believe that more progress has been made than has actually been accomplished.
What I am saying is that with regard to the latter points I have mentioned, the bill will have no effect at all until the negotiations

are complete. For my part I hope these negotiations can be successfully terminated without too great a delay. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and, I think, the Minister of Fisheries both told the house that this legislation would strengthen their hands in these negotiations. If that is true I support the legislation on that ground alone, as well as for some other reasons. But I think this is a debatable point. Perhaps its passage would weaken the hand of the negotiators; because when this bill is passed, and the negotiations are still not complete, all our people can do is continue to negotiate. On the other hand, if the legislation had not been passed our team could still say to representatives of other countries "If you are not going to be reasonable about this I am sure the Canadian parliament will declare unilaterally that we will take these rights".
This is, of course, a debatable point and a matter of opinion. I think we are all agreed that although technically we may be acting unilaterally as a result of taking action in parliament, in practice there is very little room to act unilaterally, at least in an arbitrary way. This is a world community as far as fishing is concerned, and we have to act in a way that will not be detrimental to us in dealing with our neighbours at the present time or in the future. However, I see very little difference between these negotiations and any previous negotiations dealing with world fisheries. In every other case-that I know of, in any event-the negotiations were completed, the agreement was signed and then it was ratified by the introduction of a bill which was passed by parliament. This would apply to the north Pacific treaty and to any other treaty you wish to name in connection with fisheries negotiations with other countries. I think this would have been a more logical way to approach this problem.
I recognize that this bill will do one thing; that is, it will proclaim an exclusive fishing zone based on our present base lines, and that has merit. But I think consideration should have been given to the introduction of a bill which included just that, plus a declaration that certain bodies of water, geographically described, were Canadian national waters and would not just become such by virtue of an order in council to be passed some time in the future. I think that would have been a neater, more decisive way of doing it.
But I am not going to quarrel about details. I think a great deal of hard work was done on this bill but, as I have already stated,

immediately the government came into power, it they did not know this before- and I think the two ministers concerned did know it-they should have known that this is not just a matter of a unilateral statement, even by legislation, which everyone is going to accept. For instance, at the meeting in Hyannis Port, according to the news report I read, the President of the United States reserved his position on this matter. At least one news report I read stated this. This meant that the United States had certain reservations in this connection. It is only natural that other countries will react in this way if they feel or suspect that their rights may be prejudiced.
I mentioned specifically the historic fishing rights position of the United States. I would like to have also, if it is possible, some statement with regard to what is contemplated in respect of the length of time historic fishing rights held by other countries are expected to be recognized; or is there going to be a phasing out process in this connection?
I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for mentioning the question of the tabling of the orders in council which will result. Like him, I also checked on the Regulations Act and found that, happily, the minister has no choice but to table them within 15 days of their being published in the Canada Gazette. That is a useful safeguard as far as parliament is concerned. But as I have already stated, I think from a legislative point of view the sort of blank cheque aspect of the powers that are granted the government with regard to the location of these geographical co-ordinates is bad legislation.
It is true that both ministers have said they do not expect to take action as a result of these powers which would be unreasonable, and so on; nevertheless the fact remains that there is no limitation on where these geographical co-ordinates can be placed. I think we should put some limitation on this, in the same way that on a cheque it is stated "Not good for more than $100". We should let the government fill in the exact amount, as it were, when they know what it is going to be. We do not expect at this juncture that the government is in a position to state exactly where these co-ordinates are going to be, but I think there should be in the legislation some limitation as to where they might be. I say that, Mr. Chairman, not in a critical way with regard to this govern-
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones ment, but I am concerned with the principles of the matter. I think it is unwise for parliament to ever grant wider powers than those that are needed for the purpose in hand.
However, the drafters of this legislation have done a reasonably good job, I think. They have beon most ingenious in drafting what must have been a fluid bill, a bill that would do what was needed to be done at this juncture and would give permissive powers to do what remains to be done, and the minister might have suggested, too, that it should be made to look as if it is doing at least as much as it is doing, and preferably quite a bit more than it is actually doing.
I regret that with regard to the co-ordinates there is not some limitation which is more specific and which would have removed some doubts from the minds of interested parties, such as were mentioned by witnesses who appeared before the committee and expressed anxiety on the part of their clients that base lines might be drawn from the mainland of Nova Scotia to Sable island, thereby intersecting a well known international air corridor which passes over what are now the high seas, and as a result of this measure aircraft would be passing over what would be technical Canadian territory, which would subject them to the possibility of additional tolls and various other things that might occur in the future.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware, this party supports the principle of this bill in general terms. Had some slight changes been made in the details of the bill, which I have enumerated, and had the bill come as a crescendo at the end of these long years of negotiations, as a culmination of successful negotiations, we would have been able to support it wholeheartedly and without any reservations whatsoever.
I think it is rather unfortunate, at least from our point of view, that this is not the case. Nevertheless it is a step forward. There are negotiations yet to be carried out. I hope the minister is correct in his statement that this bill will strengthen his hand. We remember that only a year and a half ago, of course, they were the strong-armed people. They claimed they had all the strength needed. All the strength they needed then was to be elected and to form a government. I do not quarrel with that, but I hope the contention that it will strengthen their negotiating position is correct and that the results of this legislation will be as happy as we all hope.
5212	HOUSE OF
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been reported back to the committee of the whole from the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I for one have no desire to attempt to duplicate in this debate that which was done in the standing committee on marine and fisheries. However, I think there are a few matters arising out of the proceedings of that committee which can properly be brought to the attention of this committee at this time.
Hon. members will recall that at the second reading stage of the bill we made clear by way of an amendment that we considered this a rather weak and futile bill to deal with a very important subject matter. While we are strongly in support of the general objective, we really do not consider the present bill to be a very satisfactory vehicle for dealing with this situation, either with regard to the terms of the bill or as to the timing of its introduction while negotiations are still in progress.
In the standing committee on marine and fisheries we sought to expand upon this position and to present some alternatives to the committee which we felt would better serve the purposes that I am sure all hon. members of the committee have in mind. It will be recalled that one of the points of difference -in fact, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) made reference to it in the course of his remarks-is the question as to the manner in which the base line co-ordinates should be established. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries have indicated that the immediate effect of the bill is to establish a 12 mile fishing zone. In the committee I sought by way of amendment to propose what was in effect a compromise to the views which had become apparent as matters of difference on second reading by suggesting, in effect, that the committee should report back to the house the recommendation that the bill be separated; that we should then proceed immediately to enact a bill which would bring into effect a 12 mile fishing zone; and then at a later stage, when negotiations were completed and the government was in a position to tell us exactly what conclusions it had arrived at in its discussion with the other countries concerned, we could then enact a bill which would establish the co-ordinates in detail in respect to where the straight base lines would be established, which would clearly define which waters were being taken in to become part of the internal waters of Canada.


The majority of the standing committee did not see fit to support this proposal, and following failure of that proposal we took steps to put forward, at least for the record, our position in respect of this matter of establishing base lines by suggesting an amendment which would have clearly set out in the bill base lines which would have been established by sets of co-ordinates pretty well along the line of the base lines which were suggested in the submission of the fisheries council of Canada. However, there again the majority in the committee did not see fit to support such amendment, and while I realize it would be within my rights to introduce a similar amendment in the committee of the whole, I do not propose to do so because I think it would be a duplication of effort and really would not accomplish anything fruitful in view of the position which was taken in the standing committee.
While the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) voiced at least some objection to the proposals in the bill very similar to the objection which I expressed, I am rather regretful of the fact that he did not see fit to support my objection in a more direct and forthright manner than he did either on second reading stage or in the standing committee. I got the impression while listening to his earlier remarks that he was simply pointing out to the committee that during the time he was a member of the former government he and his government had perpetuated the position of the administration previous to them, which had consistently appeared to be afraid to grasp the nettle of this question. I may say I am happy that the present administration has moved at least one step toward grasping this nettle, and in that respect I commend its actions over and above that of the two preceding administrations, one of which was of course Conservative, the other being the former Liberal administration.
I have tried to make it clear right through the proceedings that parliament itself should, as far as I am concerned, be the body which establishes by clear and definite acts what will actually become the official boundaries of this country. In my view it is not appropriate, regardless of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs may say about the practice in other countries, that any body other than the parliament of this country should be the one which defines the boundaries of Canadian sovereignty. Changes in those boundaries should be brought about only as a result of direct action by the parliament of

