1970-04-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the striking committee has now agreed on the membership of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, and if the House would be agreeable perhaps this could be made an order of the House:
That the members of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution be Messrs. Aiken, Anderson, Comeau, Deakon, Gauthier, Given, Haidasz, Harding, Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand), Lachance, Rock and Sulatycky.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to try to make a move which will convince the right hon. Prime Minister of the seriousness of my observations yesterday. With your permission, sir, and with the permission of the House, if I may have it, I would like to table the recent correspondence I have received from my province on unemployment. Perhaps this might have an overflow effect on the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the procedures of the House, the Standing Orders and our practices do not make it possible for members to table correspondence and private papers. In this sense I would not think that we should depart from a rather lengthy practice. I suggest to the hon. member that if he wants to communicate this information to the Chair, to a member of the government or to other members of the House, he can do so in some other way than by tabling these documents.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask for unanimous consent but I will take your advice and I will walk across later and present it to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Trudeau:: Why don't you answer your letters?


Mr. Baldwin:: This is not the Prime Minister's day to read letters.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-205, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to encourage those who are unemployed and in receipt of unemployment insurance to undertake retraining and upgrading for the period of their unemployment and to continue receiving unemployment insurance benefits during that time.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The bill also seeks to change the present interpretation of the Act which disqualifies people from unemployment insurance benefits when temporarily attending school during lay-offs or waiting for a job opening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the alarming increase in unemployment shown by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' figures released yesterday, could the Prime Minister give the House an indication of the extent of unemployment that the government would permit before slowing down on its policies of creating more slack in the economy? In other
5984	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry words, what degree of unemployment does the government regard as the point at which it must begin to reverse its policies and the degree beyond which unemployment would be considered to be at the danger point?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered a lot of questions on this subject yesterday and I think the hon. member should refer to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crouse:: That is arrogance for you. How arrogant can you get?


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: The
unemployed will appreciate that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to refer to Hansard. I was here and heard the questions and I am asking for information from the Prime Minister. I think the House and the country are interested in knowing what the policy of the government is, and I should like the Prime Minister to state the point at which he and his government would consider that its policies designed to slow down the economy should be slackened. We would like to know what that unemployment figure would be.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our policies to slow down the economy, as the hon. member puts it, will be slackened when the inflationary psychology is broken in this country. If we do not have the support of the opposition and of the general public-


Mr. MacEwan:: That old story doesn't go down any more.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in the fight against inflation, if they think the government is going to give up the fight against inflation, obviously the inflationary psychology will not be broken and therefore inflation will continue wreaking the havoc that it has on the Canadian economy. For this reason I appeal to the opposition and to public opinion to realize that we do intend to beat inflation and that the sooner they realize it the sooner the inflationary psychology which the opposition is encouraging will cease.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it from this that the government considers that the degree of unemployment existing in the country is necessary for an effective fight against inflation. I should like to ask a supplementary question rising from the impression that the Prime Minister attempted to give yesterday that the employment situation in the Atlantic

DEBATES	April 17. 1970
provinces was better than a year ago. In view of the fact that the DBS figures for two months in a row have shown that the actual level of employment in the Atlantic provinces is lower than a year ago, is the Prime Minister not prepared to agree not only that the impression he tried to give yesterday was wrong but that in fact the policies of the government are slowing down the economy in that area and that this must be due either to the policies being pursued by the Minister of Finance or the futility of the efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I must refer the hon. member to Hansard. I did not talk about a year ago. I compared the figures of last September and this month.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about a year ago. I was talking about the impression that the Prime Minister tried to give that the policies of the government were not depressing the economy and the rate of development in these areas. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that DBS figures show that for two months in a row employment figures were actually lower than a year ago, the policies of his government are not having this disastrous effect?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister. Some months ago the Prime Minister said in a press interview that in order to combat inflation the government was prepared to see an unemployment figure of 6 per cent, that it would not worry the Prime Minister if there was an unemployment figure of 6 per cent. Since as of yesterday we have an unemployment figure of 6.7 per cent, would he tell the country whether he is now prepared to revise that original figure and whether the figure which would not worry him is not 6 per cent but 8 per cent or 10 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is trying to ask the same kind of question as the Leader of the Opposition asked, and the quotation is not an accurate one. I was asked the same type of question by the press as I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition as to what percentage of unemployment would force the government to change its anti-inflationary policies. My answer was that the question should not be asked that way, that we were determined to fight inflation, and that the sooner the opposition and the various sectors of the country
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
supported the fight against inflation the sooner the danger of unemployment would recede.


An hon. Member:: That is a new theory.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Since unemployment is rising and inflation is continuing to increase, can the House take it that the Prime Minister has no intention of relaxing the program of restraint regardless of whether unemployment continues to rise at an increasing rate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the opposition has some difficulty in making choices, but the government is faced with the choice of either giving up the fight against inflation or continuing it. I want to reassure the House and country that it would be no problem at all for the government to spend many, many more millions of dollars in all parts of the country if it lacked the courage to continue the fight against inflation, as apparently seems to be the case with the opposition.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Prime Minister who has referred to the difficulties of the opposition. Is he not aware that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, before the Standing Committee on Regional Development just the other day, had occasion to say that he was not defending the government's policy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think any hon. member of the House has reason to raise a question of privilege or point of order when the Prime Minister talks of the difficulty the opposition has in understanding the government's approach to a particular problem when a minister of the government, a minister greatly responsible for this particular matter, has told the committee that he is not defending the government's policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-RATIFICATION OF SPECIAL AREAS PROGRAM AGREEMENTS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the alarming rate of unem-
DEBATES	5985
Inquiries of the Ministry ployment in the provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick, and in view of both these provinces having ratified the agreements respecting the new special areas program under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board why Treasury Board has held up ratification or approval of these two important programs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board has not held up ratification or approval.


An hon. Member:: Get cracking, then.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, before the Regional Development Committee a few days ago, indicated that the programs were currently awaiting the approval of Treasury Board. These programs were supposed to have been in effect by April 1. I again ask the President of the Treasury Board why Treasury Board has not approved these programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is repeating the question he asked. An answer was given. Perhaps he may not be satisfied with the answer, but the question has been asked already.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. It is a very important one to these two provinces. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board why Treasury Board has not approved these two programs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the misapprehension. These two particular programs have been approved by Treasury Board.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: When, today?



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-AMENDMENTS TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I would have directed to the Minister of Labour had he been here. In his absence I will direct it to the government House Leader. In view of the increasing delays and difficulties in getting unemployment insurance claims, and this is related directly to the increasing unemployment, can the government House Leader inform us if the government is contemplating amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act before this session is completed in June?
April 17, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the statement I made in the House on January 28 last. The information is that at the moment there will be no additional amendments to that act.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary. In view of the changed employment situation and also because of the many complaints registered by members in all parts of this House regarding Unemployment Insurance Commission practices, will the government House Leader reconsider the possibility of introducing appropriate amendments to the Act as soon as possible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will reconsider the matter in conjunction with the legislative program generally.



QUEBEC-SHORT-TERM PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Could he indicate clearly to the House whether the 6.7 per cent unemployment level really worries the government, since this situation is particularly hard on Quebec? Are short-term projects being prepared in order to put an end to this calamity which has hit the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, conditions would be better in Quebec if the rate of private investment were not the second lowest of all the Canadian provinces.
Of course, if private investors decide to invest elsewhere, it is not the federal government's fault but that of the present government of the province of Quebec.


Georges-J. Valade: I would like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, the Prime Minister did not answer my question. Therefore, I ask him what short-term programs the government has prepared in order to check unemployment in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will
recognize with regard to his supplementary question or to the second part of his first question that he is asking the Prime Minister or a minister to make a statement on general policy. I think such statements should be made on motions.



ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN COMBATING INFLATION-U.S. POLICY

['I shall have to discuss that with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.']
John Howard Lundrigan: My question is supplementary to that of the Leader of the Opposition. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a statement on motions indicating the level of unemployment that will be tolerated across the nation in various regions? I ask this in view of the fact that the national statistic of 6.7 per cent misrepresents the statistics for the regions where unemployment is as high as 15.3 per cent. While the Prime Minister is responding, perhaps he might want to react to my question of privilege yesterday which I raised when the Prime Minister referred to the seasonally adjusted statistics of March compared with November, which are noncomparable. Perhaps he could indicate whether the basis of his answer was because of a lack of knowledge or if there was an obvious intention to mislead the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that when he asks a question in these terms it cannot be accepted by the Chair. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order. If the hon. member will ask a question in accordance with the normal practice, I will recognize him and allow him to ask the question. Perhaps he may want to rephrase it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will rephrase my question. Perhaps the Prime Minister can indicate whether he will make such a statement. Will he also indicate whether the government is planning to follow the lead of the United States authorities who are very aggressive in this field and who are at present relaxing their anti-inflationary policies, at least on a regional basis, in order to stimulate employment in areas which are drastically affected? Is the government planning to follow that lead at least on a regional basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly intend taking my lead from the United States in this or in other matters if I can avoid it. I want to remind the House it takes no courage for a government to spend more money in all parts of the country. I repeat that we can very easily boost our spending in all parts of the

April 17. 1970	COMMONS
country. It would be helpful if the opposition would indicate where it thinks we should curtail our spending-


Some hon. Members:: Your office.


Mr. Bell:: Information Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or, alternatively, to suggest what particular taxes they would like to see us raise in order to spend more money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There have been a number of supplementaries and I think the House would agree we ought now to recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Robert Muir: What happened to the just society?



Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the statement made by Mr. Jacob Malik, the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations, in which he supported the proposal of the French government earlier this month for the calling of the Geneva conference in an endeavour to prevent the spreading of the war in Viet Nam to the neighbouring countries of Laos and Cambodia. Does the Canadian government intend publicly to endorse the proposal of those two governments in the hope that a conference can be called and some solution found to the problem in Southeast Asia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am informed that the Department of External Affairs is trying to ascertain whether this proposal or suggestion constitutes, in fact, a concrete proposal by the Soviet Union. If such is the case, we are prepared to support it as we are prepared to support any initiative which would bring peace to the area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Irrespective of whether or not the ambassador was speaking for the Soviet government-and in all probability he was; I do not think it is likely he would make such a statement otherwise-it remains a fact that the government of France has forthrightly called for this conference. Would the Prime Minister agree that in the light of Canada's membership on the International Control
DEBATES	5987
Inquiries of the Ministry Commission we have a vital stake in this matter and that this country ought to make its views known in the hope that other nations will join with us in asking for such a conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, we welcome all efforts aimed at negotiations which would bring peace to the area and we would certainly take part in such negotiations if they were to develop.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: In view of reports indicating there has been wholesale slaughter of Vietnamese living in Cambodia, is it the intention of the government to reactivate the International Control Commission and have the commission investigate what may be a very tragic situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has noted this situation. As the hon. member says, it is a tragic one, and we have been in active negotiation with the other members of the commission, the Polish and Indian governments. We are not sure at this stage whether there can be agreement between the three members to reactivate the commission but we are certainly trying to secure agreement between the three governments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada is the member named by Mr. Malik as the country which, as a member of the commission, insisted on withdrawing the International Control Commission from Cambodia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall have to discuss that with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Monday of this week I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the roll-back in the price of tinplate. The minister has not been in the House. He was supposed to be here yesterday to answer the question. He indicated that he
Inquiries of the Ministry would have the answer regarding his department's position within a day or so. In view of his interest in combating inflation, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has an answer for the House today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Had I been given notice of the question, I might have.



PENITENTIARIES


John George Diefenbaker: I direct my question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the aftermath of a visit by three Members of Parliament-members of the New Democratic party-to a Saskatchewan penitentiary. Following their visit they offered strong criticism. In view of the fact that the warden and the officials of this penitentiary have an excellent reputation, and since this criticism has been followed by incipient unrest among those who are confined in the institution, would the minister be prepared to tell the House what the situation is and whether there was any foundation for the criticism concerning food and the insufficiency of meat for the inmates?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard on the radio the day after the two-day visit of three members to the penitentiary the allegation concerning food, I immediately had the matter investigated and found that the allegation was contrary to the fact.
As to the other part of the right hon. gentleman's question, I do not admit, first of all, that there is incipient unrest, but I will look into that situation. In any event I would not want to admit at this stage, certainly on the basis of any information that I have, that if such condition existed it was caused by the visit of the three members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister himself has visited this institution, is he not prepared to say that following his visit in September he gave to that institution a first rate and excellent reputation both as a training unit and as a penal institution?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is true. I have on several occasions since that visit made reference to some of the training

April 17, 1970
facilities in that institution, and in that respect put it forward as the best example in the country of institutions of that kind.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, as one who visited the institution, unlike the gentleman who asked the preceding question, could I ask the Solicitor General whether he would not agree that the so-called food strike of last Christmas and the one that preceded it about a month before were not reflective of the condition of the food but of other conditions in the institution, which is usually the case with such strikes?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had that matter investigated at the time and I found that it reflected the fact that certain persons who had been working as kitchen staff had been removed from that task and given other duties, and the demand arose that they be returned to kitchen duty. That seemed to be very closely related to the cause of any trouble at the time of that so-called strike at Christmas time which related to dining facilities and the unwillingness of the prisoners to take their trays when they were issued in the usual way.



SHIPBUILDING


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the House why the government has granted the contract for the construction of the Margaree to a company other than the Davie Shipbuilding, of Lauzon, in spite of the fact that it had submitted the lowest bid?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that particular fact. I will inquire and report to the hon. member.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM- PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF INSPECTORS- ENFORCEMENT OF BULLETIN PROVISIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of

April 17, 1970	COMMONS
the wheat board. Would the minister inform the House whether his department is prepared to pay the expenses incurred by commissioners of oaths when they travel to inspect fields under cover crop, as required under item 10 of bulletin No. 2 issued by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure as to the urgency of the question asked by the hon. member; certainly there is no urgency apparent to the Chair. If it is a matter that should be looked into immediately, the minister might like to reply to the hon. member's question.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the exact regulations in terms of satisfying the Minister of Agriculture with what is required in regard to the plan are now being put into final form. Therefore I think the question may not in fact arise.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might I plead that there is some urgency to these matters since the general intent of this policy is a matter with which the farmers will have to contend. Further, I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the statement in item four of the same bulletin that there will be on-farm inspection, that farmers may be penalized and that inspection will include the measuring of fields, it is the intention of the ministers to pay people with engineers and surveyors qualifications to perform the function of measuring these fields?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York North.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has told the House that the regulations are not ready, yet two bulletins have been sent to the farmers setting forth conditions with which the farmers must comply. The minister has now told us that the farmers may not have to pay attention to these regulations. It seems to me to be of importance from the standpoint of the farmers who have received these bulletins to know whether the bulletins are setting out specific instructions that the farmers must follow or whether they can be totally disregarded.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order. The hon. member will recognize that I allowed the first question and it was replied to by the minister. Then there was a supplementary which
DEBATES	5989
Inquiries of the Ministry did not bring a response from the minister. At that point I would think the Chair was justified in passing on to the next questioner.
Mr. Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Then may I put it in the form of a supplementary question to the Minister. Are the provisions and stipulations set forth in bulletin No. 2, particularly No. 10 and No. 4, to be enforced by the government, or will the regulations when tabled make these stipulations and controls no longer applicable?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the actual bulletins in front of me to refer to the particular numbers. The program in broad form, certainly as it affects farmers, has been made clear to individual permitholders through the bulletins that have gone out. There are, of course, some matters of detail to be finalized, but these will in no way affect the kind of decision that the farmer has to make or the way in which he will benefit under the LIFT program.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the responsible ministers to solve the unemployment problem in Saskatchewan by hiring a flock of inspectors to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL OFFICE

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio. Is it a fact that a special office has been established in Regina, Saskatchewan, in connection with operation LIFT, and can the minister indicate what are the actual functions the new office will perform and who will be in charge?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the administration of a significant part of the operation LIFT program is being handled out of the regular PFAA offices in Regina. Inspectors will be operating from that office in Regina. However, I should like to emphasize to hon. members that an inspection system is required in any case in order to make the whole permit book system meaningful and to make it correspond more realistically to farming operations than has been true in many cases in the past.
5990	COMMONS DEBATES	April 17. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry TAXATION



WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-OBJECTION BY PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY CLUB OWNERS

Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which relates to testimony before a committee of the other place by owners of professional hockey clubs that certain provisions of the tax reform proposals if implemented will inhibit the sales of season tickets, causing undue hardship. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give special consideration to this deprived group which will still be consistent with our national league goals?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member is referring to testimony given in the other place, I suggest to him he is asking his question in the wrong forum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if my question is offside but may I be permitted to ask a supplementary arising out of a previous question which might be more in keeping with the proceedings of the House. It relates to unemployment as a result of anti-inflation measures. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would indicate to the House what the increased rate of inflation might be or, conversely, what the rate of unemployment might be if our existing measures had not been in force for some months?