Canada in a form which makes such action specifically part of the statutes of Canada.
About the time that the proceedings in the standing committee on marine and fisheries reached their conclusion some member in the house, during the course of a discussion about another matter, brought back to our attention a phrase which is becoming rather well known and is taken from a speech of the Prime Minister, in which he suggested that this is a time "to excite the daring". I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the approach which has been taken to this matter, certainly as far as I have been able to see from the statements which have been made to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, his actions have been neither very exciting nor very daring. To come to the point which causes me to feel this, let me say at once it is because he has indicated more than once in the course of our discussions that he has no intention of raising with the United States in particular the question of the perpetuation of these old treaty rights. If I understand him correctly-and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) raised this point-he has also indicated that he has no intention of discussing with the United States any revision or phasing out of their so-called historic fishing rights.
In the committee I tried to make it clear that our dealings with the United States should be on the basis of dealings with a good and friendly neighbour, but from any experience I have had in dealing with Americans as individuals I certainly feel that if there is one thing they understand it is straightforward and forthright dealings. I think we should have laid our cards on the table and have said we feel that these rather archaic treaty rights, which came into being at a time when we were not in a position to negotiate on our own behalf, should now go by the board. I think this would not be entirely a one-sided proposition.
I raised this question in the committee and the only answer I got from the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that it would not be in our national interest to do this. That is a flat declaration, but up until this time the minister has given us no indication whatsoever in what respect it would not be in our national interest. Quite frankly, I cannot help having some suspicion that what is happening is that our fishing interests are being sacrificed for some other unnamed and unspecified national interests, and I think this committee should be entitled to further information on which we can assess and judge
8, 1964	5213
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones whether the minister's statement is anything more than an unsupported declaration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt but I can assure my hon. friend that is not the case.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not quite sure what the minister is indicating is not the case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, who is making a very interesting and serious speech, but he said that I had replied that it was not in the national interest. Then the hon. gentleman queried what I meant by national interest. Was it related to some other area? Were the fishermen being sacrificed to satisfy another aspect of the national interest? I assure my hon. friend that is not so. The national interest involved in this case comprises the fisheries industry and the fishermen of Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have indicated several times during the discussion of this matter that I recognize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot give us every detail concerning negotiations that are still in progress. I recognize the validity of his contention in that regard and, of course, I can only accept his statement that the fishing interests are not being sacrificed to some other aspect of national interest. But I still should like to know in much more definite terms the full details of why that is so. This brings me back, of course, to the contention that has been made, that it is a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs to be discussing this bill when negotiations with other countries are still in progress and when we cannot be made acquainted with the details of negotiations or be told what conclusions have been arrived at in order that we as members of the house may make a fair assessment of the validity of the claims that are being made by members of the government in this connection.
I took the trouble, Mr. Chairman, to look at some of the old treaties, perhaps in a rather cursory way, and to bring to the attention of the standing committee my feeling that over the years since the original treaty rights were established as part of the general package settlement in the first instance at the termination of hostilities between the United States and Great Britain in 1783, the original rather balanced provisions of the treaty had been whittled away in a rather one-sided manner. In other words, the original concessions which were granted by the United States to us had vanished while the United States had pretty well retained the original rights it received.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
I drew the attention of the committee to the fact, for example, that the original treaty of 1783 gave us the right of navigation forever from the source to the mouth of the Mississippi river. We were granted free passage for all time. It was pointed out that that right was abrogated by the treaty following the war of 1812. I was interested in the question of river navigation perhaps because of being a British Columbian and being aware that we have enjoyed navigation rights on another river-


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: And being a good and adventurous man, too.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -which has been the subject matter of some discussion in the house not too long ago. I am referring, of course, to the Columbia river. If I may say so without being too serious about it, I was somewhat amazed that when I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether we still enjoy the rights of navigation on the Columbia river conferred by the Oregon treaty of 1846 he was not able to give me an offhand answer to that question. I was later informed that we still enjoy the right of free navigation of the Columbia from the international boundary to its mouth.
I bring this forward, not for any snide purpose by way of indicating that the minister does not yet know all the details regarding the subject of external affairs but to point out that I think it was a rather serious omission on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in opening these negotiations with the United States, that it did not occur to him that this might very well have been an important bargaining point in the discussions with the United States. I contend that this of itself provides a very valid reason for suggesting that there be some revision of existing treaty rights between our two countries.
While the suggestion I am now going to make may create a somewhat nostalgic reaction on the part of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, I do suggest quite seriously to the minister that when he renews negotiations with the United States he should raise this question and perhaps suggest to the United States that we would be willing to swap our rights of navigation on the Columbia for those old treaty fishing rights. I think he can do that nicely. I also think it might not be altogether amiss if it were to be pointed out to the United States that for practical purposes they have virtually abrogated the treaty provision with regard to our


right of navigation on the Columbia river without, as far as I am aware, ever discussing the matter with Canada. They did so when they built the original power dams across the Columbia. Those of us who live in the west know that there is no provision for ship navigation around Grand Coulee dam on the Columbia river.
I think that is the kind of approach that we as a free and sovereign nation should take. We are talking at least about having a distinctive flag and in my view we could very well point out to the United States that we want to sit down with them on a friendly basis and balance out a few of these things that have gone on in the past. Certainly we would not ask them to blast Grand Coulee dam out of the Columbia river at this stage of events in order to restore to us our treaty right to free passage on the Columbia. However, in exchange for our formally abrogating those rights we could very well request them to restore to us full sovereignty along sections of the Atlantic coast where under these old treaties they have rights which they must admit are not consistent with the full sovereignty of the Canadian nation.
I think this would put the whole situation in a context that would be a little more exciting, a little more daring, without making us obnoxious or antagonistic to our friends in the United States. Let us let them know this Canadian nation to the north is a nation which they should regard as a sovereign nation and which expects to be treated as equal even though it may not have as large a population as our cousins to the south have within their borders. This is the kind of approach I should like to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs take in his dealings with the United States. I think it could be presented in language which the people of the United States would understand. I feel the same thing should apply with regard to this matter of the claims to historic fishing rights and the negotiations on the phasing out period.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) suggested there is some question about whether or not this is going to be done. I certainly have a very clear impression that the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have told us they are not even going to raise this question of the phasing out of historic rights so far as the United States is concerned. Certainly, so far as the west coast of Canada is concerned it is abundantly clear the only nation that really has these so-called historic rights is the

United States. Unless we can come to some conclusion on this matter with the United States which provides for a phasing out, this whole action is more or less an exercise in futility so far as the improvement of the Canadian fisheries position is concerned.
This would not be a completely unprecedented action on our part. I happened to come across an article in a treaty between the United States and Great Britain in 1871. Article XVIII of that treaty provides for one of the forms of the renewal of the fishing rights of United States nationals in Canadian waters. Article XIX provides for reciprocal rights for Canadian fishermen in United States waters. It gives us those rights in terms fairly similar to those which were conferred upon the fishermen of the United States at that time. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, article XIX, and I quote briefly from it:
It Is agreed by the high contracting parties that British subjects shall have, in common with the citizens of the United States, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the eastern seacoasts and shores of the United States north of the thirty ninth parallel of north latitude-
Now, article XXXIII of the treaty indicates that this right which is conferred by article XIX is to remain in effect for a period of ten years, and after that it will terminate. It seems to me, as I say, that this idea of a phasing out period is something which has been in existence in relation to the United States at least since 1871. I think it would not be out of place for us at this time to suggest to the United States that perhaps the thing be done in reverse to what it was in 1871. Certainly I hope before these negotiations are concluded that, in addition to the appropriate establishment of base lines we are going to have a clearcut understanding with the United States as well as with some of those other countries to which the minister referred, that we want this phasing out period; that we are not going to be satisfied in our negotiations until that has been achieved.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to attempt to repeat in the committee of the whole house what took place in the standing committee on marine and fisheries. For that reason I am not going to take the time of the committee to attempt to reintroduce any of the amendments which I proposed in the standing committee on behalf of the New Democratic party. If the pattern of events is the same in committee of the whole as it was in the standing com-
8, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones mittee, I assume that this bill will be reported to the house from this committee very probably without amendment and will come up for third reading in due course. I certainly am not going to oppose passage of the bill on third reading. I think the form of my amendment at the second reading stage made it clear that it was the manner and method of achieving the purpose of the bill rather than its purpose that we were opposing. In concluding I will agree with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) by saying that, as far as it goes, it is a step in the right direction. We certainly intend to support its passage on third reading if it does reach that stage without any further amendments.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to register continuing support at this stage for Bill No. S-17. I do not see that much can be gained or would be gained by a repetition of the arguments that have been submitted at other stages of this proposed legislation. It seems to me that matters were covered quite fully, even although some of the answers might not have been just what we had hoped we would receive. Nevertheless, it has been indicated that is as far as we can get in obtaining information, especially considering the fact that these negotiations are still in progress.
There is increasing interest, of course, in the objective this measure seeks to achieve. I do not think there is any question about it; there is general support for the idea that has been submitted and the objective that is set out in this particular measure. The fishermen's organizations have been very definite in their criticism of this measure. Those who were members of the committee on marine and fisheries are well aware of the bases for these criticisms. The fishermen have had an opportunity now to appear before the committee and make their views known. This is something they had wanted for a considerable length of time, and I am sure it is something that should have been granted to them.
There are two or three main criticisms, and these have been referred to by other speakers. One was the failure of the government to specify the geographical coordinates. As has been pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this is something he feels would have interfered with the negotiations that are currently under way. The other main criticism, it seems to me, was the somewhat indefinite position in which we still find ourselves relevant to the existing fishing rights. These have been divided into two, the treaty rights and the

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones historic fishing rights. I believe we were advised that so far as the treaty rights are concerned they are exercised to a very limited degree at present, and I am of the opinion that something could and should have been done with respect to renegotiation of these treaties. Just because they have been in effect so long, and because the other parties may not have appreciated the issues being raised, this constitutes no reason why they should not be renegotiated. Some of the arguments submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are very relevant and the minister should take them under advisement.
The historic rights issue has been discussed at some length, particularly the phasing out period, and another matter raised was the limitation regarding catches. I imagine these are some of the things the minister will take into consideration and work out in the process of negotiation.
We have every right to expect that the government with courage and tenacity will maintain the rights which are essentially and undeniably Canadian. Perhaps we should take that for granted, but I just want to remind the minister that we expect him, and those associated with him, to maintain our position in every respect so far as Canadian rights are concerned. While this bill is not completely satisfactory we believe it is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians that it be passed. Therefore we are giving it our support with the expectation that, as weaknesses and flaws show up in the future, amendments will be introduced to bring the bill more in line with the needs of the Canadian people.