Gerald William Baldwin: Order paper!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hypothetical, amongst other things.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question.
About ten days ago, I put it to the Prime Minister who then advised me to address it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I am following his good advice.
In view of the federal government's intention to drop the subsidies to gold mines and the statement by the premier of Quebec to the effect that a mine had already folded up, and that a second one would do so shortly,

and in view of the fact that only one possibility is left, that of putting off this decision,, in order to allow Quebec mining operations to remain in business, would the Minister be willing to discuss the matter with the Quebec government?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that discussions of any question with my provincial colleagues would be useful,, but should Quebec give itself a good government and a good minister at the coming election. I will be happy to study the problem with them.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the doubts which have been expressed by so many Canadians about the government's position vis-a-vis the Auditor General, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board when it is the government's intention to introduce its proposed legislation in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is under discussion now in the Public Accounts Committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In introducing the legislation will the minister and the government bear in mind that the people of Canada will not tolerate any attempt by this government to bulldoze its way into elimination of effective parliamentary control?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question cannot be replied to as it is out of order when asked in these terms.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask him through you, Sir, whether, as he has been kind enough to send to members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence a press statement announcing the establishment by the Canadian forces of a permanent headquarters at Yellowknife,
April 17, 1970

and in view of the great importance and interest of this subject, he will either consider making a statement on motions to this House or at least tabling the statement in the House?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the press release that was issued this morning will be in all the newspapers this afternoon, so they more or less scooped the House in this particular instance.

Mr. B re win: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it government policy to scoop the House by making important announcements in the press rather than the House which is very much interested in them?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this is just the implementation of the statement I made on September 19, 1969, when I announced the establishment of that headquarters.



RECRUITMENT OF ESKIMOS FOR NORTHERN SERVICE

Mr. Paul SI. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the armed services recruit Eskimos in the north particularly in view of the fact that they probably have a great deal more to teach us than we have to teach them about Arctic conditions?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this question has been asked because I discovered to my great surprise and to my great satisfaction during the trip I made last week in the north that we do employ Eskimo and Indian people as much as we can. As a matter of fact, I have seen a cadet unit at Inuvik, composed of a little more than 50 per cent of Eskimos, and which is coming down at the end of the month to the Calgary tattoo. We are very happy to have the expertise of the local people to draw on. It is the intention, of course, to try to increase their participation in the armed services.



RESEARCH


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister a question arising out of President Nixon's order that priority be given to recommendations made by the United States council on marine resources and engineering development with regard to the U.S. program concerning Arctic environmental and resource research. Has there been any consultation by the United States authorities with the government of Canada about this program or about the intentions of the United States government?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I will inquire, Mr. Speaker. There was none that I know of.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister also make inquiries to ascertain whether it is the United States government's intention to carry out this program simply within what is recognized as its sovereign territory, or what its intentions may be with regard to the area in the north where it proposes to conduct this research? Also, would the Prime Minister himself or have an appropriate minister make a statement to the House as to this government's intention regarding the launching of a research program in respect of the development of the north, particularly in respect of the use of Hovercraft and other similar methods of travel for investigation in the north, comparable to the program announced by the President of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will make the inquiries the hon. member is suggesting and see whether a statement is necessary.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ACHIEVEMENT OF GOAL

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Now that operation LIFT has been well publicized, can the minister inform the House whether the wheat reduction acreage goal of 20 million will be reached and, if not, what is the projected acreage at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: No survey of intention has been made in a recent period to give any firm indication. Of course the farmers themselves are still making final decisions on what they will plant in the next few weeks.
5992	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF ARMED ROBBER WITH PUBLISHING COMPANY AND CERTAIN PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL MEMBERS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has his attention been drawn to the statement yesterday in Victoria by a person sentenced to 12 years for a series of armed robberies of banks and a financial institution to the effect that he was involved with a publishing company, with an M.L.A. for British Columbia, an M.L.A. for Ontario and two federal M.P.s in so far as these criminal activities are concerned and, if so, would the hon. gentleman mind looking into this allegation?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been drawn to my attention but I will be very glad to look into it immediately.



HOUSING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. In view of the drastic drop in housing starts over the past few months, is he giving consideration to making the facilities of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation available to the increasing number of Canadians who are resorting to the larger type mobile homes to solve their critical housing problems?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: We are examining very diligently the question of mobile homes and, more pertinently, the application of the National Housing Act insuring apparatus for the financing of mobile homes. I hope before very long to be able to advise hon. members of the decision that may be evolved.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister without Portfolio attached to the Minister of Finance. Would he kindly advise the House what progress has been made in determining the nature of the consumer credit regulations? When does he

DEBATES	April 17, 1970
expect to publish them, or has the government decided to postpone them indefinitely or even throw them overboard?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, progress is being made and a further announcement will be made in due course.



POLLUTION


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of slashing price reductions now being made by supermarkets on high phosphate detergents, is it the intention of the minister to take steps to halt this accelerated dumping of pollution into our waterways pending the legislation to ban phosphate detergents altogether?


John James Greene: I do not think I would have any authority to do that. I think that probably the present conduct of the chain stores indicates they are taking the government's injunction seriously. They realize we mean business, that they will be cut down by August 1 as indicated, and that the government is firm in its purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint J ohn-Lancaster.


Donald MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has a supplementary question. Perhaps she might be allowed to ask it.


Donald MacInnis: May I ask the minister whether the government will consider buying up the stocks of high phosphate detergents and destroying them, as they did with DDT?


John James Greene: Of course there is a very great difference between DDT and high phosphate content detergents. The detergent is not a poison; it is a nutrient which unfortunately gives too much life to the algae at the bottom of the lake, but the delay of a few more months after the many, many years of use of phosphate will not make a great deal of difference to the total problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is a dangerous attitude.
April 17, 1970



BRIDGES


Thomas Miller Bell: In the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of Public Works, and the Minister of Justice, may I ask the minister who is really the big boss in Ottawa matters, namely, the Solicitor General, whether the federal government has decided to build a new Ottawa-Hull bridge across Victoria Island? If so, was approval received from all levels of government?


George James McIlraith: am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member's recognition of me as the big boss and therefore cannot answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for St. John's East rises on a point of order.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this will give me an opportunity to set the record straight. My point refers to a question I directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It had to do with the approval of two special area programs under regional economic expansion for New Brunswick and Newfoundland. On Wednesday last in the Standing Committee on Regional Development the minister said, in reply to a question, that both of these programs had been approved by the provinces and were being considered by Treasury Board. Yesterday, as recorded at page 5930 of Hansard, I directed a similar question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and he said in reply to the question regarding these two programs that they were before Treasury Board. The question that I wanted to put to the minister to set the record straight, because of the importance of these two programs, is: When did Treasury Board approve the programs, when was the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion notified, and when were the two provinces notified?
5993
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the consent of the House perhaps the minister might reply to the question, but again we are faced with the situation of the Chair having taken it upon himself to give additional time to hon. members, and the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain, the hon. member for Waterloo and the Minister of National Revenue were among those who were anxiously waiting for an opportunity to get the floor. I wonder whether that is a legitimate point of order but at the same time, if there is agreement that the minister should reply to the question, I have no objection. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that there is a recognition of the importance of meeting the social and economic problems of these two provinces in these programs. This is part of the general government approach to reducing unemployment in these areas. In specific response to the hon. member's question, let me say that these two programs were discussed with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion yesterday at the Treasury Board and approved.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (12 noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-202, to prevent pollution of the areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have indicated, the bill before us should not be considered in isolation but should be taken in conjunction with Bill C-203, relating to the territorial sea, consideration of which I gather is scheduled to follow the conclusion of this bill if that takes place today. It should also be considered in conjunction with some other measures which have not yet been disclosed to us. The
April 17, 1970
5994	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill minister indicated yesterday in his statement that soon he will be recommending to the cabinet other measures relating to air and land pollution which are companion to the pollution control concepts which are contained in Bill C-202. He also said that matters of concern about pollution on the east and west coasts of Canada would necessitate the bringing in of legislation by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) relating to the pollution control in those areas.
So, while the provisions of the bill before us are acceptable and endorsable, because of the other companion pieces of legislation to which the minister referred and about which we have not heard anything, we can only hope at this stage-and I use the word "hope" not in an unkind way because I am sure that this 'will be the case if the bill before us is any indication of government policy right across the board-that they will be as valuable in the control of pollution and in the matter of our national integrity as is the bill before us. It is because this is an extremely valuable piece of legislation, as the minister said probably one of the most important that the government has introduced in the House, that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the leader of our party, said yesterday that officially, even though there does not appear to be any opposition to the bill, in order to indicate our position to the world and especially to our neighbour, the United States, we would like this Parliament to take a standing vote on the bill so that every member of the House can indicate the degree of unanimity which exists with respect to this matter.
It is important, therefore, not only for the government to declare its stand but also for the representatives of the people all across the nation to indicate that they endorse this particular measure. I must say as an aside, because we are interested in the unified approach and because we feel very strongly about this matter as Canadians, without considering the philosophical approach of any particular party-otherwise I would not have bothered to pay any attention to it-that I should like to make reference to the comments of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) last evening to which I listened with a great deal of interest. Regretfully, I read into his remarks an attempt to misinterpret the remarks made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the deputy leader of this party, primarily in order to create confusion and divisiveness in


the House where none was there and none was intended in the first place.
I point out that many, many years ago when this party to which I belong was called the CCF, 15 or 20 years ago in general terms, we had embarked upon a vigorous campaign, with our members in this House and throughout the country at elections and other times concerning the necessity of having a 12 mile territorial sea. We have no hesitation in putting that position forward and in saying that that is the identical thing we are concerned about today. Any attempt on the part of anybody to indicate that we have become lax in our position about that matter, lax in our position about Canadian sovereignty, is simply grossly misleading and is grossly misleading himself in understanding what the facts of the situation are.
Apropos of that, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it was the party to which the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour belongs that steadfastly and regularly, in this House and elsewhere, refused to accept the concept of a 12-mile territorial sea. They maintained that three miles was as far as we could go because the Americans objected to anything more than three miles, and because that distance was established in the days when one could shoot a cannon out no more than three miles. But I go no further with this, Mr. Speaker. I only say it in passing because this debate involves our integrity, our honour, and the pride we should have in ourselves, so that we should not allow ourselves to follow the red herrings tossed out from time to time by those who seem to have spent their political lifetime engaging in that activity.
For many years there has been an erosion of Canada's integrity. There has been an invasion of our national structure, an invasion of our national concern about ourselves. The result of successive governments over the years operating under the guise of co-operative relations with the United States has been that the United States has really placed Canada in a position of subservience. Successive Canadian governments, with their oversensitivity about the matter of co-operation between nations on the North American continent have contributed to our being in that subservient position. This attitude that has been reflected over the years in military matters. It has certainly been reflected in economic matters, where a stronger and stronger control over our economy has been developed by companies outside Canada, most of them in the United States. Our lack of action in
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
connection with our territorial seas since 1964 has been dictated primarily by the attitude that the United States has had on this subject. Here we have an opportunity, the first one in a long time, to make a declaration in a firm way, which will start us on another course.
I have not always been highly appreciative of the things which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) has announced in this House. I have not always endorsed the programs that he has introduced or the statements he has made. Not always have I applauded the minister on the bills he has introduced or the declarations he has made about different things. But here is an instance, from my point of view really the only one in the minister's tenure of office as head of that department, where we can unreservedly applaud him and indicate our full support for the intentions he has.
On the matter of the territorial sea we have some thoughts to express because even in the Arctic we are involved in declaring a territorial sea, and in declaring straight base lines from which that sea should be measured. We have had such legislation in force in Canada since 1964 but at no time has this, or previous governments, given any indication that it is developing any geographic coordinates for the Arctic archipelago, or for the whole Arctic area, or for any part of it, from which straight base lines the territorial sea, and up until now the fishing zones, would be measured.
In fact, the east and west coasts were ignored for many years so far as straight base lines were concerned, and some parts of those coasts are still wide open. We feel, they should be enclosed as inland waters behind a straight base line. If the minister closes this debate in a formal way, I hope he will be able to give us some indication about the intentions of the government with respect to the geographical co-ordinates in the Arctic, but not the type of declaration that Senator Paul Martin used to make when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs. He told us that the base lines would be drawn before the end of 1964. He said there was no doubt about that, and that that was the firm intention of the government.
We would like to know, and I am sure the people in the Arctic would like to know, what progress is being made with respect to developing the geographic co-ordinates and, so far as we are concerned, drawing them in such a way as to enclose the waters between the
DEBATES	5995
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill islands as inland waters. A few of the bodies of water of breadth that I have in mind are, Amundsen Gulf, Lancaster Strait and McLure Strait. Even though they are broad bodies of water, we believe they should be enclosed within straight base lines, so that we would then be declaring sovereignty by establishing straight base lines around the entire Arctic archipelago. We would be declaring that the islands within that circumscribed area were ours, that the waters between the islands in that circumscribed area were inland waters, and that we were exercising our sovereignty over them.
In addition to that, there is the provision in the bill with respect to the 100 nautical mile limit for pollution control. This is something that it is important for the committee to understand, and about which the people of Canada should receive information. They would then be in a position to more fully endorse the position of the government, and the position which I am sure Parliament will exhibit by unanimously supporting the minister's bill.
In the minister's introductory remarks, right at the start, he indicated that there were four primary interests in the Arctic. Presumably, these are the four primary reasons for the introduction of the bill. He mentioned the security of Canada, the economic development of the north, the preservation of the ecological balance, and the continued high stature of Canada in the international community. I think the continued high stature of Canada in the international community is more window dressing than a real reason for doing something. We should be doing something in this field, and I am sure the minister would agree, not because of any attempt to maintain public relations with the rest of the world but because of our concern about matters affecting the Canadian nation.
The security of Canada is a different matter. It is rather an unknown term. It could be given many interpretations or connotations. I would like to think of it in terms of political security, political integrity and economic security. These are the ones we are talking about. Today the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) issued a press release with respect to placing a national defence unit at Yellowknife. I think this would probably indicate that if need be, and if the tests came right down to it, we intend to preserve the security of the nation by military means, although that really is an extension of the security concept beyond that which we nor-
April 17, 1970
5996	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill mally accept. We do not want to get involved in military engagements in order to preserve our own unity and integrity but the fact that military personnel are there and that we look north gives some substance to the ideas about security. Sovereignty is something which we have to declare for ourselves. It comes from the establishment of straight baselines and the declaration of everything within them as inland waters, from a declaration that anybody who moves in there does so through our grace and decision. It is not a matter of open right as is the case with respect to international waters. Sovereignty must first be declared and then secured if the need arises.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The matters of ecological balance and the economic development of the north are also two major reasons why we should be proceeding with legislation of this type. The population of the Northwest Territories is only 30,000 to 35,000 people and is widely scattered. The communities are small and most have no economic base whatever, so the economic development of the north will be concentrated in a few areas. In the north, as elsewhere, we find that development often hinges almost exclusively on the production of raw materials and does not take into consideration development that might revolve around processing operations, manufacturing, or secondary industries that might derive from future development of natural resources. The development should not be based only on an extractive industry from which the raw materials have to be transported to the southern regions of Canada or, worse still, to other countries for processing. We must embark upon a program for the fullest possible development of these resources as close to the production site as possible, not just extract ore, reduce it to mineral concentrate to be exported for processing and thus deprive local people of jobs. This is the sort of economic activity we want to see taking place.
I notice that the minister, in his statement about the economic development of the north as one of our primary interests, did not outline any other type of economic development that he had in mind for the area.


Mr. Chreiien:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Is he aware that in the agreement which we signed with Anvil Mining in Yukon we put a lot of pressure on them to have a smelter there and that we will have to reconsider the situation a few years from now? It is a very important part

of the agreement that the aim of the government is to have more processing in the area rather than just export the concentrate.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the program with respect to Anvil Mining Corporation. What I am putting on the record now is in support of the government's position about Arctic sovereignty and the economic development involved in it. But in order to give some cognizance to the integrity of the people there, we must go full scale into the program of further processing.
In passing, Mr. Speaker, I would mention that while the minister referred to the economic development of the north in the second paragraph of his speech, he did not expand beyond that. I think this should be spelled out so that other countries would know of our concern with this problem as well as with the all-important problem of pollution.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that I shall be making a speech on Monday at Portland, Oregon and I shall touch on the point he has mentioned.


An hon. Member:: Don't touch on it, really hit it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am a polite man.


An hon. Member:: Sock it to them.


Frank Howard: If the hon. Minister would like to give my regards to some friends of mine in Portland and give me the credit line, I would not mind that too much.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, about our concern with pollution control and many speeches have been made about it in this House. We have dealt with the need for control of our environment, the need for reducing and eliminating pollution. More than at any other time in the history of the world, we are perilously close to the extinction of life as we know it if we continue to pollute air, land and water. This appears to be the opinion of many ecologists and biologists, and some believe that it may happen within two or three generations. They say the devastating effects of pollution are worse than the prospect of nuclear war, yet it goes uncontrolled and ignored by many sections of the economy. There is no necessity to become involved in discussions about the need for pollution control, and this is another reason we endorse what the government has presented in this bill.
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
We will have other comments to offer on this subject when the territorial seas and fishing zones bill is debated and will be looking forward to the proposals which the minister intends to present to cabinet regarding air and land pollution factors in the north as a whole. We hope that the minister will be able to develop his legislative ideas and be in a position to present them to us in regard to air pollution, fisheries and also shipping matters when the committee considers Bill C-202.
The hon. member for York South pointed out just the other day that this very important move on our part was done in isolation, without regard to the desires of the committee or the interests of any other members of the House. Perhaps this is not the correct procedure to follow in developing such important legislation. For a long time we have not had any exhibition on the part of government of the pride we, for our own self-respect as a nation, should show. Our national honour demands that we speak about matters of sovereignty with a clear and single voice. By precept and example, this Parliament has to show the Canadian people and the rest of the world that we are proud of our integrity, of ourselves and of our inheritance. We must show to future generations that we have their concern at heart as well, and that we consciously and deliberately, as a matter of policy, want to leave a legacy about which our younger people, our children and those who are yet unborn will likewise feel proud.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
As human beings and as Canadians, we have no moral or ethical right to destroy our resources, or to accept the short term, fleeting economic benefits and thus sacrifice the economic interests and well-being of those who come after us. For these and other reasons we say to the government, not that we are right behind you on this matter, but that on the question of being pro-Canadian and endorsing the government's position on sovereignty, we are right with you. We hope you do not lag.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the international law aspects of this bill. Before I do so, I should like to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), who did a fantastic job in working with our caucus and the government in help-
DEBATES	5997
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill ing to bring forward this bill. I think both hon. members deserve a lot of credit for the work they have done behind the scenes and in this House with respect to this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: When this bill and its companion bill, C-203, were given first reading and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced Canada's reservation with respect to the world court, I was a bit dismayed-not with the provisions of the bill, but with the reservation. As a supporter of the rule of law in international disputes, I do not like to see, in ordinary circumstances, reservations brought forward with respect to the jurisdiction of the world court. However, on my second examination of the bills I saw that what we had done actually was a spur to the development of international law in connection with pollution control. I firmly believe that by introducing and passing these bills we shall be developing international law relating to pollution.
As has been stated before, the present international law relating to the high seas is heavily loaded in favour of the shipping interest and provides as much as possible for free access of shipping to all parts of the seas. This orientation, developed over many centuries, probably favoured international trade and commercial shipping. The law of the seas was developed mainly by the ship-owner nations. Consequently, if Canada had agreed to allowing this legislation to be tested in the world court, we should have both gone to a court and submitted to a law heavily weighted against us and against any type of pollution control.
I might also say that in recent years the world court has not been known for its liberal interpretation of international law. If anything, it has been a very conservative court and has interpreted whatever international law there is in a very restrictive manner. This does not mean that the government rejects the international rule of law; far from that. Last fall members of the government attended the international conference in Brussels and tried to obtain some international agreement on pollution control on the high seas and in territorial waters and contiguous zones. However, such agreement could not be obtained, mainly owing to the position taken by ship-owning nations. Yesterday the minister said that Canada is still ready to work towards such a treaty. He repeated this again and other ministers repeated it after him.
5998	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
There has been some discussion regarding the concept of sovereignty. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that by introducing these bills the government is, in fact, abandoning sovereignty over our northern waters.
I really think that in stating that he is grasping at straws. I feel that not only are we asserting our sovereignty, but we are laying the groundwork for further legislation respecting the north that may become necessary. When a government, Mr. Speaker, legislates with respect to a given territory, in this case the Arctic waters, it is claiming sovereignty over that territory with respect to the subject matter of the legislation. Sovereignty, like ownership, is not an absolute right. Surely, those who live in Canada should recognize that; after all, we live in a federal system. When we legislate with respect to an area, that legislation is an expression of sovereignty over that area. Other expressions of our sovereignty in our Arctic are to be found in our icebreaking role in these waters, in our weather stations; in our defence stations; in our outposts coming under the Department of Northern Affairs, such as schools and health institutions; in our supply lines coming under the Department of Transport; in our RCMP stations, and so on. All these things are an expression of our sovereignty in the north. This legislation is a further expression of our sovereignty, not only in the northern islands but also in the Arctic waters, because the legislation relates particularly to the Arctic waters.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there never has been any question on the part of the Canadian government or any government with respect to our sovereignty over the Arctic islands and the sea bed between the islands which is part of the continental shelf.
I know this has been stated before but there is still much confusion in the minds of some Canadians on this matter. Some feel that there is some dispute with respect to our sovereignty to the islands and the continental shelf on which some mineral and oil exploration is taking place.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned yesterday, much of the international law of the sea originated as customary law. It was only later put into international conventions and treaties. This customary law was developed because certain states took unilateral initiatives in order to protect their own interests. As they did this, the customary law relating to the high seas developed. This was done with respect to the three-mile limit and also with the 12-mile

DEBATES	April 17. 1970
zone. This same concept was later extended to embrace the continental shelf doctrine. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the history of the development of international law, one will see that it arose from customary law. That customary law developed and finally became international law, largely because of unilateral initiatives taken by certain states. As time went on, these customary laws were put into treaty form.
For many years no one questioned our jurisdiction over the Arctic waters because there was no incentive, nor any means, for any one to use those waters for commercial purposes. Now, there have been great discoveries of oil and other minerals in the Arctic, and accompanying technological developments which have enabled super-tankers to be built. As a result, there is now a tremendous risk of pollution on a massive scale in the Arctic. If the Canadian government does nothing to protect these waters, nobody else will. We are the only nation in a position to do something about pollution control in those waters, and we must do something.
I might say that I would be pleased to see some similar type of legislation introduced for pollution control with respect to the waters off our east and west coasts. I do not know if we should require 100-mile limits there, such as we are proposing in the north, but certainly we must do something to prevent junky tankers run by irresponsible shipping companies from traversing these waters in an irresponsible way and bringing the risk of pollution to our coasts. We have had experience with the Arrow off our east coast. If one looks at the Torrey Canyon and the Santa Barbara disasters, one can appreciate that ships travelling between 50 and 100 miles off our coasts can encounter disaster and be shipwrecked.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The countries that will suffer are those that have coastlines closest to such disasters. Something must be done to protect the coastlines of those states which provide important shipping passages. I suppose Canada will continue to press for international agreement at the international conferences. If we do not get agreement at these conferences, we must take some kind of unilateral action on our east and west coasts to protect against the same sort of thing we are protecting against in the Arctic. There may be risks in upsetting other states by introducing legislation such as this, but in
April 17, 1970

my opinion it is better to take risks by action to protect Canada and Canada's interests then by taking risks of no action.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to me that there have been doubts expressed by this government on the question of Arctic sovereignty. There seems to be conviction on the other side that the government has been consistent in expressing with force and positiveness its claim to Arctic ownership.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has come as close as any minister in the cabinet to stating in a positive fashion any claim to sovereignty. It is important for the government to speak with one voice. One should expect the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the head of the government, to be forceful and unequivocal about Canada's claim to her Arctic regions. He has not been forceful. He has stated with clarity that the intent of the legislation that we are now discussing is not to assert sovereignty over the north. I am not saying something that is new. My friend and seatmate put it on the record last night. I think in order to put the matter in its proper perspective we should once again refer, particularly the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who has a vital concern in this and all northern matters, to the statement of the Prime Minister. It should again be put on the record and judged for what it is.
I say that the Prime Minister has yet to make a positive, strong statement claiming Canada's ownership of her Arctic areas. This is what my friend put on the record last night. When discussing these bills with the press, the Prime Minister said:
This is the first bit of legislation-it is not an assertion of sovereignty,-
Perhaps the member who just resumed his seat might pay attention to the words of the Prime Minister. The hon. member seems to be under the misapprehension that positive statements have been made. At this press conference the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
-it is not an assertion of sovereignty, it is an exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution and by defining 100 miles as the zone within which we are determined to act, we are indicating that our assertion there is not one aimed towards sovereignty-
This is the Prime Minister speaking.
-that our assertion there is not one aimed towards sovereignty-
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
That is for the enlightenment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).
-but aimed towards one of the very important aspects of our action in the Arctic.
To me that means the Prime Minister, by this legislation, is not seeking to assert sovereignty over Canada's Arctic. That is what he said. Why there should be any doubt about the ownership of these lands is beyond me.
I want to deal at some length with the life of one of our more famous French Canadians. In a book entitled, "The True North" by Fairley & Israel, published in 1957, some attempt is made to resurrect the history of this gentleman who has made such a great contribution to the securing for Canada of our Arctic heritage. I quote from page 5:
It is possible that only one Canadian out of a thousand has heard of Captain Bernier. Perhaps only one in ten thousand knows anything of his life. History plays strange tricks, giving fame to one man, denying it to another. Yet Admiral Richard E. Byrd, himself a famous explorer, has called Bernier "the dean of arctic explorers". And in 1926, the Toronto Star said, "It has to be admitted that Bernier is our great arctic pioneer and years ago he kept arctic questions before Canadian statesmen and the Canadian when our interest was at a low ebb. He, more than any man, kept Canada from tossing away its arctic inheritance."
This book is the story of how Captain Bernier went about doing just that. The work of Captain Bernier really commenced in earnest after the conclusion of World War I. Prior to the war, he was commissioned by the Canadian government to make annual patrols throughout Canada's Arctic archipelago. It outfitted a ship which he called the Arctic. These patrols were made on an annual basis. After the war the nature of the patrols changed because of the increasing interest in geology and other activities in these Arctic areas.
In the summer of 1925, when the matter really came to a head and aroused sufficient interest to be debated with seriousness in this House, a situation arose between Canada and the United States, coincidentally, which could have caused a good deal of unpleasantness between our two countries. As accounted in "The True North", the situation arose in this way:
Two Americans had decided to attempt an airborne trip to the North Pole. One was Donald B. MacMillan, a Canadian-born explorer who had become an American citizen. The other was Richard E. Byrd, later to be internationally known as a conqueror of both Poles, then a young commander in the U.S. Navy. Long before the two men set out on their attempt, the newspapers were filled with accounts of their preparations.
6000	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
Indeed, the United States Congress went so far as to give a direction to the expedition that they were to cast about and see what lands up there were still up for grabs, to use the terminology of the Prime Minister. When some Members of Parliament heard of this plan, they raised the question in the House of Commons. I will be referring to the debates of 1925 in a moment. The upshot of that debate was an answer in the affirmative. It stated very positively that all land between the 60th meridian and the 141st meridian straight up to the Pole was Canadian territory. They asked how the Americans could then go through these waters and over these lands, overflying Canadian territories, without some kind of a permit or, as it was put in the debate, without asking permission. This question of asking permission certainly has a very relevant bearing with respect to the voyages of the Manhattan recently. The answer in the Canadian Parliament at that time was that there could be no MacMillan-Byrd expedition unless there was permission granted.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
If MacMillan had asked permission, permission would probably have been granted, since the request itself would indicate acknowledgment of Canadian ownership. The Canadian newspapers of the day seized upon this debate and broke out in an angry rash of protests. If it were policy in 1925, incidentally under a Liberal government, that permission had to be obtained for an expedition of the size and importance of the MacMillan-Byrd expedition, why has government policy changed so as not to require the obtaining of permission when the same country sends the same kind of expedition in the shape of the Manhattan? MacMillan did, in fact, obtain permission from the Danish government to base his expedition on Greenland. But he made no attempt to get in touch with the Canadian government. Again, Bernier's work comes sharply into focus in the manner in which he insisted upon Canadian sovereignty in our Arctic.
The MacMillan-Byrd expedition proceeded by vessel, with the intention of over-flying Canadian territory. The ship was anchored in the proximity of one of our Arctic islands in Etah harbour when Bernier came on the scene in the course of one of his patrols. He visited MacMillan on the evening of his arrival. The two men had dinner and a very pleasant conversation. Eventually, they got round to the right of the MacMillan-Byrd expedition to be where it was and carry on as it was