Mr. Belanger:: I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say a few words to show where our party stands on this bill.
If I rise to speak on this matter, it is because I was one of my party's representatives on the committee on marine and fisheries and I am aware of all the discussions that took place there when that committee dealt with Bill No. S-17.
Now, I should like to point out that we are not altogether satisfied with the manner in which the Canadian fishing zone limits were set. We would have liked those zones to be much larger, but we understood the reasons given to us afterwards, according to which it is better to leave things as they are for the moment, while reserving the right to claim wider limits at the next opportunity.


I also believe that the legislation governing fish conservation which has been established and is in force in Canada is not adequately protected by this bill. In my opinion, the government should have been stricter and more to the point, if I may put it this way, when asking the other nations to observe the fishery regulations in effect in Canada, which is absolutely essential if our fisheries are to be preserved. After all, fisheries are a very important source of income for Canada and they should not be ruined. Therefore, legislation on conservation of Canadian fisheries must be enforced and we must forbid other nations to fish as they wish regardless of our legislation. We should be tougher in this field.
On the other hand, I would also have liked to see a firmer bill as far as historic and treaty rights are concerned. Canada should not take provocative steps towards other nations, but rather a firm attitude and indicate, first, through diplomatic channels, and then by firmer action, that these historical rights are more or less outdated and should not hinder the Canadian fishing trade.
It is with that in mind and also in order not to prolong this debate unnecessarily that we have decided to support Bill No. S-17, as drafted. As stated by the hon. member who spoke before me, we reserve the right to come back to this subject in a little while when the arrangements made by the government and the treaties entered upon between the government and other nations are known.
It is, therefore, with that in mind that, unanimously, we are going to vote in favour of the bill.


Mr. Chatterton:: I expect that this bill will be carried this afternoon, but hon. members on the other side should not be in such a hurry because we find it our duty at all times to bring to the attention of the people of Canada how legislation which the government produces varies from the legislation that the Liberal party promised during the last election. This package bill, No. S-17, is not what the Liberal party promised, at least on the west coast, during the last election.
I had occasion to go home a few days ago and met with a small group of commercial fishermen in the Sooke area. After dealing with the subject I went there to cover, I asked them what they thought about this bill. One of the fishermen said:	"You know,
George, I am a New Democratic party man

but in the last election I voted Liberal because the Liberals promised us that they would take their courage in their hands and establish unilaterally a 12 mile effective fishing zone based on straight lines from headland to headland, and we assumed that shortly after they came into power we would know, for instance, that Hecate strait, Queen Charlotte sound and Dixon entrance would be Canadian waters." This is just another example of how the Liberals promise one thing and deliver something completely different.
For example, I have before me the famous full page advertisement from the Daily Colonist of Victoria, B.C., dated March 31, 1963. I could spend an hour describing the promises the Liberals made in this full page advertisement, and what they have already stated they are not going to carry out, apart from what they will not carry out but have not said so. They said they were going to introduce N.H.A. loans on existing housing. They brought in N.H.A. loans on existing housing, but only in urban renewal areas.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Designated areas.


George Louis Chatterton: In designated areas, so that they can go back to the people and say they fulfilled their promise. I am sorry the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is not in his seat at the moment because I well remember during the last election at all-candidates meetings this question of the 12 mile limit came up. It was an important issue on the west coast, and the Liberals decried the efforts of the previous government when we tried to tell the people that the 12 mile zone could only be effective if it were negotiated, at least so far as historic rights are concerned. But the Liberal party made it clear it would establish a 12 mile limit, based on straight base lines from headland to headland. That is not what has been done.
All this bill will do is establish a 12 mile fishing limit based on the sinuosities of the coast. The important matters, the matters with which our commercial fishermen are most concerned, are not covered in this legislation at all. There is no indication where the co-ordinates from which the base lines will be measured will be. Even a reference to the term "headland" might have been an improvement. There is no mention of what will happen to the historic or traditional rights. There is not even an indication that there will be a phasing out of these rights.
We maintain that the only effective way of establishing a limit is by international
8, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones agreement, and we came very close to achieving that agreement in 1961 in the United Nations. We failed by one vote to secure the two thirds majority which would have made our proposal effective in international law. I know, of course, that there was a slight difference-the distances involved were six miles and six miles rather than three miles and nine miles, but the principle was the same. I believe the only reason we did not get the one vote we needed was because the delegate from India buckled under pressure from the Soviet union.
I should like the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he closes the debate to tell us in detail what efforts the present government has made to try to get support from various nations, should this question again arise in the United Nations. I remember so well Hon. Howard Green, the former secretary of state for external affairs who did so much for this country, telling us of the efforts he had made to try to get agreement in the United Nations on an effective six and six mile formula. I should like the hon. gentleman to tell us what the present government is doing in this regard. He should tell us whether he intends to continue efforts in the United Nations to reach agreement on some formula, either the previous one of six and six or the present one of three and nine, to be accepted by the United Nations so that it may become international law binding on all members.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs repeatedly told the committee on marine and fisheries that the passage of this bill would strengthen the hands of our negotiators in their dealings with other countries on the question of historic and traditional rights. But he did not explain how this bill would help them, or at least I did not gather from his statements in what way specifically it would strengthen the hands of the government in negotiating as to these rights. I hope the hon. gentleman when he closes the debate will give us some specific information as to how the passage of this bill would help.
We intend to support this bill because it is a step, though only a doddering step, in the right direction. If, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, its passage will strengthen the hands of the government in negotiation, why was it not brought forward in the first 60 days of decision? Why wait for 400 days? There must I presume have been negotiations throughout this period. If they now believe passage of this bill will strengthen

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones their hands, why did they not bring it forward in the first 60 days so that their hands would have been strengthened during the past 340 days? It is hard for me to understand why they have waited so long.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said he hoped negotiations with regard to the inclusions, the co-ordinates and so on would be completed within a matter of months. Why in that case could we not have waited until at least the major features of these negotiations have been settled and included in the bill? As it is now, the matters left to the governor in council are vastly more significant than the proclamation contained in clause 4 itself which would only establish this 12 mile limit based on sinuosities. As to the matter of the co-ordinates and inclusions, this bill could at least have said what the intentions are with regard to the Dixon entrance, Queen Charlotte sound, Hecate strait, the gulf of St. Lawrence, the straits of Belle Isle and the bay of Fundy. Surely these could have been specified in the bill before us. As it is we have nothing to go on except the statement of the minister that he hopes the negotiations with these other countries will be concluded in a matter of months.
I support this bill, but again I make the point that it is not what the people of Canada were led to believe in the last election this government would produce. It is one of many examples of how the Liberal government misled the people by promising something they knew they could not deliver. In my opinion the main purpose of this bill is to make the people believe that the Liberal government has fulfilled its promise in this regard. There are so many promises they have not fulfilled that they are obliged to make use of every opportunity to make it appear, at least, that they have carried out their undertakings.


Robert William Prittie: My remarks will not be unlike those of the previous speaker. The main effect of this bill will be to improve Liberal party pamphlets in the next election. Hon. members opposite will be able to put out pamphlets in the maritime provinces and British Columbia saying: We promised a bill to establish a 12 mile fishing limit; we have kept that promise; here it is. There is a similarity here to what happened in the case of the promised bursaries for students. In the end we got a lesser measure to provide a student loans fund. Both are bills with fine titles but little substance.


Members of the two major parties represented in this house sometimes say to us in the New Democratic party: You make these promises because you know you will never be in power and in a position to carry them out. I should like to say that these people who have had long experience of power should be a little more responsible; they should either tone down their promises or else carry them out. In this case, extravagant promises were made to the fishermen and as a result the fishermen believed this bill would be much stronger than the one which has been presented to us. In my view the measure before us has little substance because the government has no intention of interfering in any way with the historic rights enjoyed by the United States. It will, I imagine, keep out some countries which do relatively little fishing. But it will have little or no effect upon the country which is mainly concerned, that is, the United States.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi made some reference in his speech to being daring. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), it seems to me, made it apparent he does not want to be daring, especially with regard to the United States, and he was frank in saying so. I do not think the government intends to be daring in its dealings with the United States, either, but they do not say so. They give us the form of the bill without its substance and I am sure the substance will not be filled in later, as we are led to expect.
1 agree though that this measure poses a problem for an opposition member. Here again it resembles the proposed student loans bill. It is much less than was promised, but who is going to be on record as voting against student loans? My colleagues do not propose to vote against this measure. It is a small measure, though, and we regret that it does nothing at all to improve the position of Canadian fishermen, particularly those on the west coast.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the aspects of this bill in the light of something which I think perhaps the minister and his advisers have completely overlooked in the consequential amendments that are set forth in part II of the bill. I discuss this question on clause 1 because the ramifications attendant upon the bringing into force of these consequential amendments cannot properly be confined to any particular clause of the bill in the committee discussion.
Part II of the bill, as the minister well knows, deals with some consequential amend-