DEBATES	April 17. 1970
doing. Bernier pointed out the danger of over-flying Canadian territory at that time of the year, having regard to weather conditions, and gently suggested that the expedition should turn around and go home. A couple of days later, that is exactly what they did. As a result of this mission, carried out with great friendliness at that time, MacMillan was convinced of Canadian ownership and when he returned to the north in subsequent years he was very careful to take out a licence obtained from the R.C.M.P. for a token payment. I commend this account of Bernier's life to the Prime Minister if he has any doubt about the right of Canada to assert sovereignty over the Arctic, as it appears he has.
I wish, now, to refer briefly to Bernier's own autobiography. Those interested in our claim to Arctic sovereignty will be able to find it in the Parliamentary Library. Entitled "Master Mariner and Arctic Explorer", it is a narrative of 60 years at sea from the logs of Captain Bernier, and it was printed by Le Droit in 1939. An interesting feature of Captain Bernier's life is that he was one of those in the Province of Quebec who bought his wife at an auction sale conducted in that province. I did not know this practice prevailed anywhere in Canada. His wife brought with her a dowry from King Louis of France-Louis XV, I guess it was. Anyway, she brought with her a dowry of $12.50. I was surprised to learn that this practice prevailed in Canada. The patrols which Bernier instituted and carried on were the result of co-operation between Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. This policy of licencing the users of our Arctic waters was one which both governments of the day endorsed.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the important event which is about to occur at ten minutes to one, an event of international interest, I wonder whether I might call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Very thoughtful.
At thirteen minutes before one o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct an error that I made before the adjournment with regard to the bartering of brides in Quebec. It was under the reign of
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
Louis XIV that this policy was established through the colonization plans ol the great Colbert. The bachelors were watched with a vigilant eye. They were not given land or allowed to travel or engage in trade. But when they chose a bride many privileges became available. Their brides were dowered by the King. The bride of Jacques Bernier brought him 25 ecus two and a half guineas, or $12.50. Certainly, $12.50 was worth a good deal more then than it is today.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Anyway Bernier says at page 323 of his own biography, and the book is shot through with phrases of this nature:
.-i took possession of Ellesmere Island and all the islands explored by the Sverdrup expedition and then hastened homeward-
The last Canadian island in the Arctic to be taken for Canada was one taken by Wilhjalmur Stefansson in 1915. This account, in 1908, by Bernier in his log is very interesting, and I am reading from page of 343 of his book "Master Mariner":
Dominion Day was celebrated by all on board: all our flags were flying and the day itself was all that could be desired. At dinner we drank a toast to the Dominion and the Premier of Canada; then all assembled around Parry's Rock to witness the unveiling of a tablet sculptured by J. V. Koenig, our first engineer, and placed on the Rock, commemorating the annexation of the whole of the Arctic archipelago. I briefly referred to the important event in connection with the granting to Canada by the Imperial government on September 1st, 1880, all the British territory in the northern waters of the continent of America and Arctic ocean, from 60 degrees west longitude to 141 degrees west longitude, and as far north as 90 degrees, that is to say to the North Pole. Three cheers were given in honour of the Premier, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada, and the men dispersed for the balance of the day to enjoy themselves.
There was no doubt in those days that Canada owned her Arctic. In the debates of 1925 when Mr. Stewart, who had the same responsibilities now discharged by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) but was called the Minister of the Interior, said at page 4083 in answer to a question from Mr. Garland, then the member for Bow River:
If expeditions from foreign countries desire to go into that north country I think the least they can do is to obtain a permit from the government of the Northwest Territories to enter what is clearly our land.
DEBATES	6001
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill Again, at page 4084 Mr. Stewart answered a question by Mr. McQuarrie. Mr. McQuarrie asked:
How far north does the jurisdiction of Canada extend? Do we take in the North Pole?
Mr. Stewart said:
We claim that we go to it.
Mr. McQuarrie said:
The minister has heard that the United States has laid claim to the North Pole.
Mr. Stewart said:
Canada claims the territory outlined between the degrees of longitude 60 and 141 but I have nothing to say regarding any claim the United States may make. They have Alaska and naturally they will lay claim to land north of their territory there, which would be adjacent to ours.
Mr. McQuarrie then asked:
Will they have the North Pole?
Mr. Stewart replied:
I do not suppose any nation can lay claim to the North Pole.
Mr. McQuarrie then said:
I am serious in the question.
Mr. Stewart said:
In order to protect Canada's interests we have made our position clear. According to international law we can claim any territory lying one hundred miles off our explored coasts. But no one knows definitely what land there is in the unexplored region; to reach it the explorer must go either from the coast of Alaska or through Canadian territory.
Mr. Stewart made it clear in the debates of that year that at that time Canada laid claim to all of the Arctic archipelago between degrees 60 and 141 up to the North Pole. Why then must we hear our Prime Minister say today that the legislation is not an assertion of sovereignty, but rather an exercise in our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution? We heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs state yesterday during an exchange between the minister and my seat mate that there was no divergence of opinion between himself and the Prime Minister. Then, the hon. member asked him how he explained the statement of the Prime Minister in a press release concerning this legislation in which he said:
This is the first bit of legislation-
It is not an assertion of sovereignty; it is an exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution-
And then further on, it is stated:
-we are indicating that our assertion there is not one aimed towards sovereignty, but aimed towards one of the very important aspects of our action in the Arctic.
6002	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
I should like to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak up in asserting Canadian sovereignty in the North, and I would urge upon him to convince the Prime Minister to do the same thing. After all, the work of one of Canada's finest sons from the province of Quebec was largely responsible for securing a great deal of our Arctic land and waters. Are we now to listen to, much less tolerate, another famous sons of Quebec in the form of a Prime Minister say we are not asserting this valuable work of Joseph Bernier? It would appear so.
We have heard the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) go through a list of the ways in which Canada is asserting her sovereignty in the Arctic. He says it is not necessary to legislate sovereignty. He says we have asserted sovereignty as a result of the establishement of weather stations. I ask him to look at the composition of those weather stations; they are not all Canadian. He says we establish our sovereignty in the Arctic by the establishment of military stations and detachments. I ask him, where are these?
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has released an announcement to the press that he intends to take this gigantic step of establishing military bases in the north, and will patrol some 1,750,000 square miles of Canada with 50 soldiers. This action has been taken after they destroyed the military installations at Whitehorse which comprised 250 air force personnel and a similar number of army personnel. I understand there is now a re-awakening of interest in the north and the Minister is putting in 50 soldiers.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to correct the hon. member, there are now 400 men permanently stationed in the north. What we are planning to do is increase this activity. For instance, I am announcing an early exercise by the air arm regiment with a strength of a thousand. You are talking about 35 people but I am talking about the headquarters.


Erik Nielsen: We are going to have a headquarters staff of 50 people. As far as military exercises are concerned, -we have had these over the years-exercise Beaver and goodness knows how many more in the north. What is the minister of defence asking the people of Canada to believe? This is obviously an effort to gain publicity at a time when the Prime Minister has raised grave doubts about the sovereignty of Canada over her northern 
DEBATES	April 17. 1970
regions. We are rushing forth with our fists in our pockets and saying we are establishing sovereignty now. We are going to send another 50 soldiers into the north. It is a simple exercise of mathematics, to divide 450 soldiers into 1,750,000 square miles to discover how effective that sort of assertion is going to be in connection with Canada's sovereignty in the north.
Much more has been accomplished since the days of Bernier when he assisted in setting up the first mounted police post on Ellesmere island. He was responsible largely for setting up subsequent mounted police posts. The same situation applies to our establishments in connection with the activities of our geologists, health facilities and our weather facilities in the north. Basically, the people of Canada believe that the sending of 50 soldiers to Yellowknife to set up a headquarters to manage 400 men, which in itself is-
Mr. Cadieux (Labelle)-: You are distorting the facts.


Erik Nielsen: If I am distorting them, I do not want to.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: You know that.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know that I am distorting the facts at all. The minister has said there are 400 soldiers in northern Canada. That is not distorting the facts.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, you said there were only 50.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Yes, 50 of them are making up the headquarters staff. I am using the minister's own explanation. The setting up of a headquarters in Yellowknife comprising 50 soldiers to manage 400 men is questionable management, but no one can ask the Canadian public to believe that this is somehow reasserting sovereignty over Canada's Arctic regions. The fact remains that our Arctic extends from the 60th degree of longitude to the 141st and up to the North Pole. The fact remains that that was the position adopted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by Sir Robert Borden, by Mr. Meighen, by Mackenzie King, and by the former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker. Yet, all of a sudden it is negated by this Prime Minister when he says we are not asserting our sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic.


Mr. Sharp:: In this legislation.


Erik Nielsen: All right, I will go along with the Secretary of State for External Affairs,
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
but let the Prime Minister stand up on his two feet and say to all and sundry that Canada owns everything between the 60th Meridian and the 141st Meridian and up to the North Pole. Let him do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs for doing just that yesterday in debate, but surely the Prime Minister should do that also.


Mitchell William Sharp: He said it too.


Erik Nielsen: He did not; he said quite the contrary.


Mr. St. Pierre:: Would the hon. member permit a question? He said he examined the sector theory as put forward by Senator Poirier in 1903? If he had, he would not be making the statement he has.


Erik Nielsen: In answer to the hon. member,
I would say that I have examined the theory and I still stand by what I said. Before that theory ever became a theory, Canada was asserting her sovereignty over the Arctic.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is only one claim.


Paul St. Pierre: Would the hon. member permit another question? Is it correct that in the assertion of the sector theory Canada laid claim to all land which might be discovered within that sector, and similar action was taken by Tsarist Russia in 1917?


Erik Nielsen: Absolutely, and well before that Canada was asserting that very claim made by Bernier which accounts for his log of 1908 and for the policy of the government of the day. My friend will recall the test of that theory that the United States made when they sent a warship into the Russian sector, the progress of which was impeded by the stationing of Russian warships across the passage, following which the U.S. warships turned around and did not proceed farther.


Mr. Hogarth:: Would the hon. member
permit another question? Would he explain to me, for my information, what was the exact theory put forward by the gentleman referred to in 1903?


John Howard Lundrigan: That's a stupid question.


Erik Nielsen: I would dearly love to do that if the House would give me unanimous consent to continue for another 30 minutes.
22218-34J
DEBATES	6003
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member would not understand it anyway.


Erik Nielsen: There is another point I would like to make. I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party say that there are three historical precedents for the action that the government is taking now and justifying it on that basis. As one hon. member opposite put it, we in Canada have a right to take the action that we are taking now in this Parliament as a matter of self-defence, on the basis that we had to combat pollution effectively. This brought to mind the U.S. action taken with respect to the missile emergency that occured in Cuba, when Russia was supplying the material and the missiles to establish offensive bases in Cuba. The United States took unilateral action on the high seas to stop those ships, and theoretically if for no other reason, one must conclude that it was to prevent the polluting of Cuba with missiles. The fact is that they acted unilaterally, and if they can do so with respect to a situation like that, I suggest that Canada has a similar right. Whether we have the means to enforce it is quite another matter, because no one in all reason will advance the proposition that we should either be rattling the saber or preventing the intrusion of foreign vessels in our Arctic waters by any offensive unilateral action.


Mr. Aiken:: That is all we have left.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) said, that is all we have left. What the Canadian government should do-and I advance this as one who lives in the north and sees the many errors of past Canadian governments of all political stripes-is to take up the torch where Bernier laid it down, to his great credit, and where the government of the day took it up and asserted in no uncertain fashion that Canada owns the Arctic land. They went to the extent of requiring anyone sailing the waters between the islands in our Arctic and overflying the land and waters in our Arctic to be licensed. This government has not the courage to even require vessels like the Manhattan to obtain permission. This is wrong. This is pussyfooting so far as sovereignty in the Arctic is concerned, and it is selling our heritage down the river, a heritage which Bernier worked so effectively and ambitiously to secure for Canada.
The policy of the government should be clear. It should be to follow the precedent set by both Liberal and Conservative govern-
April 17, 1970
6004	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill ments in the past and to insist on the users of all areas in Canada's Arctic between the 60th meridian and the 141st meridian and up to the North Pole obtaining permission to use these areas, or indeed, as was the policy in 1925, to require a licence.
The Prime Minister should take the earliest opportunity to make a strong and positive statement which would clear the air of any doubt as to Canada's claim of sovereignty over the whole of the Arctic archipelago. He is not doing it by the introduction of this kind of legislation which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was quite right in describing as only raising further doubts. If, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, we have sovereignty over all of these waters which are considered internal Canadian waters, why then must we advance legislation in this House which restricts that sovereignty to 12 miles or 100 miles, whichever way you look at it? We do not need legislation to restrict our sovereignty, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) put it so well. We need not say anything about our sovereignty. We own the Arctic Islands and that is all there is to it. We own the whole of the area between the 60th meridian and 141st meridian and up to the North Pole. That was the policy and that should continue to be the policy, and the Prime Minister should say so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: 
are not taking a big enough view individually, as political parties, as a nation, and certainly not as international brothers.
With respect to the problem of pollution and the handling of it from a very high level, it is obviously out of Canada's control. The problem may well become nothing but an international political football in a big power game. I have in my hand a letter I received from the U.S. Information Service. I presume it has all the validity of the U.S. State Department behind it. I have no reason to believe it is not an official document. It is datelined Washington, April 15, so is not ancient history. Part of it reads:
Following is the text of a Dept, of State's statement on the government of Canada's bills on limits of the territorial sea, fisheries and pollution.
They lump the two bills together, C-202 and C-203, and it is very hard to discuss one without thinking about the other. I am certainly not anti-American. On the contrary, I look to the United States very strongly and sensibly for assistance, not only in the preservation of our own identity as an independent nation but in continuing to develop what has been loosely called our western way of life. Whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), the government in general, or Parliament itself states that these islands are ours, I am not sure is important. The important thing is to discuss the matter openly and in a friendly manner, not only with the Americans but with the international people the Americans themselves suggest should be consulted.
It is difficult to discuss this matter without taking an historical look at it. I wonder how the State Department's suggestion that all things should be done on an international basis and settled by international agreement-I go along with that at this stage of my argument because I think ideally we should have international agreement-fits in with the Munroe doctrine under which the whole world is supposed to leave the Americas alone? I wonder what the Organization of American States would have to say in reply to a document coming from one of the other power groups of the world, telling any independent nation or so-called independent nation how it should behave?
I am not saying that the Americans should not have issued this release, but it is obvious that they are attacking the matter from a very selfish point of view. The Eskimo people are willing Canadians. I have heard no state-
April 17, 1970
ment from the Eskimo people that they would like to secede. If you took a proper empirical approach to the matter and you whine about people having a right to earn their living on their own land, and about the self-expression of peoples, which are some of the prime theories behind the formation of the United Nations organization, then I wonder what the Eskimo people would say if all the emphasis were placed on the land masses and it was stated that sovereignty over the waters that lie between the islands was not a meaningful thing?
Up until the recent development of oil resources in the north country, the Eskimo people relied entirely on the marine and animal life which lived on the ice and in the water between the islands. These waters between the islands were of vital importance to the Eskimo way of life. Who cared about these Eskimo people? The Canadian people cared. The Canadian taxpayers sent mounted police up there to occupy each and every one of the major islands under our flag. We gave those people our assistance through law and order, through medical attention, and in every other way in which we could co-operate with them. We gave them the security which they occasionally did not have among themselves. We maintained decent order in the north. Apparently, we gave them that which they appreciate because never, as far as I know, have they indicated that they wanted to leave the Dominion of Canada.
Unless the Americans are willing to sit down with us, as we are willing to sit down with them, and discuss this matter openly, friendly and consistently, in terms of the free determination of the rights of peoples-in this case the Eskimos-I think it would be an exercise in futility. But I am not cynical about it. The Americans have stated their position. They may sound inflexible, but I think we are in a good bargaining position. Because of their power and wealth, the Americans find themselves a very lonely nation. But they are not always lonely because they are wrong. They may be lonely because they are the big brother, because they are powerful, because they are rich, because no doubt sometimes they are greedy, and because they are arrogant. I think loneliness is the worst thing that can be inflicted on any member of the human race.
Collectively and individually Americans want to be understood and admired, instead of being the target of an awful lot of rotten propaganda coming from every corner
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill of the world, with 90 per cent of which I do not agree. Nobody loves them except us. Little Canada is the only real friend they have in international affairs. One of the reasons is that, by and large, we have been treated pretty well by them. By and large, we are happy to have their money here to develop our almost unlimited resources. But I do not think this means that we have to be soft or subservient. On the contrary, 1 think it is time that our government stated in explicit terms to the Americans just what our hopes are and the area over which we have jurisdiction. I do not think we should get bogged down in semantics. The Canadian archipelago islands of the north are an economic unit. The ice between the islands is essential to the native people who have the greatest interest and right to sovereignty over those islands.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Judge Morrow decided that.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, the courts decide things but from time to time their decisions are reversed. I am appealing on the principle of humanity. When this note recommends that we go to the international courts I presume the recommendation is based on principle since there is very little international law on the subject. In so far as the power group I mentioned earlier is concerned, we should not let ourselves become a pawn in this big power game.
I find it strange, Mr. Speaker, that the people who shouted the loudest about these principles of peacekeeping, understanding and world co-operation rather than shaking an empty fist in mock fury should be the first ones to delay a plan for consultation. One of the most important things is to go to the bargaining table with a clear idea of your requirements. In order to achieve our ends our best brains should be selected for the negotiations, particularly with the United States, because that country is in a position to help us maintain that sovereignty. At the present time we are militarily incapable of enforcing sovereignty.
We know only too well that the moral support of the world, if we were to rely on that, breaks down in the face of military strength. In this regard I only have to mention the fate of some of the small nations. If Hungary wanted to come from behind the iron curtain, to whom would she appeal? If Cambodia wanted the foreign troops marching through her country to go home, to whom would she appeal? The International Court of Justice

April 17, 1970
6006	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill would only make a statement that all foreign troops should go home but we know they would not go home until some greater power sent them.
There is only one thing that will bring us any kind of lasting peace in the world, Mr. Speaker. This will be when each nation is willing to give up some of its sovereignty to a well co-ordinated League of Nations, a United Nations, with a peacekeeping force capable of maintaining law and order. International affairs are not so much different from human affairs. A policeman on duty on Saturday night will not be able to maintain law and order if he is not given the authority. An International Court of Justice decision on Canadian sovereign rights in the Arctic would be without force if nations like the United States and the Soviet Union chose to ignore it.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the text of this note from the United States. I understand that the President of the United States has spoken to our Prime Minister by telephone and I hope they agreed to endeavour to solve this problem in good faith. I hope it will not come to any sort of a show of strength. Sending our troops into the Arctic is not going to achieve a great deal at this stage-indeed it amounts almost to comic opera.
The government should come out with a clear statement that for the last 50 years Canada has laid claim to the whole archipelago of the north, maintaining responsibility for the native population and the ecology of the land and sea. It would not be a sign of weakness if we put our emphasis on the council table, as long as we have a plan for full co-operation in the development of our western way of life as well as the protection from pollution of the whole of the Arctic. We are already respected as world citizens and as we develop we should put emphasis in the right places.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, indeed.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask the hon. member, as he has made a number of references to the bargaining table and to negotiations, if he would mind telling us who is going to be on the other side of this bargaining table and what it is we have to negotiate?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I think every nation in the world has an interest in the pollution


of the seas. Perhaps there is an argument, as mentioned in this text, in favour of sharing sovereignty so that the international seaways of the world could be open for commerce and for peaceful purposes. I should like to think that people who are asking for that right would be willing to tax themselves and to co-operate with us in every way possible to avoid marine disasters in the north. If they want to share our sovereignty, they should be willing to share the cost.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Incidentally, the Northwest Passage route was pioneered by the same mounted police who maintained law and order in that part of the country and made friends with the people who lived there. If it had not been for the pioneering work of ships like the St. Roche, and Sergeant Larsen of the mounted police, perhaps the Manhattan might not have gone as far as she did. We did that at our own expense. Now, it is patently ridiculous for anyone to say that we have no vested interest in the Arctic. Whether or not our interest is exclusive is a matter for the bargaining table. I think the mere fact that Canada is willing to sit at the bargaining table and seek the advice and co-operation of others, and the fact that we have faith that other nations of the world are willing to do something in this area with us, in itself is an exercise of our sovereignty. On the other hand, the mere shaking of the sword at the present time would probably be ridiculous and not bring us any closer to answering the question of how we are to assert the sovereignty of our country.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Saul! Sle. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate to point out one or two things that I think are most important. From the newspapers and from information we have obtained from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) we have learned that our good neighbour to the south is taking some exception to the provisions of this bill. I think it is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that as long ago as 1954 nations got together in an attempt to arrive at some agreement which would prevent pollution of the high seas. An agreement was reached in 1954 by some 22 nations. That agreement simply set out that the countries that were party to it, the 22 nations, would have the right to impose fines on shipowners of the other signatory nations when the ships involved discharged oil within 50 miles of the shoreline of any participating nation. That
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
was the first step in this area, and it was a very mild one. It is significant to note that Canada was a party to that agreement, as were the governments of the United Kingdom and Japan. The United States government was not. For the United States government now to come forward and say that we, Canada, ought not to take this action without first trying to solve this problem by way of international meetings and agreements I think is a little far fetched.
In 1962 there were further consultations with respect to the accord which was reached in 1954. At that time, the agreement was amended so that the countries involved could assess penalties against shipowners from participating nations whose ships discharged oil or any other such effluent within 100 miles of the coastal areas. Again, none of the nations involved in the pact were given the right to regulate ships belonging to the signatory nations, so that even though ships belonging to participating nations travelled within the restricted area, other participating nations were not able to take steps which would prevent pollution. Nor was there any provision to cover the accidental discharge of oil or other effluent within these limits. I think it can be easily seen, and I think we all agree, that those measures certainly were not effective enough in combatting those problems which today have become so serious.
Then, again, in November of last year the nations of the world met in Brussels and attempted to hammer out some sort of international agreement to meet this problem; unfortunately, no agreement was reached. So, today, we are introducing this legislation at a time when we are very, very vulnerable. As yet we have no law to protect us from these large super-tankers which are sailing the seas just off our coasts. There will be more of them in future and they will range, as I understand it, between 250,000 and 300,000 tons. If we do not act now but wait until a disaster occurs, I think we shall be derelict in our duty as a nation. We must look after the best interests not only of the people of Canada but of the whole continent.
It is true that by taking the action which is now proposed we may enter into a possible confrontation with our good neighbour to the south and other nations of the world. But I think it must be realized that we are a different nation from the nation to the south. We have different purposes and different interests. The people of Canada must be aware of this and prepare themselves for possible con-
DEBATES	6007
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill frontations in future involving not only this area but also other areas. These will take place as our country grows and as our neighbour to the south grows and develops. I think, also, that the announcement made yesterday in the United States is very significant. The President of the United States has doubled the amount of money which is ordinarily made available for purposes of naval research. He has doubled the amount of money to be spent on Arctic research. This money is to be used, as I understand it, to develop some sort of skimmer or surface craft, similar to the hovercraft, which is to be used for research in the Arctic. This step was announced only yesterday. We too must move, I submit; we must move now and show no timidity in asserting our rights. Our duty is to protect the people of our country and the people of the continent. Their rights and the rights of all Canadians will be upheld if we support this bill with everything we have.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House at this particular stage of the discussion on these important matters. I understand that we will be proceeding to consider Bill C-203 immediately upon the conclusion of this debate. It seems to me that this is where the real crunch of the issue will take place. Since all hon. members who have spoken in this debate thus far have indicated they are in favour of the purposes of Bill C-202, which are, as the title says, to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic, it would be like opposing motherhood if one were to raise a discordant voice with respect to the purposes of this bill. In these days everybody is fighting the pollution battle. In many respects I think we are tilting at windmills.
As I hear hon. members beating their breasts with patriotic fervour and saying that we must resist any intrusion on Canada's fundamental rights in the Arctic-the Minister of National Defence said just a moment ago that we are reinforcing our military defences in the Arctic to the tune of some 50 personnel-I received an impression similar to that which Don Quixote created when he was tilting at windmills. Nobody disputes the necessity for dealing as quickly as possible with the potential problem of pollution of our Canadian Arctic environment. I use the word "Canadian" intentionally, because it is the Canadian Arctic that we are speaking about. Also, the
6008	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill growing problem of pollution affects not only that part of Canada, but it affects the environment of the world as well.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
As I listened to the discussion this afternoon it occurred to me that the thinking of Canadians, Members of Parliament, and particularly the members of the Liberal government, has come a long way during the past ten years. Only ten years ago, for example, there was on the part of the Liberal Party no great interest in the economic potential of the Canadian Arctic. They regarded the emphasis of the Conservative government of that day as a misplacement of priorities. The same applies, and I can say this fairly, with respect to the general problem of pollution. I recall when this party moved in 1964 the following motion of non-confidence in the government, in the days when supply motions were permitted in the House:
This house condemns the neglect of the government in failing to establish a co-ordinated national water policy and in ignoring the imminent national crisis in water resources management, which is evidenced by the critical low water levels of the great lakes and other national waters, the increasing pollution of national waters, and the urgent necessity of conserving water resources for the benefit of national resource development in Canada-
I remember that the bored response to that motion of only six years ago was to the effect that with all the other burning questions of great priority, why was the Conservative opposition wasting its substance on a colourless subject like water? Today we are all aware that there is a major crisis in controlling and preserving our water resources. In 1964 we were perhaps concerned more with political pollution than with environmental pollution.


Gerald William Baldwin: Political pollution is much worse now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is a problem with which the people of Canada will have to deal: unfortunately, it is beyond the capacity of members of the opposition. In due course the people of Canada will have their opportunity because we still have free elections in this country.
We are supposed to be in great confrontation with the Americans over this unilateral declaration on the part of the Canadian government respecting the control of pollution in the Arctic. There would be no confrontation-
I do not want to belabour this point because the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and

DEBATES	April 17, 1970
other spokesmen for this party have demonstrated the case beyond any shadow of doubt-and there would be no jurisdictional dispute if the government would accept the simple responsibility of declaring in no uncertain terms the principle of Canadian Arctic sovereignty. This has been done by all Canadian governments since Confederation. I do not have to enumerate the legal precedents which have been quoted to support this point.
Perhaps politicians have been quoted most frequently during the course of the debate. Each of our Prime Ministers has been quoted with the exception of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In addition, some officials of the Canadian government have reinforced the statements of the political leaders of the nation. We are living in a day and age when the power of the public administration is a growing and formidable one. Sometimes the viewpoint of the public administrators are of equal force, if not more so, than the public expressions of the political leaders.
I have here a statement which was reported in the Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 1968. In an article entitled "Innocent Passage in the Arctic," by A. Donat Pharand, we find these words:
Ivan Head of the University of Alberta, writing at a time when he was in the Canadian Department of External Affairs, was much less doubtful about the legal nature of those waters and the Canadian policy relating thereto. He wrote in the following terms: "Canada regards the water between the islands as Canadian territorial waters, and this claim has been recognized by the United States. Prime Minister St. Laurent reported to the House of Commons in 1957 that United States vessels servicing DEW line stations are required to apply to Canada for waivers of the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act before proceeding."
That is the end of the quotation of Professor Ivan Head, as he was in those days. I do not know why there is so much uncertainty in the bosom of the government in respect of this matter. If there is no uncertainty concerning Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago and the waters in between, there is no problem with respect to exercising our responsibilities in matters of pollution. Why all the beating of the breasts and the feeling that we have to reinforce our position in order to beat off any confrontation by the United States? We have not been able to get the documents from the government of Canada, but we do have a copy of the statement that was delivered in Washington on April 15, 1970. The statement reads, at page 2, paragraph 3:
Moreover, the United States is acutely aware of the peculiar ecological nature of the Arctic region,
April 17. 1970

and the potential dangers of oil pollution in that area. The Arctic is a region important to all nations in its unique environment, its increasing significance as a world trade route and as a source of natural resources. We believe the Arctic beyond national jurisdiction should be subject to internationally agreed rules protecting its assets, both living and non-living, and have noted with pleasure the Canadian Prime Minister's public statement that Canada would be prepared to enter into multilateral efforts to develop agreed rules of environmental protection.
The sour note in there is the reference to "we believe the Arctic beyond national jurisdiction". Even though Ivan Head stated in the article I quoted that there was no dispute on the part of the American government with respect to Canada's claim for sovereignty over the Arctic, this now seems to be changed if we consider the statement made in Washington the other day. This means it is more important than ever that the government of Canada, the people of Canada and all the responsible leaders of Canada should speak with no uncertain voice concerning the matter of Arctic sovereignty.