merits and purports-I believe, without due notice to the public-to amend six acts. One of these is the Aeronautics Act, another is the Canada Shipping Act, as well as the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, and the Fisheries Act. I want to be specific about the Aeronautics Act, because I have given this matter some considerable study. In view of the very broad terms of clause 2 of Bill No. S-17, this singling out, as it were, of only the acts specifically named in part II of the bill must be-this is my conclusion, at any rate, and perhaps the minister can set me right if I am wrong- because this new bill, S-17, refers to "territorial sea" whereas the acts which are enumerated in part II of Bill No. S-17 refer to "territorial waters", "Canadian waters", "three nautical miles", "waters of Canada", and like expressions. These expressions are used respectively in the acts specifically set out in part II of the bill. I refer to the acts which are being consequentially amended.
If the acts listed in part II are required to be amended consequentially; if it is necessary that they be amended consequentially, then I would submit to the minister and his advisers that there are many other Canadian statutes-and statutes implementing treaties, incidentally-as well as treaties themselves, to which Canada is at least a signatory, which would also require amendment.
I am going to give just one or two very brief examples. Again, Mr. Chairman, these are examples with which I am familiar. The first one I would like to put to the minister is the bill that is, or was, before the other place. I am not sure whether it is still before the Senate. I refer to Bill No. S-25, an act respecting the Geneva conventions, 1949. The minister will note that in article 91 at page 78 of Bill No. S-25, in paragraph 3 the expression "territorial waters" is used. Why should not this treaty be amended, if the Aeronautics Act, which also refers to "territorial waters", is being amended? This argument applies also to the other five specific statutes set out in part II of Bill No. S-17. The only answer I can conclude as being correct is that one cannot very easily amend a treaty that Canada has already signed.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is exactly the point.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says this is the point. Then this seems to be very inconsistent, since there are many other treaties to which Canada is a signatory, and which may or may not have become law in Canada by an act of parliament, which refer to "territorial waters".
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones A further example is section 2 of article VIII of the convention on international civil aviation, 1944, signed by Canada. This is commonly called the Chicago treaty. I would like to read from a copy of that treaty which I have in my hand, for the benefit of the minister and so it will be on the record. I shall read section 2 of article VIII, which sets forth:
For the purposes of this agreement the territory of a state-
And Canada is one such state:
-shall be deemed to be the land areas and territorial waters adjacent thereto under the sovereignty, suzerainty, protection or mandate of such state.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the minister will note that the expression "territorial waters" is used. This seems to be directly in conflict with the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act which Bill No. S-17 attempts to bring about by part II. I would be very interested in the explanation of the minister's advisers, or the Minister of Justice, as he is in the chamber, on this very point. I see that the Minister of Justice is leaving the chamber, perhaps the point is not nice enough. It was under the Chicago treaty, that I have mentioned, that the international civil aviation organization, as the minister knows, was set up with offices and headquarters in Montreal. It seems to me that unless this bill, to be consistent, goes on to amend by an act of parliament these other treaties to which Canada is a signatory, what we are doing is bringing about the application of the breaking of a treaty. That is the only conclusion to which I can come. Perhaps the minister has a logical explanation for this, and if he has I would be very glad to hear it.
Another statute, with which I am sure the minister is familiar, is the Admiralty Act, which is to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, volume 1, chapter 1. In section 18(1) this act adopts the law of England. In the law of England the expression which is and has been long established is "territorial waters" or "three mile limit". Why has the Admiralty Act not been amended, as well as many other acts and treaties in which the expression "territorial waters" or similar expressions are used? Does clause 2 of Bill No. S-17-to put the specific question to the minister-cover this situation? Does clause 2, or do any of the provisions of this bill, cover this situation? I cannot find how they do, but perhaps the minister can tell us whether the provisions of this bill affect the provisions
osse

^ea and Fishing Zones
Term u*.
of the Admiralty Act, which I have mentioned, as it now exists. If not, then should not amendments consequential be brought in, to maintain consistency here? It would seem that if it is not covered in the bill, we are looking forward to a very sorry mess indeed in our admiralty law and jurisdiction.
With these few examples I am sure the minister can readily see that the action intended by Bill No. S-17-this is my view, at any rate-has not been fully thought out and studied as to all the repercussions it might have both internally and internationally. If the bill is allowed to stand in its present form, I am sure these repercussions will occur, particularly with regard to the Aeronautics Act; because of course the amendments that are purported to be made by part II consequentially affect all territorial air spaces above Canadian territorial waters, or territorial sea, which is the new expression that Bill No. S-17 uses.
In my view the wording of Bill No. S-17 would permit the establishment by order in council of dual, triple or multiple jurisdiction over these proposed new extensions to the well established international law covered by the expression "territorial waters" or "three mile limit", as for instance is used in the Admiralty Act. There could be one territorial sea for fishing, one territorial sea for shipping, and yet another territorial sea for aeronautics purposes. Under Bill No. S-17, "an act of state", to use that expression-and I use the expression in quotation marks-we will have the first Canadian unilateral acquisition of territory or parts of the sea by an act of state since confederation, except by specific agreement or by treaty, and Canada is setting, I feel-and this is my own personal, professional view-a bad example for the rest of the world. As an example-I am sure the minister will see the analogy-if Indonesia, using Canada's example as set forth in Bill S-17 as a precedent, did something similar the freedom of the sea and the air, and shipping and air flights, would all be cut off from the Pacific ocean to the Indian ocean. So you could draw similar analogies with any other state using Bill S-17 for a precedent with respect to treaties such as the Chicago treaty.
To my understanding of the expression "act of state", it means an act of aggression. It is an act of acquisition or a declaration of war against other states, and it is not to be entered into casually. I am being serious here. I do not mean to infer that Bill S-17 will cause any wars, but if the minister has referred to the specific definition of the ex-

pression "act of state" I think he will agree with me that such a unilateral act is an act of state if it abrogates any existing treaty. If such an act of state occurs, in essence it is action against another state. It is action which should not be entered into casually or without studying real necessities as opposed to all the possible dangers inherent in the taking of such action. It is, the minister will agree with me, a unilateral piece of legislation.
I do not think the minister has agreed, in regard to specific assurances from any other states that the action proposed in this bill is going to be accepted, not to confine this objection to fisheries but to broaden it and examine the effect it will have on international air traffic in the country. The further point can be made that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 might have given our country the right to legislate beyond its jurisdiction; but if so it must specifically repeal the law set out in the territorial waters act of England, which Canada has followed to date. In this connection I would refer the minister to the prefix to the statutes of Canada 1930, second session 1931, the 21st and 22nd years of George V, which sets out the power conferred on Canada. I see no such consequential amendment in part II to this bill which will alter that situation. I should like to quote very briefly from that prefix, to put it on the record:
No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions if any existing or future act of parliament of the United Kingdom or to any order, rule or regulation made under such act, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order or regulation, in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominion.
There is no doubt that the admiralty law of England applies in Canada. Section 18(1), which I have already quoted to the minister, says so. It says that the law of England includes the territorial waters act-that is, the three mile limit-and all other laws. Therefore, Canada has specifically to repeal those laws-and this is the nub of my point-if it is going to set up a new territorial sea. Canada must then establish a new set of laws to replace the admiralty law of England, to follow the matter out to a logical conclusion. The Admiralty Act of 1952, Revised Statutes of Canada, section 18(1), is in direct conflict, in my submission, with this present bill.
I am sure the minister can see, as can other members, that the question is indeed

involved, and that one simply cannot accept the statement that the six acts listed exhaust the acts of parliament which must be amended consequentially in order to implement the intention of the provisions of this bill. For instance, supposing under clause 2 that the governor in council selected Sable island as the geographical point as described therein from which to calculate base lines. The situation which would then arise would be that all of the territorial seas-and I see the minister is shaking his head, and I understood in committee that the assurance was given that this will not be done. But I do not think that this assurance is enough. While the minister probably has the assurances of his cabinet colleagues now, this in turn does not assure the people of the country of our international friends that some future government might not take action under clause 2 of this bill and use Sable island as a geographical point.
To conclude my example, if this were done and Sable island were so used it would mean that all the air space between Sable island and Halifax would become Canadian air space. If the amendments to what was Bill No. C-117 which was before the house last session to amend the Aeronautics Act- and this measure is again on the order paper this session-were to pass, every international carrier flying between New York and Prestwick would be subject to overflight charges; and I am sure that is not the result the minister wants. Strange as it may seem, the consequential amendments to the fisheries bill before us would have this very effect on the aeronautical activities of world aviation companies flying into, out of and near Canadian land, water and air space.
Therefore I would urge the minister to consider if nothing else an amendment-I am not going to propose an amendment in this regard-to clause 2 of this bill which would exclude Sable island, say-and this gives rise to the only situation that I can imagine can result in the effect I have described-from the operation of that clause, so there will be no doubts in the minds of international air carriers who are parties to the Chicago treaty that there will ever be any attempts by a Canadian government to say that the air space between Sable island and Nova Scotia, or Sable island and Halifax, or any area in between there, is going to be considered Canadian air space for the purposes of subsequent legislation, like that which is going to be brought before the house 20220-3311
8, 1964	5221
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones by way of amendment to the Aeronautics Act, and which would subject international air flights to overflight fees and charges.
I can assure the minister that I have devoted a good deal of study to an examination of this particular problem, and I think that the effect of the amendments to the Fisheries Act and the consequential amendments set forth in part II, and specifically the inclusion of the Aeronautics Act, will have this undesirable effect which I am sure the minister does not want. He could cure it very easily by adopting on behalf of the government the amendment I have suggested. By so doing he would certainly set the international aviation industry at rest, and such a small amendment would not alter the substantive provisions of the bill in any way.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this measure I wish to state that I am in agreement with the basic principle of the bill. The bill states this in clause 2:
Every provision of this act extends and applies to every act of the parliament of Canada, now or hereafter passed, and to every order, rule or regulation thereunder, except in so far as any such provision is inconsistent with the intent or object of such act, order, rule or regulation, or would give to any word, expression or clause thereof an interpretation repugnant to the subject matter or context, or is, in any such act, order, rule or regulation, declared not applicable thereto.
In view of that statement, Mr. Chairman, I would refer to clause 12 of Bill No. S-17 where under subclause 3 of that clause section 31 of the Fisheries Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
No one shall leave any port or place in Canada to fish outside Canadian fisheries waters for fish the catching of which is at such time prohibited in the Canadian fisheries waters opposite to or nearest the place where such person proposes to fish, and no one shall bring into Canada any fish caught outside Canadian fisheries waters when fishing for such fish is prohibited inside the Canadian fisheries waters opposite or nearest to the place where such fish was caught, or shall bring into Canada any vessels, boats, nets, fishing gear, implements or appliances used in such fishing. '
In checking the original section in the Fisheries Act I find that the words "territorial waters of Canada" have been changed in the wording in the bill to read "Canadian fisheries waters". However, I believe this entire section should be amended as it discriminates against Canadian fishermen, and when we are dealing with the clause by clause study of the bill I intend to move an amendment.
I say it is discriminatory because at the present time the dragging of scallops is prohibited in two specific areas off the coast of

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Nova Scotia at certain times of the year. Under the fisheries regulations, which are designed to conserve the inshore fisheries, no person is permitted to fish for scallops within seven nautical miles of the counties of Annapolis and Digby from May 1 to August 31. The same law applies to Lunenburg county, where no person shall be permitted to fish for scallops within seven nautical miles of the coast of Lunenburg county between May 1 and October 31.
The Fisheries Act, in which section 31 is found, is dated 1932, and if this clause was enforced by the federal Department of Fisheries it would result in the Lunenburg county deep sea scallop fleet being tied up to the wharves each year from May 1 to October 31. It could also result in the curtailment of operations of any deep sea scallop dragger operating out of Annapolis and Digby counties from May 1 to August 31. In my opinion this is a form of discrimination against Canadian fishermen and Nova Scotia fishermen in particular.
Nova Scotia today is truly the scallop province of Canada, for our ships now account for at least 98 per cent of all Canadian scallop production. As a result of the Conservative government's shipbuilding assistance program, our fleet of scallop draggers has increased to 40 in the last three years, with more being launched every month. As might be expected, the catch per boat has declined as the fleet has increased in numbers, but despite this fact the scallop fishermen along the coast of Nova Scotia are still earning a good living through hard work at this particular type of deep sea fishery.
To give the committee some idea of the vast expansion which has taken place in this industry, I point out that in the year 1953 the entire catch of scallops in Nova Scotia amounted to a mere 1J million pounds, worth less than half a million dollars to the fishermen. In 1963 over 16 million pounds of scallops were landed, with a value in excess of $6 million to the fishermen, representing increases in both weight and value of well over 1,000 per cent in the short space of 10 years. With the Canadian market consuming less than one fifth of our annual scallop production, we are obliged to rely very heavily on the United States market. Even though the American fishing fleet has an annual production of some 25 million pounds, three quarters of which comes from the New Bedford, Massachusetts fleet there is still an annual scallop consumption in the United States of approximately 40 million pounds. This

gives the committee some idea of the terrific potential in this industry and, of course, our heavy exports of scallops help toward bringing our balance of payments in line with the United States.
In my opinion section 31 of the Fisheries Act, stating that fish are not to be caught outside territorial waters when catching is forbidden in territorial waters, may have had some value in 1932, but times have changed and the terrific growth in the deep sea scallop industry alone since 1953 would indicate that a change in the act is long overdue. The minister or his officials may point out that no one has been fined or had his fishing licence cancelled under this regulation. However, if it was enforced today the scallop fleet operating out of Lunenburg county could be legally tied up from May 1 until October 31, thereby creating untold financial hardship in this industry. In my opinion this section of the act not only discriminates against the scallop fishermen but also prevents the establishment of a deep sea lobster industry in Nova Scotia.
As most hon. members are aware, Nova Scotia is divided into lobster fishing zones and at the present time zones 6A and 6B, which lie between the high capes around the tip of Cape Breton island to point Michaud, are the only places in which lobsters may be legally caught up to July 15. Most of the other zones are closed on June 30. Zone 4 takes in an area from Cole Harbour in Guys-borough county along the south shore of Nova Scotia, which includes Halifax county, Lunenburg county, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby counties, and the fishermen are only permitted to catch lobsters in zone 4 from December 1 to May 31. During the remaining six months of the year lobsters cannot be caught and landed legally in this area, and this applies not only to lobsters caught on the inshore grounds but also to any lobsters that may be caught by a deep sea fisherman. Nova Scotia fishermen are thereby prohibited under clause 31 of the Fisheries Act of 1932 from exploiting a deep sea lobster fishery on Georges and Browns banks that could well be worth over $1 million per year in landed value to the fishermen.
In 1963 the landed value of all fish caught in Nova Scotia amounted to $35 million, which represents an increase of $12 million over 10 years ago. Of this total, an estimated 36 million pounds of lobsters brought in almost $18 million to our fishermen. Lobsters, therefore, are the greatest dollar earner for our

fishermen, with scallops in second place. However, in my opinion we are only scratching the surface of the lobster industry because due to prohibitive regulations we are not taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the deep sea lobster fishery. We know that a great market exists for lobsters both in North America and in Europe. Because of its economic importance, considerable interest is attached to this creature both by the fishing industry and the fisheries research scientists.
While much has been learned about this strange creature, there is still a lot more to be discovered. We know that lobster stocks occupy thousands of square miles of open coastal waters, and these could well be called our inshore lobster population. We also know that lobsters can be caught in our offshore waters from 100 to 200 fathoms deep in an area south of Georges bank approximately 100 miles from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. What we do not know is the relation between these two lobster populations.
Some marine biologists claim there are actually two distinct lobster populations, while others claim that lobsters hatched in the deep waters offshore are carried by strong currents, while in the larvae or free swimming stage, and that these lobsters help to populate the inshore banks. Because of the efforts of the research ships located at the oceanographic base established at Bedford basin, Halifax county, by the previous Conservative administration, we are gradually learning more about the habits of the lobster and about the food and disease that affect both his growth and survival. Common sense tells us that it is wise to carry out conservation measures on our inshore lobster fishing grounds in order to assure relatively good catches and income to our lobster fishermen. However, I question the soundness of carrying out a conservation policy on deep sea lobsters which, in effect, applies only to any potential Canadian deep sea lobster fishermen, while leaving the grounds wide open to fishermen from any other nation wishing to exploit them.
This is what is happening under clause 31, which actually restricts Canadian fishermen from landing deep sea caught lobsters at any point in Nova Scotia for approximately six months of the year. However, while we are conserving the supply of large lobsters on Georges bank, there are at least a dozen United States deep sea lobster draggers operating out of Sandwich, Plymouth and New
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Bedford-Fairhaven, providing employment to approximately 75 fishermen.
According to the last bureau of commercial fisheries statistics in the United States, the offshore lobster fisheries were worth more than $1 million to New Bedford fishermen last year. In January of 1964, the catch of deep sea lobster draggers totalled 161,000 pounds with a landed value to the United States fishermen for that month in the vicinity of $94,000.
Now, these lobsters are large in size, with many of them ranging from 12 to 20 pounds in weight. This would indicate good feeding and growing conditions in that area of the ocean.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, if the hon. member would allow me. This whole statement he is making is an objection to section 31 of the Fisheries Act and is not relevant to the bill we are discussing. If the hon. member will look at section 31, as it now stands, he will find there is no change that would affect the fishermen, whether they are fishing for scallops or lobsters. There is no change in the section except the words "territorial waters" appear instead of "territorial sea". In so far as the fishermen are concerned there is no change in section 31.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly I am rather surprised that the minister would intervene on this particular point. While I agree with what he has stated, I would point out also that at the outset of my remarks I referred to the fact the bill states that every provision of the act applies to every act of the parliament of Canada, and so on. He and his government, in their wisdom, thought it necessary to introduce an amendment to the Fisheries Act changing the words from "territorial waters of Canada", to "Canadian fisheries waters of Canada". By introducing the 12 mile limit, they are extending the territorial waters of Canada, I mean extending the fishing waters of Canada, an additional nine miles. I believe my remarks are quite relevant. I feel that this is an opportune time to correct an inequity that has been troubling Canadian fishermen, as I said, and Nova Scotia fishermen in particular since 1932. This is the reason I am making this statement, and I have only a few more comments to make relevant to these changes which I hope will be accepted when an amendment is proposed later.
As I stated, the deep sea lobster industry is a business that has been growing and ex-

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones panding. In my opinion, our research ships, which are making new discoveries on the ocean floor every day, are certain to find other stocks of deep sea lobsters on the vast offshore banks adjacent to Nova Scotia. At present, we are unaware of any conservation measures being taken on the high seas. Are the berried or seed lobsters being returned to the ocean, or are they being retained, thereby destroying hundreds of potential lobsters? Is the present dragging method destroying the grounds? Would it more advisable to set traps at sea similar to those used close to shore? These are questions that could be raised at meetings of the international commission for the north Atlantic fisheries, and early steps could be taken towards deep sea lobster conservation at the international level.
In the meantime, Nova Scotia needs new industries, and since the fisheries was one of the province's first industries its role in our economy is sometimes taken for granted. Generally speaking, the expansion of an old industry does not attract as much public notice as is the case when a new industry comes into being. However, I believe that the lobster industry in Nova Scotia can be developed and expanded by the harvesting of deep sea lobsters on our offshore banks and the first step necessary is to remove any discriminatory regulations that might deter enterprising Nova Scotians from developing this industry. Since clause 31 of the Fisheries Act has served as a road block to our economic fisheries expansion, it is my intention to move an amendment to this section of the bill when we start clause by clause study later in the committee.