Mitchell William Sharp: Then support us.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We have been trying to push the government for several months. We have been trying to push the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister. This is where the whole debate began. If the Arctic is ours, we can come to the conclusion, on the basis of the latter part of the American statement which I quoted, that they are only too happy to co-operate with Canada in the matter of protecting the environment. Why all this tilting at windmills in connection with the present legislation?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Oil exploration in the Canadian High Arctic first began in 1961. In 1961, Dome Petroleum brought in a drilling rig via Montreal. It was carried across Canada from Calgary to Montreal and then loaded on a Danish ship, the Thora Dan, and taken through the Northwest Passage to Winter Harbour on Melville Island. In those days there was very little up-to-date information available to this group which was interested in exploration for oil in the north; it was necessary to go back to the archives and look up the charts which had been deposited there after the Peary expedition of the last century. This suggests that if the government intends to implement adequate controls in connection with the legislation now before us, it must move quickly to acquire the facilities and the
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill means of doing so. I do not think very much progress has been made.
In the course of his opening statement in this debate, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Chretien) expressed the view that if we really intended to come to grips with environmental control it would have to be done on the basis of international co-operation. The Prime Minister has also enunciated this principle, although he has contradicted himself in many respects. Former Secretary of the Interior Udall was one of the leaders of the war on pollution. He wrote a book, "The Quiet Crisis", which became a classic in the field when it was published in 1962. The book eloquently expresses the nature of the danger with which we are now endeavouring to wrestle. It has crept upon us silently and suddenly, almost overnight.
Unfortunately, we have lost ten years in getting to grips with a situation which was all too obvious when the Resources for Tomorrow Conference was held in 1961. One of the major recommendations of that conference was that there should be a management body with the comprehensive powers necessary to protect and preserve our water resources. In those days the Canadian and United States governments were working closely together to develop policies on environmental control.
I would think that once the spokesmen for the government of Canada begin to speak with one voice on this matter it would be possible, instead of confronting the United States in this area, to work together with that country.
After all, our physical and biological environment is no respecter of natural boundaries. This is an international threat, and just as we have depended in the past upon the superior techniques and resources of the United States to deal with so many problems on the North American continent, so it will be necessary to approach this one not from the standpoint of confrontation but from the standpoint of co-operation.
Members of the Liberal Party are experts at raising straw men and knocking them down. I remember that the great issue in 1962 or 1963 was the failure of the Canadian government to co-operate with the United States government in continental defence. Those were the days-it was in the fifties-when the question was whether we should fly the Canadian flag in the Arctic: hon. members got into a great dither when it was discovered that Old Glory was flying there instead of the Red Ensign, as it was in those days. In the 1963 election Liberal spokesmen were beating
April 17, 1970
6010	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill their breasts again, saying we must stick together with our glorious American ally to ensure that this continent was adequately defended. Now they are reversing their stand and trying to pick a fight with the United States on an issue where there is no quarrel at all. As we move toward Bill C-203 we might hear the trumpets sounded in clear tones by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: A cracked trumpet.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If that is done, there is no need to pursue the debate on Bill C-203 at the present time, though it will be important to ensure in committee that it is adequate to carry out the difficult task with which it professes to be concerned, to ensure that the United States government recognizes Canadian sovereignty and in doing so will work co-operatively with Canada in the task of controlling our polluted natural environment in the North American region.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset it was not my intention to participate in this debate.
An hen. Member: A good idea.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am sorry the front bench of the opposition thinks so little of the backbenchers on this side of the House, but I shall try to improve that situation as we go along.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Your own front bench takes the same attitude.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Earlier speakers described the bill as being bold and imaginative, and I assumed this attitude would be universally accepted.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) say we had taken no interest in the Arctic until approximately ten years ago. I assume that this period dovetails with the period the Conservative Party was in power. I would point out to the hon. member that the International Nickel Company was in 1950 known as the Canadian Nickel Company and was undertaking mining exploration in the Northwest Territories. The company received the utmost co-operation not only from the Department of Transport, which set up communications and landing facilities, but from the Department of National Defence and our United States allies who at that time were 
stationed at Churchill, Manitoba. This is only one instance that I am aware of, having worked for the company at that time.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I know from personal experience that the Canadian government at that time-a Liberal one, if you will-saw that there was a future in the north and were doing something in a positive way about it. So this is not something brand new or dreamed up only ten years ago.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It goes back to 1867.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That was a pretty good year. This piece of legislation is bold and imaginative in that I see it establishing for Canada a kind of green belt around the Arctic, an area where we have some control. We are passing this legislation as an indication that this is our land and that these are our waters, that we intend to see that they are not polluted by ships such as that which sank in Chedabucto Bay.


Erik Nielsen: Let us see your black belt.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I will introduce some members of the opposition to my black belt leader if they do not quieten down. In this particular area Canada does have jurisdiction. Not only have we the opportunity but we have the obligation to pass the kind of legislation that is before the House today. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) indicates that Canada will establish a headquarters there and station armed forces personnel in the area. I suggest it is picayune for the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to argue about numbers. I can think of large areas of the Arctic where one Mountie had sole jurisdiction, and at that time there was no suggestion that Canada did not have sovereignty simply because there was only one Mountie for such a large expanse of territory.
However, I compliment the hon. member for Yukon on the kind of work and research that he has obviously done. I found the comments that he made about history and the declarations that were made on behalf of Canada very interesting. They will be most helpful if it should become necessary to sit down at a table to discuss our rights to this particular part of Canada. I was a little disappointed that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) indicated that this was a question we should have taken to the world court.


Mr. Lewis:: I did not say that. Read what I said.
April 17, 1970	COMMONS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not want to misquote the hon. member, of course.


David Lewis: I regretted that we had to do it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am sorry. I suggest that the hon. member gave the impression that we had made an error in this regard, and that the world court was in fact up to date on technical matters. I submit that this is an entirely new area, something with which the world court is not competent to deal. In going to Brussels and attending other meetings of nations, Canada was quite correct in stating that we must do something about old ships that are crossing the oceans, that they should have more steel in their hulls and be equipped with protective devices and additional pumping facilities so that if they are wrecked it will be easy to pump out oil and control pollution. However, shipping nations and shipowners saw fit not to accept this suggestion. We have tried to negotiate but other countries have not listened. Consequently, we have said to them, "If you won't do it, we'll do it, and do it unilaterally".
My main reason for speaking at this time, Mr. Speaker, is to tell the House that this is not a new matter. Canada has had an interest in the Arctic for years. This kind of legislation and the sort of action we are taking as far as our armed forces are concerned is long overdue. I salute the government for having the guts to take this step. To those who have any doubt about how the Prime Minister feels about this question I would recommend the speech he recently made in Toronto. Rather than misquote him or pick out just a few points from his speech, I would recommend that hon. members read the entire speech, one which was so good that the press gave him a standing ovation. That itself speaks loud and clear for the position that has been taken by the leader of this party.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to my hon. friend?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes.


Frank Howard: If, as the hon.
member says, it is correct that we should reserve and not submit to the international court our position with respect to the 100 nautical miles of pollution control, would he agree that it should be equally valid for us to exclude the 12-mile territorial sea limit from the jurisdiction of the international court, inasmuch as this is more important in terms of sovereignty?
DEBATES	6011
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill Mr. Cullen: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I feel that because so many countries have adopted the 12-mile limit, and since this is an area which is within the jurisdiction and competence of the world court, that court should deal with this question. I have little or no fear that they would also find in favour of Canada's position with respect to the 12-mile limit.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order at this time, may I say that pursuant to an arrangement that has been reached I propose to move a motion to adjourn this debate. Before doing so I should like to set out the foundation for the motion. It is understood that this debate will be now adjourned and that the House will move on to Bill C-203. After introduction of that bill by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), that debate will be adjourned and the House will call it four o'clock. These two bills will then come back to the House on Wednesday.
Unless the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), after meditation and prayer-something I would recommend to this government-has changed his mind, this is the understanding. If that is so, I accordingly move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this debate be now adjourned.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the House leader for the official opposition say whether it is also understood that when we come back to Bill C-202 on Wednesday we will proceed straight to a vote-that there is no intention of continuing this debate on Wednesday?


Gerald William Baldwin: That had been my understanding, Mr. Speaker. There were a number of volunteers from the other side, and unless the volunteers continue we are perfectly prepared to have a vote on Wednesday; if necessary, a recorded vote.


David Lewis: We agree.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the agreement, and we will vote on Wednesday next.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In any event, there is a motion before the House, moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). In view of the fact that the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has already spoken, perhaps the hon. member would agree to let the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gund-lock) second the motion.
April 17, 1970
6012	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-203, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act contain two major provisions: the first would establish the territorial sea of Canada at 12 miles in substitution for the present limit of three miles, and as a result would eliminate the present nine-mile fishing zone which would become incorporated within the 12-mile territorial sea; the second would authorize the government, by Order in Council, to create exclusive Canadian fishing zones comprising areas of the sea adjacent to the coasts of Canada.
There are a number of reasons why the government is proposing to extend its territorial sovereignty from three to 12 miles. Basically, the reason is that the limited fisheries jurisdiction which Canada at present exercises over the outer nine-mile zone is no longer sufficient to protect the full range of Canada's vital coastal interests. The 12-mile territorial sea would have the following advantages: (a) it would provide the comprehensive jurisdictional basis which Canada requires to enforce anti-pollution controls outside Arctic waters off Canada's east and west coasts up to 12 miles from the baselines of Canada's territorial sea, rather than merely three miles as at present; (b) it will permit Canada to expedite the conclusion of negotiations with the European countries which have been permitted to continue their fishing activities in Canada's 9-mile fishing zone; (c) it will further protect Canada's security interests by permitting Canada to exercise greater control over the movement of foreign ships.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The legal regime of the territorial seas permits the coastal state to determine whether a particular passage is innocent. This bill extends that right for Canada up to a dis-
tance of 12 miles from the territorial sea baseline. All the reasons why a state requires a three-mile territorial sea apply with equal vigour to the 12-mile territorial sea. From the point of view of security, the danger is removed farther offshore and the coastal state can take all measures open to it on its own territory within a wider belt of 12 rather than three miles.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a very brief question? Since yesterday he described all the Arctic waters as internal waters, would that not result in the conclusion that innocent passage would be prevented.


Mitchell William Sharp: I intend to deal with that question a little later in my address, Mr. Speaker. Then (d) since the inner limit of the continental shelf is measured from the outer limit of the territorial sea, the 12-mile territorial sea will have the effect of pushing the inner limit of Canada's continental shelf seawards a distance of nine miles.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S.A. government has made clear its willingness to accept a 12-mile territorial sea provided this is achieved by multilateral agreement and not by the continuing development of customary law through state practice. The Canadian government sympathized with the U.S. desire for agreed rules of law on these questions. Canada has repeatedly shown its good faith in the multilateral approach to these questions by participating vigorously and constructively in every effort in the last 40 years to achieve agreed rules of law on the breadth of the territorial sea and the nature and extent of contiguous zones.
I do not wish to belabour the point, but I would remind the House and the international community that Canada attempted to get agreement first on a three plus nine basis- three-mile territorial sea and nine-mile contiguous zones-in 1958, and when this did not prove possible we campaigned for the famous "six plus six" formula comprising a six-mile territorial sea and six-mile contiguous zone for certain purposes. We warned that the law was developing toward wider and wider assertions of territorial sovereignty and that the international community must recognize the legitimacy of extension of jurisdiction beyond the territorial sea for limited specific purposes. Unfortunately, we had only limited and belated success in enlisting the support of the U.S.A. for our proposal.
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
Later, in 1960, we campaigned very actively for the six plus six formula. We made representations in capitals all over the world through our diplomatic representatives there. Might I point out parenthetically that our efforts then and the exercise in which we are now engaged require the existence of a well trained foreign service and the presence of Canadian representatives in capitals all over the world, for many reasons, but particularly when we are seeking the support of the international community, as now, for a Canadian initiative. The hon. member for Coast Chilco-tin (Mr. St. Pierre) called yesterday in his very able speech on the Arctic waters pollution prevention bill for such representations by Canadian representatives. Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in having a foreign service generally accepted as one of the very best in the world, and our representatives are already engaged in making representations of the sort referred to by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin.
It will be recalled that in 1960 our proposed six plus six formula fell short of success by a fraction of one vote. We did not, however, even then, abandon the multilateral approach. We joined with the United Kingdom in canvassing countries around the world to ask them if, in spite of the failure at Geneva, they would none the less join with us in a multilateral agreement based on the six plus six formula. We pressed the U.S.A. to join with us in these representations, but the U.S.A. declined.
Subsequently, when as a result of our extensive and protracted canvassing efforts we and our British friends found that we had the support of over 40 countries for such a proposal, provided the U.S.A. and other major powers would agree, we approached the U.S.A. again with this evidence. Unfortunately, we were told, after waiting a further period of many months for the U.S.A. reply, that the U.S.A. did not consider it timely or appropriate to join with us in our efforts. Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not be taken as a sign of anti-Americanism but merely as an affirmative sign of Canadianism for me to say that we really are not prepared, in light of these developments, to accept the proposition that it is always desirable to proceed multilaterally instead of unilaterally.
I mentioned yesterday that we decided in 1964 that it was necessary to do it alone, and so we did, we passed the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act laying down the legislative basis for delimiting the territorial sea from
DEBATES	6013
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act straight baselines rather than from the sinuosities of the coast, and established a 9-mile fishing zone contiguous to our 3-mile territorial sea. Subsequently, we established straight baselines over long stretches of our coast. The United States, while expressing its disagreement with our legislation, followed suit in 1966 in establishing its own 9-mile fishery zone. It is, however, a reflection of the close and friendly relations between our two countries that it was agreed from the outset on both sides that the fishermen of either country would be allowed to fish freely in the contiguous zones of the other. This remains the Canadian position with respect to any new Canadian fishing zones.
There are now in process discussions in many capitals concerning the desirability of a third Law of the Sea Conference, the agenda for such a possible conference and many other difficult and delicate questions. The United States has made known, as has the Soviet Union, that it would be willing to support an agreement providing for a 12-mile territorial sea, a high seas corridor through international straits and certain limited rights to coastal states over offshore fisheries. As I have stated previously, we will participate actively in any such conference. We cannot, however, accept the notion that a coastal state's fisheries conservation and protection jurisdiction must cease at 12 miles from shore.
The developments since 1960 have proved that there is no magic in the 12-mile limit. Unlike the deer and bears in national parks, who become aware after a period that they are safe when they enter the sanctuary of the park, the fish do not seem to know that they are safe-except of course from Canadian fishermen-when they enter the 12-mile limit. Massive Ashing expeditions by other states covering the surface of the sea with trawlers and mother-ships are rapidly depleting the living resources of the sea. We cannot wait longer for the international community to realize the danger and move to meet it. Once again, Canada, after long and serious deliberations, has decided to go it alone.
I shall now turn to the question in which all parties have expressed great interest, namely, the implications of the establishment of a 12-mile territorial sea for Canada's Arctic sovereignty. I should like to emphasize that there is no difference of views concerning Canada's sovereignty over the islands of the Arctic archipelago nor Canada's sovereign rights to explore and exploit the mineral
6014	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act resources of Canada's northern continental shelf. There is no need even to comment concerning Canada's long established and universally accepted sovereignty over the land. I did hear some comments today from several members which seemed to suggest they have some doubt about this. I did not think anyone had.
With respect to the seabed, Canada is a signatory of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf which recognizes the "sovereign rights" of coastal states over the continental shelf adjacent to their coasts for the purposes of exploring and exploiting its natural resources. The convention specifies that these rights are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal, state does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may do so nor make a claim to the continental shelf without the express consent of the coastal state.


David Lewis: Would the minister restate that sentence, because there seems to be something wrong with it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought so, too.