Mr. Mather:: The New Democratic party, in line with important sections of the British Columbia fishing industry, has long made clear its desire to see the establishment of a Canadian fishing zone. Likewise, we have long made clear our very grave misgivings of the type of substitute for effective legislation which has been produced by the government in the legislation before us. It is a pretty "fishy" sort of substitute.
I feel that we want to see in Canada a "made in Canada" fishing zone bill which would assure a basis upon which Canadian fishermen and the Canadian fishing industry could operate in the knowledge that they would have the right to the fishing resources inside that area and not do as this legislation does, leave rights in perpetuity to other, non-Canadian powers. This is a principle we have put forward and which has been put

forward by many sections of the fishing industry in British Columbia. It is in line with the stand taken by several other nations which has imposed and established a similar fishing zone. We certainly concede it is necessary to negotiate with the other powers who have or claim to have historic rights or treaty rights which give their nationals a right to exploit Canadian fishing waters. However some of those treaties were signed on behalf of Canada more than a hundred years ago when, really, there was no Canada to negotiate for Canada.
Our opinion is that we should go ahead, as some other nations have done, establish our zone, then notify all other nations we are doing so and ask those who complain or object to come to us and negotiate on their own behalf. We think our prime interest is to establish a Canadian fishing zone for Canadians. This has been the policy of this party for years, both the C.C.F. and the New Democratic party. In 1963 and again in 1964, I personally moved Bill No. C-27 to establish a Canadian 12 mile fishing zone in line with the policy I have briefly outlined. This bill was talked out on both occasions. I might say that it was the same bill my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, moved in this house in 1962. I think it is rather interesting, Mr. Chairman, to look back briefly at the discussion that took place at that time, as represented in Hansard, when the hon. member for Skeena moved his bill to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and establish a 12 mile fishing limit. This was in January, 1962, and had his bill been passed at that time it would have come into effect this month, in 1964. On rereading the text of that debate in Hansard I find there are two very brief quotations I would like to put on the record at this time.
As recorded at page 379 of Hansard for January 30, 1962, the hon. member for Skeena said:
In my opinion we should not sacrifice the interests of our fishermen any longer. We should not allow the attitude of the United States in this regard to influence us to the extent that we do nohing about this most important question.
As recorded at page 381 of Hansard of the same date the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who is now the Minister of Transport, said:
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) both on the bill and on the very moderate and reasonable presentation he made of it. In saying that I am speaking for my party and I assert that we support the bill without reservation.

Further on, as recorded at page 384 of Hansard, he added:
I am not very impressed by the dangers which it is suggested might arise from an attempt to enforce this. After all, if Iceland and Norway have been able to do this by unilateral action it is hard to persuade me that the Canadian people, if they had a resolute government which could make up its mind about anything, would have any difficulty in doing the same.
I do not want to prolong discussion of this legislation. I do not think I could say anything more striking or forceful in support of the establishment of a real 12 mile Canadian fishing zone than to repeat the words of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate which 1 have just quoted. There is a question in my mind and the minds of many fishermen on the west coast as to whether this bill will do more harm than good. It is a very wishy-washy piece of legislation.


Robert Carman Coates: There does not seem to be a great deal of difference between the views expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster and those of other hon. members with regard to this bill. All members are concerned about the permissive aspects of the legislation, as well as about the diluted form in which we find it as compared with what was promised during the 1963 election campaign. The hon. member for New Westminster has described it as diluted, as wishy-washy, and certainly no one can disagree with him on that point. It is diluted in every possible way.
Views were expressed before the bill was presented that there might be grave concern on the part of nations who fish in the areas involved, but now that we know what the government intends, that concern has been eliminated because there does not seem to be any real change in the status of those nations. Indeed the only thing the bill will accomplish with respect to the fishing rights of various countries is that any new countries which plan to move into the stipulated areas might be stopped from doing so, and I would think from the government's attitude to date that it would find some means of covering them as well.
I would urge the Minister of Fisheries to give serious consideration to the proposal placed before him by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. When the hon. member was endeavouring to bring a very glaring inequity in the legislation to his attention, in the hope that he might give consideration to eliminating it, the minister rose on a point of order, in effect saying that though this was
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones an obvious injustice to the fishermen in Nova Scotia, the hon. member should not talk about it. Instead of that the minister should have said: "Well, this is a very important matter. It will mean the further development of fisheries in Nova Scotia and I will certainly look upon this amendment, when it is moved, with every possible consideration in the hope that I might assist in the further development of the fisheries in this province, which is so very important to the economy not only of Nova Scotia but of Canada generally."
This bill is not the type of legislation that the Canadian people expected. It is not the type of legislation that results from responsible government. When we were in office we took the responsible point of view and endeavoured to secure international agreement that would bring into effect an international 12 mile fishing zone that would be observed by all and argued against by none. In our attitude we gave no concern to anyone about a gunboat philosophy being promoted. But, as I say, once those who were concerned see this bill, I do not think there will be any concern on their part any longer.
We took every possible step to bring about a 12 mile fishing zone. Unfortunately, while we came very close-so close that it is hard to imagine we could have lost, having lost by only half a vote. It was not our fault that this happened, and had we desired to do so we could then have introduced this wishy-washy piece of legislation without any difficulty at all.
The great problem is that this legislation, like so many of the things surrounding the promises made to the electorate in 1963, is another gimmick to say to the Canadian people: "We did what we told you we were going to do during the election campaign, even though it is not the same as what we described, but it is something more than you had when we took office."
There cannot be any strong opposition to this bill because there is not anything that is very objectionable about it, now that it has been presented to us. The only objection to it is that there is nothing very effective about it; there is nothing in it of great value to our fishermen.
The bill can stand a lot of improvement and we cannot achieve these improvements until more progress has been made in negotiations with the other countries concerned than has been the case up to date. Many provisions in this measure will not take effect until some time in the future. We do not know how long we shall have to wait. We are told "almost

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones immediately", but we were also told during the election campaign that this bill would be in effect by May 15. Well, here we are in July, still debating the matter. We are told that all the negotiations are not complete as yet. The statement has been made that the process will not be a long one. But that depends on what is meant by "long". We were told it would not be long before a great many other pieces of legislation which were promised in 1963 were put into effect, but people are finding that they have to wait a long time for them, although perhaps in the minds of Liberals it seems short.
I hope the minister will give serious consideration when clause 12 comes up, to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. It has a great deal of merit. If adopted, it would provide an incentive to the fishing industry and would be of real benefit to the fishermen and to the economy of Nova Scotia. I certainly hope the minister will not take the narrow view that because this is the way in which things are done today under the Fisheries Act, this is how they are to remain. I hope instead he will take the point of view that this proposal would assist in the development of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. As I say, I support this amendment. I think it has great merit and our party, the Conservative party, would agree to it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before clause 1 carries, may I be allowed to make some comment on the observations which have been made by hon. members of this committee? First, I should like to excuse my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He had wished to remain in the chamber for the whole of this debate but, unfortunately, he had to leave for very important discussions which had previously been arranged.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) for the position he has taken on this bill. I agree with him that all of us would have preferred a multilateral agreement such as the one proposed at the Geneva conference in 1960. But I believe he would also agree with me that when it proved impossible to reach such an agreement we had no choice but to take a position such as we are taking now. There may be some difference of opinion about the stand which is now being adopted. It may not be entirely a unilateral position. The Prime Minister made it clear on June 5 of last year when he said in his announcement to the house that it was the intention of the government to take action with reference to the implementation of a 12 mile

fishing zone and introduce a territorial sea which would be based on a line drawn from headland to headland. But he also stated that this would be done after a certain amount of discussion with countries who are interested in the fishing around our shores.
I want to assure the hon. member that I am not one of those who are trying to blame previous administrations, whether the one directly previous to the present government or any of those which preceded it. I know that all previous governments have made every effort to establish fishing zones which would be satisfactory to our Canadian fishing interests. I also wish to join with the hon. member in expressing my appreciation of the work of the senior civil servants who have taken part in the negotiations on behalf of Canada, and I refer not only to the present negotiations but to those which took place in Geneva during the 1960 convention.
The hon. member also made reference to an article originated in Washington suggesting that Canada was taking a different stand from the one now set out. If my recollection is correct, the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with this point. The situation when Canada was trying to take part in the conclusion of a multilateral agreement was altogether different from that which exists now, when we are taking a position of our own.
As to the statement that the passage of this bill would strengthen our hand, I wish to assure members of the committee that this is so. We are following the practice-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The statement which the hon. gentleman just made has been made by him or by his colleague a number of times, but at no time as far as I can recall has any explanation been given us as to why it would strengthen our hand in these negotiations. I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific on this point before the clause is allowed to pass.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What has been done is this: In the first phase of our negotiations we made known to the countries interested what our intentions were-where the base lines we had in mind would be established. We also made known to them what areas of water would be affected by such an action. Now that this first phase of negotiation has been completed I feel the knowledge that we have parliamentary approval or enabling legislation giving the government full authority to act in this regard will strengthen the hand of our negotiators.