David Lewis: I said restate it; I did not mean re-read.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: The convention says that the rights are exclusive in the sense that even if the coastal state does not exploit them they cannot be exploited by other states without the express consent of the coastal state itself. The convention provides, also, that the rights of coastal states over the continental shelf do not depend upon occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. The convention defines the continental shelf, and this is a point of some importance, as "the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the subjacent waters admit of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas." Of particular interest with respect to the Arctic is that in defining the shelf the convention makes clear that it applies also "to the seabed and subsoil or similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands".
Canada is engaged, in its capacity as a member of a special UN committee on the seabed, in active discussions and negotiations concerning the development of a legal regime for the peaceful use, in the interest of mankind as a whole, of the seabed beyond nation-

DEBATES	April 17, 1970
al jurisdiction. Such discussions may inevitably develop into consideration of a new and more precise definition of the area where the new international regime is to apply and, thus, where national jurisdiction ends. The Canadian government knows of no basis, however, for any doubt concerning Canada's sovereign rights over Canada's northern continental shelf, and I feel no need to elaborate further on this issue.
Turning to the status of the waters, members of the House are aware that the United States government has publicly called into question the Canadian view that the waters of the Arctic archipelago are Canadian. We respect, of course, the right of the United States to their view, but we cannot and shall not abandon the long-standing Canadian position on this question. The government was criticized yesterday concerning the possible effects of the Arctic pollution prevention bill and the bill we are now debating upon Canada's claim that the waters of the Arctic-archipelago are Canadian.
I referred yesterday, in reply to that point when it was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), to the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1910 in the North Atlantic coast fisheries case between Britain and the United States. The subject matter of that dispute was the privileges enjoyed by the inhabitants of the United States, in common with British subjects, to-the fisheries of Newfoundland, Labrador and other parts of the North Atlantic coast. In particular, the historic bays of Newfoundland, such as Chaleur, Conception and Miramichi were called into question.
The tribunal referred to the argument of the United States that Great Britain during the period preceding the hearing of the case had abandoned its claims that these bays were historical, and therefore the three-mile limit should be applied to them. I propose to quote from the decision of the tribunal on this abandonment argument:
Neither should relaxations of this claim, as are in evidence, be construed as renunciations of it; nor should omissions to enforce the claim in regard to bays as to which any controversy arose, be so construed.
It is quite clear that whether or not the Canadian government chooses to establish at this time its claim to the whole of the waters of the Arctic archipelago by drawing straight baselines from island to island so as to enclose the waters, the fact that this government does not draw such baselines, and that
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
previous Canadian governments have not done so, does not thereby weaken our sovereignty claim.
Similarly, the establishing of a 12-mile territorial sea and the establishment of pollution control zones in these waters cannot be construed as an abandonment of the Canadian position concerning the status of these waters.
I should like to quote again from the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, from which I previously quoted on this issue, as follows:
Such a construction by this tribunal may not only be intrinsically inequitable, but internationally injurious, in that it would discourage conciliatory diplomatic transactions and encourage the assertion of extreme claims to their fullest extent.
I have made clear, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that we will not back down one inch from our basic position on sovereignty but there is no interest on the part of the Canadian government in the exercise of chauvinism.
What then is the effect of the 12-mile limit with respect to the Northwest Passage? It is known that the United States regards the waters of the Northwest Passage beyond three miles from shore as high seas. I think I have already demonstrated the weakness of the legal basis for such an assertion. The 12-mile territorial sea is far too widely recognized for it to be ignored by any state. Indeed, a state that refuses to recognize the 12-mile territorial sea of another state is itself unilaterally opting out of a developing rule of law.
Since the 12-mile territorial sea is well established in international law, the effect of this bill on the Northwest Passage is that under any sensible view of the law Barrow Strait, as well as the Prince of Wales Strait, are subject to complete Canadian sovereignty. Whether or not those who disagree with us wish to allege that other waters are not Canadian, they cannot realistically argue any longer concerning these two bodies of water.
The question was asked whether Canada will admit a right of innocent passage through such waters, since the right of innocent passage pertains in the territorial sea but not in internal waters. There is considerable misunderstanding on some of the technical, legal questions involved here. Firstly, it is incorrect to argue that there can be no right of innocent passage in internal waters. The 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zones makes specific provision for the right of innocent passage
DEBATES	6015
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act through internal waters where such waters have been established as such by means of the straight baseline system. I do not cite that rule as now applicable to these waters but merely so as to point out that the difference between the regime of internal waters, over which a state has complete sovereignty, and the regime of the territorial sea, over which a state's sovereignty is subject to the right of innocent passage, is not as clear-cut as is alleged.
There is a school of thought for example, that the status of the waters of the Arctic archipelago fall somewhere between the regime of internal waters and the regime of the territorial sea. Certainly Canada cannot accept any right of innocent passage if that right is defined as precluding the right of the coastal state to control pollution in such waters. The law may be undeveloped on this question, but if that is the case, we propose to develop it. Mr. Speaker, I hope I have said enough about the implications of this bill for the Arctic to allay any fears, real or imagined, about its effect upon our sovereignty.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before the minister leaves that subject may I point out that he has not yet said, as he did yesterday with respect to the bill then before the House, that Canada asserts sovereignty over all waters between the 60th degree and the 141st and the North Pole.


Mitchell William Sharp: What I said is that we regard the waters between the islands as our waters, and we always have.
The fisheries provisions of this bill will provide the government with greater flexibility for completing the delimitation of Canada's exclusive fishing zones in those coastal areas where straight baselines have not so far been drawn from headland to headland. These provisions are enabling only; the creation of the proposed new Canadian fishing zones will require executive action by way of Order in Council.
Under the existing legislation Canada could not exercise exclusive fishing rights within such bodies of water as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of Fimdy, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. With the proposed amendment Canada could now, where appropriate, draw what might be called "fisheries closing lines" across the entrances to these bodies of water and thereby establish them as exclusive Canadian fishing zones. In this way Canada would have the
6016	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act required domestic legal basis for managing the fisheries resources of these areas.
The new fishing zones will be established only where Canada's primary interests relate to fisheries, and in areas where Canada has historic claims. In such areas the bill would, in keeping with the government's approach to the question, enable us to separate fisheries jurisdiction from the complete sovereignty which states exercise in their territorial sea and internal waters. This separation of fisheries jurisdiction from sovereignty already underlies the concept of the contiguous fishing zone which has become an established principle of customary international law, owing in good measure to the pioneering activities of Canada.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In our view the application of the concept of the exclusive fishing zone to some or all of the special bodies of water in question is justified on geographic, economic and historic grounds, as well as by the urgent need to provide for the rational management and conservation of fisheries resources. Although the fishing zone concept is best established with respect to the contiguous fishing zone extending 12 miles from the baselines of the territorial sea, it is our view that the concept is equally applicable to Canada's special bodies of water.
I must emphasize that the fisheries provisions of this bill reflect our belief that there is an urgent need for bold and imaginative approaches to the problems of fisheries management and conservation and harvesting. So long as there was an abundance of fish for everyone, so long as the living resources of the sea seemed inexhaustible, it was necessary for states to exercise only a relatively limited control over the fisheries adjacent to their shores. With growing populations and the technical developments of fishing vessels and gear, which have virtually transformed fishing activities from a harvesting to a mining process, it has become dramatically evident that the resource itself could disappear. The coastal states which depend on this resource have a responsibility to ensure its conservation and to manage it on a rational basis.
Canada was one of the pioneering countries in efforts to bring about international arrangements for the conservation of the living resources of the sea. Since the beginning of this century Canada has become a party to seven international conventions which, within the scope of their limitations,

DEBATES	April 17, 1970
have been relatively successful but which have failed to bring about a truly effective regime for the protection of fisheries resources.
The Canadian government is convinced, on the basis of its lengthy experience in this field, that neither existing customary international law nor contemporary conventional international law are adequate to prevent the continuing and increasingly rapid depletion of the living resources of the sea. It is for this reason that we propose to extend our fisheries jurisdiction in the manner I have described. It is our expectation that other governments will take similar action since it is only too evident that there is no other effective way of preventing the rapid depletion of the living resources of the sea.
It seems anomalous that whereas international law recognizes the right of coastal states to control the exploitation of mineral resources and of the so-called sedentary species of shellfish on the continental shelf adjacent to their shores, it has not yet developed an equally effective system for the management of the "free-swimming" fish in coastal areas. A coastal state may licence foreign entrepreneurs to exploit the mineral resources of its continental shelf, but so far only a few states have taken a similar approach to controlling the exploitation of coastal fisheries resources.
Now that the world is becoming aware that living resources are not infinitely renewable and that they can indeed be exhausted or depleted by overexploitation or wiped out by means of pollution of the sea, it is vitally necessary to apply to the exploitation of these resources some of the techniques which have been developed for offshore mineral resources. The action now being taken by Canada is a step in this direction, a step toward a more logical and systematic approach to the management of living marine resources.
Exclusive rights to harvest may be necessary, but they are not an end in themselves. The end we have in mind is conservation and rational management, and for this purpose we require jurisdiction. That jurisdiction, however, does not rule out the possibility of sharing fisheries exploitation with other countries; it does, however, allow us to set rules for that exploitation, to impose licensing requirements if necessary and thus to share the financial burden of conservation as well as the financial rewards of exploitation.
April 17. 1970

Following the establishment of Canada's new fishing zones we intend to conclude negotiations for the phasing out of the fishing activities of the countries which have traditionally fished in the areas concerned, namely, Britain, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain and Italy. With respect to the fishing activities of the United States in these areas, it is intended that they should continue on the basis of the ad referendum agreement on reciprocal fishing privileges we have recently negotiated with that country. Apart from traditional fishing practices, the United States and France also have certain treaty rights off Canada's east coast, and these rights will of course be respected.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might refer to the note which was delivered to our ambassador in Washington on April 14 and the reply which he delivered yesterday on behalf of the Canada government. When the question was raised by opposition members two days ago, I made clear that we had already requested the U.S.A. consent to dispense with the usual diplomatic practice of declining to publish exchanges of notes, but that I would none the less raise the question again. Our ambassador has since stressed to the State Department the importance of publishing the exchange so as to lay at rest, once and for all, the misinformation appearing in Some American newspapers to the effect that the United States note contained threats. I have already assured the House that the note contained no such threats and that the summary of the note published by the State Department accurately summarized its substance.
We have today received the response of Secretary of State Rogers to my proposal that the text of the diplomatic note of April 14 be published. His response is as follows:
The Secretary of State regrets that he cannot agree to the proposal of the Canadian government that we depart from the usual diplomatic practice of not publishing exchanges of notes between governments in the case of our note of April 14, 1970, relating to the introduction by the Canadian government of legislation on pollution in the Arctic, fisheries and the limits of the territorial sea. Because of the public interest in the matters discussed in the note the United States did include the substance of its note in its press statement of April 15, 1970.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am now tabling- with the suggestion that it be appended to Hansard-a summary of the Canadian note. This is not the note itself but a summary of its contents.
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, before the minister resumes his seat I wonder if he would answer a question. I listened very carefully to his statement with regard to the phasing out of the traditional fishing rights which are now inside our 12-mile limit, and I believe he mentioned only seven countries. It is my understanding that eight countries have traditional fishing rights within the area that exists between the three-mile territorial sea and our 12-mile limit. One of the countries he did not mention was Portugal. Would he indicate whether these eight countries' fishing rights will be phased out? Also, since this is the same statement as that made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when he spoke on this type of legislation in 1964, and since these rights have not yet been phased out, would he indicate if there is a time limit on the phasing out of the traditional fishing rights of these eight fishing nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to attempt an answer at this time. I will take notice of this point, and either in the course of the debate, when it is resumed, or in the committee I will see that this question is answered adequately. Since these are delicate negotiations I would not want to say anything that might prejudice them.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the minister would permit another question? I express thanks to the House for letting us run a bit overtime, but the matter is important. Before I ask the question I would like to welcome the minister for taking a position that we have advocated for many years, and to say we are pleased-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member wishes to ask a question because, as he knows, we would now normally call private members' business. If he does have a question to ask, he might do it at this time.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understood the minister to say that the reciprocal arrangement between the United States and Canada, of fishing in each other's fishing zones, would be continued. But if this bill comes into effect, what is currently the nine-mile fishing zone will become a territorial sea. Does the same provision apply then? Will there be reciprocity so far as the territorial sea is concerned?
April 17, 1970

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the agreement that is negotiated permits us to fish in their waters even within the three miles, and therefore we would certainly continue giving reciprocal rights to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Mr. Fairweather:: No, sir. I am rising to move the adjournment of the debate, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: We can hardly do this now as we have gone past four o'clock. It is the duty of the Chair to remind hon. members that at this time, according to Standing Orders, we should go on to private members' business. However, the table officers are looking at me and urging me to ask the consent of the House to annex to today's Hansard the document referred to by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to above, see Appendix.]


Mr. Speaker:: It being after four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have on the Order Paper motion No. 26. This motion has been completely incorporated in government legislation which is before the House and I would ask unanimous leave of the House to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.



PROPOSED PROHIBITION ON INQUIRING WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED OR ARRESTED ONLY

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: that, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all measures within its competence necessary to prohibit any one, 

in public or private office from making oral or written inquiry of any other person, who applies to him by reason of his holding that office, which inquiry would require that other person to disclose only, directly or indirectly, that a charge or complaint had been initiated, or information laid, or indictment preferred, against such person or that such person had been arrested only, under the criminal law of Canada, a law enacted to enforce any law of a province, or any law of a foreign state.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purport of my motion is to draw to the attention of the House that the rights of citizens of this country are often infringed upon, sometimes through inadvertence but at other times through deliberate action in the administrative process. My motion merely states that in so far as the jurisdiction of the federal government is concerned, it will not be possible to insist that a person applying for a position, or for a passport or citizenship certificate, for instance, disclose either orally or in writing that they been charged, and charged only, with an offence; and, further, not only under a federal or provincial statute but the statute of a foreign land.
Mr. Speaker, last June it came to my attention that the Department of the Secretary of State issued form No. CR 302, an application for a certificate of citizenship by a British subject. Question No. 9 on that form had three parts which read as follows:
(A)	Have you ever been charged with any offence other than a minor traffic violation?
(B)	Have you ever been fined for other than a minor traffic violation or sentenced to a penitentiary, prison, gaol or reformatory?
(C)	Have you ever been committed to a hospital for mental diseases in Canada? If so, give full and complete details.
In the month of November it came to my attention that the Canada Manpower Centre when hiring temporary staff for the Post Office for, say, the Christmas rush, included in its application form this question: Have you ever been charged with a criminal offence?
On the basis of the document issued by the Department of the Secretary of State I wrote to the minister on June 17, complaining about the injustice of question 9(A). I pointed out that in a court of law it is not possible to ask a person whether he has been charged, only, with an offence and that it is a fundamental right in common law that the question cannot be asked. I also had difficulty with the interpretation of what is a minor traffic violation.
April 17, 1970