Reference has also been made to the length of time to be allowed with respect to phasing out operations. In this connection I wish to say we intend to follow accepted international practice; we shall allow the period of time which has been mentioned at various international conferences in this connection, including the Geneva conference. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) asked where the co-ordinates might be. If not today, then on a previous occasion, he said that co-ordinates could be established at any point, even a point of land or an artificial point of land which could be placed somewhere in the water.
The fact is that it is the intention of the government to follow international practice in this regard. Sable island has been mentioned. But if Sable island were used as the basis for establishing a co-ordinate, it would constitute a departure from the general practice. It would certainly create a large triangle on the south shore of Nova Scotia, an area which would extend maybe for 100 or 125 miles south. I would point out that when any country takes a unilateral position it has to take a position which is acceptable in international law and practice. Such a position could hardly be maintained if Sable island were used.
I cannot agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, to the effect that this bill does not satisfactorily deal with the situation. His complaint was to the effect that the timing of this bill was not right, because it was being introduced when negotiations were still in progress. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, now that we have completed the first phase of negotiations I am confident that the passing of this bill will strengthen our hand.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley said that some of the questions that have been asked have not been answered in the way some would have hoped. I want to assure the hon. member that under the present circumstances, while Canada is negotiating with a number of countries, the answers that were given were complete to the fullest extent with regard to information that could be disclosed and made public at the time.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked what steps the present government has taken to obtain further support at the United Nations for a multilateral agreement. I think it is very clear to anyone who is familiar with the situation that every step it was possible to take has been taken. Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize that this 20220-332
8, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones has been done not only by this government but it was done by the previous administration in trying to renew the discussions that had taken place at Geneva, and it was quite evident that no such negotiations could be carried on.
The hon. member for Yukon has referred to part II of the bill, which singles out certain acts as being affected by this Bill No. S-17. I want to assure the hon. member that the legal advisers of the Department of Justice the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Transport and my own department, the Department of Fisheries, have looked into this question and have included in the bill such changes or amendments that would or could affect existing Canadian legislation. The hon. member referred, for example, to the Geneva convention; he referred to the Chicago treaty. But these are not Canadian acts; they are international conventions. It was not the intention of Bill No. S-17 to introduce amendments that would affect treaties, because it would have taken years and years to renegotiate such treaties; it would have meant re-opening all the treaties which could be effected. What we have done is bring in amendments to those Canadian acts that would or could be affected by this bill. In doing this, Mr. Chairman, Canada has followed the example of a number of other countries. I believe there are at the present time 47 countries which have taken similar action, and most of them, if not all, have taken a similar position to the one that we are taking now.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg raised a very important point. My reason for intervening was not to prevent him from completing the remarks he was making at the time, but to bring out the point that his argument related to the Fisheries Act and not actually to Bill No. S-17. For the information of the committee I would like to put on the record the point that was raised before the standing committee on marine and fisheries. This passage will be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 4, of that committee, page 206. Mr. Ozere of my department, replying to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, said:
I think we are talking about two different things. There is the possibility-and I think Mr. Crouse may have a point-that this section should be amended in order to take care of the situation to which he refers. But it would be a matter for consideration and for the minister to decide, whether as a matter of policy it should be amended. We are now considering only a very small amendment substituting the words "territorial waters" by the words "fishery waters". These are only

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones consequential amendments as they are in any other act that is mentioned.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I fully realize that that is correct, but we can only be governed by the statute or by the law, and I think the law should be revised or amended so that it does not at any time exclude a deep sea operator from scallop or lobster fishing.
Then I said:
I think this goes back to the first point I raised. There may be reasons to amend the Fisheries Act. There may be a reason to amend section 31. I think the point is well taken. But as I said before, this does not affect the present Bill No. S-17. There may be a reason and a very serious one to amend section 31 of the Fisheries Act to take care of provisions such as the one mentioned by Mr. Crouse. I think the government-and I am sure I can speak in its name-would be prepared to do this if such a need occurred. But I feel it does not affect the present bill. I agree with Mr. Crouse that the government should take into consideration amending section 31 of the Fisheries Act if there is such a need.
I can add, Mr. Chairman, that the matter which was raised before the committee at the time is now under consideration. There is a need to examine this section of the Fisheries Act as it now stands. This act, as was mentioned, was passed 32 or 33 years ago in 1931 or 1932. There have been different governments since then. This does not mean that we may not have reached the point where it should be looked into in order to ascertain the necessity for making such amendments. We are considering this possibility. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, clarified Canadian jurisdiction in extraterritorial matters. It may be that this section is no longer needed, and there is a possibility of amendment thereto. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that the matter of revising that section of the Fisheries Act is now under consideration by my department. Furthermore there may also be a possibility of making changes by regulation alone; that is, by changing the existing regulations which come under the Fisheries Act.
I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not feel it would be possible to accept an amendment at this time, although I would like to consider this question and see the amendment before making a final commitment. But just the same, I wish to assure the hon. member now that my department is studying this very important matter which he has raised, and it is our intention, after giving it proper study and consideration, to make any such amendments that would be to the advantage of our own Canadian fishermen.
This is all I want to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, except that I would like to bring to the attention of the committee a correc-

tion to an error which was made in the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 4, of the standing committee on marine and fisheries in a statement made by Mr. D. F. Miller, president of the Fisheries Council of Canada. Mr. Miller is reported to have said:
Mr. Chairman, with your permission and before any questions are asked I should like to clear up one point.
Mr. Howard, in the debate on this bill in the House of Commons, and the brief from the united fishermen and allied workers union referred to this council as an "employees organization", or words to the effect.
Mr. Bernier here takes a strong exception to that implication, on behalf of the some 3,000 fishermen who make up Quebec united fishermen, a member organization of this council.
What Mr. Miller said, and his text is available to prove it, was that this council is an employers organization, not an "employees", as reported in the evidence.
In conclusion, I hope the committee will see fit to pass this bill, which will prove how important it is for the government to be given the enabling legislation. The government will proceed with the least possible delay to implement the bill. Only at noon today I received a report emanating from Vancouver to the effect that six or eight Russian trawlers were sighted fishing for groundfish in Hecate strait. We immediately asked for an investigation. The investigation is not altogether completed, but according to the information we now have those vessels which were sighted in Hecate strait could be coastguards from the navy checking for a plane which was lost in that particular area yesterday. However, we have had evidence at different times that U.S.S.R. trawlers have been operating off our shores, and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have stated since the debate on this bill commenced it is urgent that action be taken now. It may be that this bill will not meet the demands of the fishermen or of the fishing industry 100 per cent, but its imple-mention will improve the situation and give further assurance to the Canadian fishing industry.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, before the minister sits down is he in a position to clear up the question I asked regarding the position of the United States historic fishing rights? I am not speaking of treaty rights now. Are negotiations in progress to fix a date of termination for any of these historic rights which they claim? In other words, will there be a phasing out period, or is the United States totally unaffected by this bill except for

the fact that they are acquiescing in the principle of a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone as long as it does not affect them? Is that the position, or has the government been able to convince them that their historic rights should not go on indefinitely?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have made it clear on different occasions that the historic rights of the fishermen from France and the United States would not be disturbed at this time. I should not say "at this time": they will not be disturbed by the application of this bill.
The hon. member referred to acquiescence. It is very important to Canada that we have the acquiescence of the United States to this bill. There will be another advantage which should be considered and not neglected, and that is the fact that we have made it known that this bill will be followed by certain changes in the Canadian fisheries regulations. If this bill is passed, when it is implemented certain changes will be made which will again give further protection to our fishermen; and we hope that the operations of United States and French fishermen will not be of the type which will discriminate against Canadian fishermen.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Fishing zones.
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions on this clause with regard to the application of the Fisheries Act, which was under discussion on the first clause. Clause 4 states what the fishing zones of Canada will be, and says that the outer limit of a fishing zone is distant nine nautical miles from the nearest point of the inner limit line. To me this clause has an effect on the Fisheries Act. I hope I am not out of order, but when discussing an amendment to the appropriate section of the Fisheries Act it was argued that only the terminology was being changed. That would be true only if the territorial waters of Canada remained the same, which they will not; and it would be true only if the Fisheries Act applied to territorial waters. However, I think the Fisheries Act applies not only to the territorial waters but to the exclusive fishing zones. Therefore in my judgment this would have quite an effect on the application of the Fisheries Act. That is why, to my belief, the type of amendment 20220-332J
8, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones suggested by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg is even more necessary, because the present regulations under the Fisheries Act have a much wider application by virtue of this clause than they had before, and therefore the consequences would be greater.
Another point the minister might be able to say something about-I think this is the appropriate place for me to raise it-is this. He mentioned that Russian trawlers were reported at this moment in the Hecate strait. The matter which concerns me in connection with the immediate effect of this bill after it is proclaimed is that it will not change the status of bodies of water like the gulf of St. Lawrence until the base lines are created from the geographical co-ordinates, unless of course the body of water concerned is less than 24 miles across. I know that when the bill is proclaimed it will have some effect by keeping foreign trawlers which have no historic rights 12 miles from the present base lines instead of three miles. But it will have no effect on these special bodies of water which we intend to proclaim national waters. I think we had evidence to this effect from experts, but perhaps the minister might have something to say on that point, although I do not want to hold things up.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member referred to clause 4 which describes the fishing zones, and stated that it will have some effect on the application of some of the regulations made under the Fisheries Act. I am prepared to admit that, but what we have done in this bill, particularly in part II, is to make minor or consequential amendments having to do with the description of the territorial sea only.
Those are, as I have said, consequential amendments which had to be made. In so far as the Fisheries Act itself is concerned and the regulations under that act, I want to assure the hon. member that these matters are under consideration at present. It is quite obvious that certain changes will have to be made. As I have stated earlier, we have already studied the situation and we are prepared in the near future to make some changes affecting the operation of Canadian fishing vessels, particularly in those areas where we have a substantial inshore fishery. So I want to assure hon. members that this matter is at present under consideration.


Erik Nielsen: On clause 5, Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably out of the house-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) was on

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones clause 4. Is it understood that the committee is still on clause 4? Shall clause 4 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Lists of geographical coordinates.
Erik Nielsen: As I was saying, I was unavoidably absent when the minister made his explanation with regard to the remarks I made, but I am informed by the hon. member for Peace River that the minister assured the committee that the solicitors of his department and the Department of Justice have given him assurances that the proposed amendment is sufficient. For the reasons which I gave in some detail when we were on clause 1, I am convinced that an assurance by government is not sufficient in this regard. Since Sable island is the only place that I can foresee where this difficulty may arise I believe it should be made an exception to the operation of section 5. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River:
That section 5, subsection 1, be amended by adding thereto immediately after the word "lists" the following words: "save that Sable island shall not be designated or included in any such list".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, while I have no copy of the amendment I want to repeat what I have said before, that such an amendment is not in order and is not in line with the bill itself. It has been made very clear and it is a well known fact that legislation of this kind having to do with international problems is based on international law. Anyone who is familiar with the geography of the east coast of Nova Scotia will know that Sable island is over 100 miles from the mainland. The 40-odd countries which have taken or are taking a unilateral position have abided by the international practice, and I hope no one would wish to intimate that any government of this country would want to depart from this practice.
If we were to use Sable island as a coordinate it would create on the south coast of Nova Scotia a kind of triangle that would extend over 100 miles towards the high seas. When I was questioned about this matter in the committee it was made clear that Sable island, being Canadian territory and owned by Canada, will have its own fishing zone. It will be surrounded by a 12 mile fishing zone. It certainly would not be possible for Canada to apply the straight base line method, as mentioned in the bill, if we were going to use Sable island.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
So we certainly cannot support an amendment of this kind. I want to make it clear again that there is no need whatsoever for such an amendment because it departs entirely from the principle of the bill. It would create a precedent that could be followed by other countries and certainly would be questionable from the point of view of international practice. Therefore we cannot support the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I think the very fact this amendment has been proposed indicates the rather foolish position into which the government has been drawn by the present terms of clause 5. If the government had done as we have been suggesting and had asked us to establish by act of parliament base line co-ordinates along the lines of the amendment which I attempted to propose in the standing committee, I think it would have been quite clear where we stood. The very fact that it is possible for an amendment of this kind to be brought in indicates one of the basic weaknesses of the present bill.
However, if we were to agree to spell out in the bill that Sable island would be excepted I think our position would be as foolish as the one the government has already taken in the matter of the establishment of the co-ordinates, and under the circumstances might very well be taken as an indication that while we were not going to go out into the ocean to pick Sable island as a co-ordinate it might be our intention to try to find some rock somewhere 100 miles off the west coast of Canada and use that. For that reason I do not feel I can support the amendment.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It seems rather strange to inject this one particular area into the bill. If we are going to designate certain areas for inclusion or exclusion it will open up the whole bill. Therefore I do not think the amendment is one that should be supported.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one word in a general way, particularly since the Minister of Justice is present. As far as I can see there is a tendency with regard to the legislation that the government is introducing, of which this is a perfect example, to ask in general terms for more power than is needed for what the government says it has in mind. This is the thing to which we object. As far as section 5 is concerned, whatever the intention of the government is the government will have the power to put one co-ordinate on Sable island,

another at Yarmouth and enclose that area. I am not saying for one moment this is their intention. The government has said it is not their intention. Why ask us to give them the power to do this if they are not going to use it? This is the point I am making. This sort of thing is extremely sloppy legislation. It is like someone saying, "We want you to sign a blank cheque because we want you to pay $13." Then, when you suggest that you put a limitation on the cheque, that it is not good for more than $25, they say, "No, trust us; we will not make the figure more than $13; just give us the blank cheque, anyway."
This is an authoritative attitude and seems to indicate they think that parliament can do no harm by giving them any amount of power.
I do not want to be unduly contentious about this thing, but it is bad legislation. I want to say that if the government keeps drafting legislation in this way it is inevitable they will run into objections not only in parliament but from people who fear they may be affected by it in a way far beyond the present intention of the government; that is our objection to the thing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In view of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), I must say that I feel it would have been much more to the point if he and his colleagues had seen fit to support me in introducing in the committee a specific set of co-ordinates which referred to the east and west coasts of Canada. In so far as the east coast of Canada is concerned I named specifically 54 points from the terminal point of the United States-Canadian boundary on the south to a headland on the north. As I suggested, if we had been prepared to report to the house a specific suggestion along that line, then it would have been quite clear that neither the house nor the government in the future could have considered including Sable island as a co-ordinate.


John Angus MacLean: I should like to say that I agree entirely with the objective the hon. member sought to achieve in the committee. The reason we did not support his amendment was that by moving such an amendment, in my judgment, we would be assuming the responsibility of the government. It is the government that must decide where these co-ordinates will be, based upon the advice and technical complications resulting from negotiations with other countries and so on. I want to support the hon. member entirely in his objective, but I do not think that is the way to achieve it. The
8, 1964	5231
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
government should have done this in the first place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Nielsen) negatived: Yeas, 37; nays, 75.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 5 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to have it shown for the record that clause 5 is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to, on division.
Clauses 6 to 11 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 12-Canadian fisheries waters.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this bill. I very much appreciate the minister's comments relative to my remarks concerning section 31 which is referred to in clause 12 of the bill. However, as stated during my recent remarks, under the fisheries regulations designed to conserve inshore fisheries, no person is permitted to fish for scallops within seven nautical miles off the shores of Annapolis, Digby or Lunenburg counties between May 1 and October 31. If the Fisheries Act in which clause 31 is contained, passed in 1932, is enforced, it would result in the Lunenburg county deep sea scallop fleet being tied up to the wharves from May 1 to October 31. The same restriction would apply to any deep sea lobster operation that may be started. Since this regulation is discriminatory it is presently preventing the establishment of a deep sea lobster fishing industry in Nova Scotia.,
In view of that fact, I move:
That subclause (3) of clause 12 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(3) Section 31 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"31. (1) Except under licence from the minister no one shall leave any port or place in Canada IS "sh. puiside Canadian fisheries waters for fish the catching of which is at such time prohibited in the Canadian fisheries waters opposite to or nearest the place where such person proposes to fish and no one shall bring into Canada any fish caught outside Canadian fisheries waters when fishing for such fish is prohibited inside the Canadian fisheries waters opposite or nearest to the place where such fish was caught, or shall bring into Canada any vessels, boats, net, fishing gear, implements or appliances used in such fishing.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall have no force and effect save as legislative provision tor giving effect to a convention or treaty and for performing the obligations of Canada in respect


Herman Maxwell Batten: The question is on the amendment.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones


Alexander Bell Patterson: Are there any copies of the amendment, because we have no idea what it is about?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: During the time copies are being made available may I say a few words on the amendment. I referred to the matter earlier when I replied to the remarks of the hon. member. This clause amends section 31 of the Fisheries Act and it is a consequential amendment having to do with the description of the term territorial waters and fisheries waters. It makes no change whatever in the present regulation in so far as it applies to the fishing operations of Canadian fishermen.
This is a provision which has been in the act since 1932 and, so far as I know, there has been no interfence with the operations of Canadian fishermen. But in view of the fact that the matter had been raised I put on the record earlier-and there is no need for me to repeat what I said before the committee-that it is our intention to review this particular clause of the bill, the application of which could probably be amended by a change in regulations.
It would not be fair to take a quick decision on a matter of such importance. The amendment reads "except under licence from the minister" and I ask what would happen if the minister decided to refuse such a licence? How would it improve the conditions of the Canadian fishermen? I agree that this is a matter which could be of grave concern to a number of fishermen operating on the east coast, particularly to any scallop or lobster fishermen who would want to operate in deep sea waters, but I cannot agree to the amendment in its present form.
Again I give the assurance that we will review the clause and we will take whatever action is necessary so that there will be no discrimination against any Canadian fisherman in this regard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Douglas:: May I ask the chairman if he would read the amendment moved by the hon. member?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg is as follows:
That subclause (3) of clause 12 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(3) Section 31 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"31. (1) Except under licence from the minister, no one shall leave any port or place in Canada to fish outside Canadian fisheries waters for fish
the catching of which is at such time prohibited in the Canadian fisheries waters opposite to or nearest the place where such person proposes to fish, and no one shall bring into Canada any fish caught outside Canadian fisheries waters when fishing for such fish is prohibited inside the Canadian fisheries waters opposite or nearest to the place where such fish was caught, or shall bring into Canada any vessels, boats, nets, fishing gear, implements or appliances used in such fishing.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall have no force and effect save as legislative provision for giving effect to a convention or treaty and for performing the obligations of Canada in respect thereof."
Amendment (Mr. Crouse) negatived: Yeas, 59; Nays, 66.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, if it is agreeable to the government they might let it stand overnight and have third reading tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader what we will be having for tomorrow and Friday in the way of business?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, subject to the agreement just expressed by the house, we will proceed with third reading of Bill No. S-17 as the first item of business tomorrow. After that we will complete the debate on the resolution introducing a bill to revise the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. If there is time left tomorrow we will take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and after that the estimates of the Department of Public Works, to be followed by the estimates of the Post Office Department. By arrangement among the house leaders we might proceed with two or three items of supplementary estimates, about which we will be in a position to make a clearer and more precise statement at the opening tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 9, 1964