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests The Secretary of State replied by letter I appreciate the prompt action taken by dated July 24, and indicated as follows:	both ministers in dealing with this point. I am
In the case of question 9(A), bearing in mind that particularly concerned about this matter a citizenship court does not really operate as a because I recall that back in 1959, I believe, I
court of law and that we must endeavour to he satisfied as regards an applicant's character, it does seem to me that technically and legally we are entitled to ask whether a person has been charged with an offence. On the other hand, having the. legal right to do so does not necessarily make such a question a proper one. A person is innocent until proven guilty and on that basis I am inclined to agree with you that the wording of the question should be changed. I have therefore instructed my officials to change the word "charged" to "convicted" in question 9(A).
The exception for minor traffic violations is made because it is recognized that many motorists have been convicted of minor traffic violations and that this is an expression that is generally well understood whereas it would be much more difficult for an applicant to determine what is a charge of a serious nature, especially in view of the fact that an applicant would, with few exceptions, no doubt tend to regard any offences of which he has been convicted as not being of a serious nature. The purpose of the question is to elicit information and I can assure you that an offence such as a minor violation of a provincial liquor act-
This is what I cited in my letter-people caught carrying a hip-flask at a football game.
-would not, on that ground alone, result in a refusal of citizenship.
This was further confirmed in a letter dated August 18 signed by the executive assistant to the minister. This informed me as follows:
Instructions have now been issued to all federal citizenship courts to amend with immediate effect the wording of 9(A) to "Have you ever been convicted of etc." vice the present "Have you ever been charged with etc.".
The letter further indicated that the form would be completely amended at the next reprint. With regard to the Post Office, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter dated November 24, signed by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) and stating:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I thoroughly agree with the contention in your letter of the 13th November regarding the wording of a question appearing on a form for employment.
As a result I have given instructions that immediate action be taken to change this wording from "Have you ever been charged with a criminal offence?" to "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?"
May I assure you that the wrong wording was used not with any intent to abrogate the civil rights of individuals but through inadvertance.
I wish to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
raised a similar point with the Civil Service Commission. At that time, if my memory serves me right, there was a similar question on the employment form. In that case immediate action was taken to remove the offensive question. I believe in 1960 or 1961 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did the same thing. I checked with the CBC this week, and their forms are absolutely unobjectionable. I add that on forms of application for employment in the Public Service Commission of Canada no such questions are asked; in fact, the Public Service Commission does not even ask for any information about convictions.
It is my hope that Bill C-5, which is presently under consideration before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, will have the effect of enabling a person who has been convicted of an offence other than, shall we say, a very minor traffic offence and who makes application to the Solicitor General and obtains a pardon under the provisions laid down under the act to say "No" when answering the question: Have you ever been convicted of an offence?. In other words, the conviction record shall not continue, and the fact of the prior conviction, followed by good conduct as required by law, shall not operate forever to bar a person from employment and shall not raise embarrassing questions on, say, an application for citizenship or some other certificate to which a person of good conduct would be entitled.
I have raised this question in connection with employment application forms and certificates of citizenship, but there is also the question of the committal to mental hospitals to be considered. I hope we can see our way clearly to eliminate that question as well. As I pointed out to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), there are many people today who commit themselves. They are not committed by a court; they commit themselves to a mental hospital as voluntary patients for varying periods of time until they recover from alcoholism, from minor nervous breakdowns or other ailments. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not persons of poor character as a result thereof, and I cannot see why a person who has been in a mental hospital as a voluntary patient, considering the state of the treatment of mental patients today-and I hope ultimately that
April 17, 1970

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests this provision will apply to those committed by a court-should have to answer such a question. I hope that we will become enlightened enough to so consider a person whose conduct has been good. If that person has been convicted of a serious offence in the past and if a pardon has not been obtained, the matter may be germane and the question could be asked.
I do not think I have to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I can find any explicit wording in the Bill of Rights which would protect the individual from such questions, but I think it is within the spirit of the Bill of Rights that one cannot ask a person, under circumstances such as I have outlined, to criminate himself, because there is always a stigma attached. It is involuntary, perhaps, on the part of the person who obtains the information, but there is a sort of inner prejudice which is immediately aroused when a person on an application for employment answers in the affirmative that he has been charged with an offence. The charge may have been withdrawn or the person may have been found not guilty.
I should like to point out a particular case that I have in hand concerning a British subject who, although now in business in Canada, was charged many years ago along with 50 other defendants of an offence under the Securities Exchange Commission Act in the state of New York. The charge was not proceeded with against a number of the persons, and this person never returned to the jurisdiction: he was in Canada. Others pleaded guilty to the offence. I have ascertained that the case is closed, and yet no evidence has been proffered with regard to this British subject here in Canada. He would, according to the particular form being objected to, have had to indicate that he had been charged in the state of New York, where he had no connection whatsoever, with an offence under the law of a foreign state.
Also, we have many people here in Canada who could be charged under some law of a foreign state-they could be charged in absentia-and would have to answer such question on the questionnaire in the affirmative. As we know, many questionnaires also carry the provision that if any material information is suppressed, the person who may have gained the employment will, if it is discovered that he has falsified or suppressed information which was required by the application form, lose his employment. Therefore the basis of my submission, Mr. Speaker, [Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1
is that this House accept the motion or, in the alternative, if it is not prepared to do so, to refer this whole question to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for examination, with the matter to be reported back to the House.
I know there are areas in which there may be some argument. I feel that in order to protect the civil rights of all our citizens so far as the federal government is concerned- this motion is very carefully limited to the federal jurisdiction-there must be a requirement that persons not convicted, and so on, shall not have their civil rights infringed upon in any way as a result of being asked for information of the kind I have outlined in my argument before the House. I therefore urge, Mr. Speaker, that the House give favourable consideration to my motion.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Yves Forest: In his remarks, the hon.
member did not indicate to what extent the federal government could, within its jurisdiction, prevent people who hold positions in the private sector from asking oral or written questions to persons applying for a job or something else in order to find out if they have criminal records.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in answering the Parliamentary Secretary's question may I say this: I would think there are a number of firms and organizations in the private sector which come under federal jurisdiction and are brought under it by the Canada Labour Code. All those businesses and undertakings which fall in any way under federal jurisdiction, such as airlines, broadcasting companies, grain companies, trucking companies and others could fall within a provision of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act: the type of prohibition that I have outlined in my motion could be included.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for having brought forward this resolution. I think it is a very interesting one which is not current in the minds of many members of this House.
April 17, 1970

The resolution as phrased is somewhat complicated in its wording. I appreciate that the complication is necessary to encompass various cases that the hon. member mentioned in his very splendid speech. It seems to provide that the federal government shall prohibit anyone from asking on a job application form whether a person has been charged with or arrested for a criminal offence. That seems to be the substance of the resolution before us.
I appreciate the hon. member's remarks with respect to mental institutions and the fact that this situation occurs in respect of citizenship applications and others which otherwise seem to have been corrected. It is interesting to note that it would also be applicable to a man standing before a magistrate in a court of law and applying for bail when he is accused of an offence. It would seem to prohibit the magistrate asking the person whether he had been charged with an offence in any other court. In that sense I think the resolution goes a little too far. I appreciate that legislation flowing from such a resolution would probably correct that error, but at the same time we have to consider these matters as they stand before the House.
For those of us who have been concerned with criminal jurisprudence, the question "Have you been charged or arrested?" has not come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am not dealing with the incidental aspects. The main problem is whether an employer should be allowed to ask a prospective employee whether he has been convicted of an offence. I appreciate there is a marked difference between that which is in the hon. member's motion and the question as to whether he has been convicted of an offence.
It seems that the question as to whether he has been charged with an offence is relatively superfluous. I doubt very much whether it would be taken into really stringent consideration in many job applications. I agree that this particular phrase should not be there because charges under the Highway Traffic Act for speeding, failing to give the right-of-way, driving without due care and attention, charges under the game acts and charges under federal government regulations and statutes are somewhat trivial in so far as employment is concerned. Heaven knows that this and other Parliaments over the years, and other legislative assemblies, have laid down enough offences. It is very difficult for one to go through life without committing at

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests least one offence under the Highway Traffic Act. I do not suggest this applies to the Criminal Code.
Dealing with the question of whether to ask about serious offences, why would the question "Have you been charged with an offence under the Criminal Code?" appear on an application form? It would hardly indicate, if a man had been charged with theft at one time in his life, that he was a thief-because time after time indictments are stayed. Even if he had been charged at one time with impaired driving, it might well have been dismissed or otherwise disposed of. The mere asking of that question would hardly be cogent on a job application, an application for a licence or anything else.
To that extent I am inclined to agree with the resolu ion put forward by the hon. member. I am most concerned about the extent of its practical application against private individuals. I have grave doubts whether the Parliament of Canada could prohibit a private individual asking such a question. I suggest, with respect, that would be a matter entirely within the provincial domain and I do not think it could be legislated by the federal government.
I think there are occasions when a person might be asked if he had ever been charged. For example, as the English law now stands, the fact that a man has been charged can often indicate that he committed the offence. There is a provision that he need not necessarily be found guilty, even though under the law applicable in Canada he would be found guilty. It is called a conditional discharge.
In all the circumstances I feel this is perhaps a proper question. I am inclined to agree in general with the resolution. I think in working out the legislation it is quite possible that the areas in which the question may be asked could easily be defined. The major problem is that we have before us from time to time in this Parliament-it is before us currently-the question of whether a person has been convicted. On job application forms, citizenship applications and the other applications which my friend has suggested, the question is asked in order to learn the character of the man. Whether he has been charged really has little to do with the character of the man. Whether he has been convicted has something to do with that aspect of the situation.
The resolution avoids the practical question before the Canadian people today, that is, can he be asked whether he has been convicted? I
April 17, 1970

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests do not think the hon. member would really object to such a question being included in a questionnaire. I wish to assure the hon. member that there are a great many people in Canada who believe that no one should even be asked if they have been convicted of an indictable offence when completing a job application or any other type of application.
Evidence was recently presented to the Justice Committee when it was considering Bill C-5 which was designed to expand the provisions of the Criminal Code in dealing with pardons. The committee has been giving consideration to the problems which emanate from the resolution before us. The problem posed by penologists, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and many others who are gravely concerned is simply this. Many men and women during their lives commit offences. Whether we call them criminal offences or otherwise, they are offences. Some of them are very serious, some are not so serious. Some are called indictable offences, some are called summary offences. Some are provincial offences, and some are federal. As I mentioned previously, there is a great deal which we can break.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This week the Justice Committee was informed that in Canada last year over 100,000 criminal records were opened. This does not mean that 100,000 people were convicted, but 100,000 people were the subject of criminal legislation. The commission of an offence has for years been a cross on the back of the offender. When these people have been dealt with by the courts and suffered the penalties imposed on them, there is always a feeling that they have, as the saying goes, paid their debt to society.
The real problem is that even though they have paid this debt, served their time, paid their fine, or whatever the penalty might have been, they never get a receipt for the payment, as do those who have paid their debts in civil life. I point out to hon. members that I am considering the more serious offences. The mark of a criminal offence is always there. Sometimes it is almost forgotten-the man moves from the community in which he committed the offence to another, and it never catches up with him. Sometimes it fades, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the reputation the man bears in the community. Sometimes, indeed, the mark is borne literally on his back all his life, since this country still tolerates corporal punish-

ment, one of the most vicious forms of punishment ever used in a supposedly civilized society.
The professed object of contemporary penology-it is not the only object-is to rehabilitate the offender, to convince him, not that he is a man who must pay in conscience for what he has done for the rest of his life but that what he has done is not acceptable to the community in which he lives. Some persons take a great deal of convincing, as the committee learned in the course of its visits two weeks ago. In the case of some persons, it appears it can never be done. Yet, I was greatly heartened by the observation of Mr. Alan MacLeod, the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, that he will never accept the proposition that correction will never take place, leaving aside, of course, those who have the misfortune to suffer from mental illness.
Sometimes a small fine is sufficient, even in serious cases, bearing in mind the character of the man concerned and the nature of the situation in which the offence occurred. Sometimes even an appearance in court and the publication of the charge in a newspaper is punishment enough and sufficient deterrence. Sometimes probation in the sense of a suspended sentence is most successful, especially in dealing with young offenders. Unfortunately, it may be necessary to send the offender to prison. This may happen, unfortunately, more often than is really necessary from the viewpoint of rehabilitation.
But if ever the concept of punishment is completely removed and the whole emphasis is placed on rehabilitation and correction, certain consequences will follow. One is apt to forget that the whole system of criminal jurisprudence grew up not only to protect life and property but to place in the hands of the state the basic human and fundamental emotion of revenge which develops so often in the hearts of victims of crimes. What those who approach penology solely from the point of view of rehabilitation often forget is that the offender in some instances has committed a dastardly crime against some other person who is left to suffer for the rest of his life.
In one case with which I was familiar, a man waited until the murderer of his daughter was eventually released on parole from prison. There was a great deal of concern on the part of the authorities as to what this man would do. We must never forget that the aspect of penology is the removal from the community of the individual desire for revenge on the part of victims. Think of the
April 17, 1970	COMMONS
father of a child who has been molested, attacked, and perhaps brutally murdered: this desire for revenge exists, and one aspect of the criminal law is to remove it and place it in the hands of the state.
I sometimes think that if we were adequately to compensate victims of crimes, as I believe is done to some extent in New Zealand, this concept of revenge, which is foreign to the Judaeo-Christian ethic, could be removed from the criminal law and we might be able to concentrate entirely on the rehabilitation of the offender, except that some measure of deterrence would have to be retained in order to discourage others from committing offences. The rehabilitation program would include education, counselling and, what is most badly needed, proper psychiatric care.


Mr. Winch:: Psychological, not psychiatric.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Psychology, I understand, is statistical, and psychiatry is therapeutic. So I will go with "psychiatric" for today. We have not reached this stage at present, though we hope it is coming. There is no doubt that many of those who are subjected to our present prison system become fully rehabilitated. The problem arises when they are released from prison to start out afresh. Some learn a trade. The first thing a man wants when he gets out of jail is a job. If he is a first offender, no real difficulty arises about placing him in employment. People understand. In all probability the man has a job lined up before he is placed on parole. But perhaps he is getting out after serving a second term of imprisonment for a second offence, and perhaps it is one of the more serious offences. When he applies for a job, the big question arises as to whether he should admit where he has been and what he has done, or should he take the risk of saying nothing, hoping for the best? Or he could answer the questionnaire falsely. Alternatively, he could apply only for those jobs for which there is no questionnaire.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Many of these men admit what they have done and put it on the questionnaire. Having been released from the British Columbia penitentiary, St. Vincent de Paul, or whichever one it is, they find that they cannot get the job in question, and they do not know why. If they apply for a job at a big concern, perhaps they just receive a rejection slip. The next time they apply for a job they lie about
DEBATES	6023
Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests their past. What happens to them? They stay on the job for a week while inquiries are made, the boss finds out the truth and once again they are out of work. After one or more of these demoralizing experiences they give up; they surrender and drift back to their friends who got them into trouble in the first place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come back to the motion.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: In any event, the man in
question drifts back and finally ends up once again in the penitentiary for another offence that he has committed, having done his best to find employment. Although, of course, some prisoners released are weak in this respect, the sort of man I have described will eventually say to himself, "This is where I belong. This is all I have in life." Time and time again when he has served his sentence and been released, back he goes to the penitentiary. Sometimes these men become habitual criminals.
The question whether the employer should or should not be allowed to ask the question in the first place is a good one. Should an employer of a man be allowed to ask his prospective employee: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence? Or should he ask the more frivolous question: Have you ever been charged with an offence?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But they do ask it.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I appreciate that, but it is a good question and is one that is so current in our work on the Justice Committee that I thought I would bring it to the attention of the House today. The question, as I say, is a good one. The question whether or not we can legislate against such an inquiry is a better one. There are many employers in Canada; the government is not the only one. Most employers do not come within the jurisdiction of the federal government. But in any event, an employer is surely entitled to inquire into the character of a person charged with a criminal offence; I do not think there
April 17. 1970

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests is any doubt about that. He can inquire into his education, into his background.
I do not think he could even be said to be wrong in printing into his ethnic origin or inquiring who the man is. After all, he wants to know whom he is hiring and wants to take every factor into consideration. I do not say that all these factors should make a difference, but an employer is entitled to know who a prospective employee is, particularly if he is to become a responsible employee in a trusted position.
I was surprised to hear of some of the information that the hon. member has been given, because in regard to the question whether the federal government should or should not be allowed to ask this question it was our understanding in the committee that federal government policy is to eliminate this question from the form. It used to be on the form but it is now absent, so that a prospective employee need not indicate whether or not he has been convicted of an offence. Perhaps other employers should follow suit and regard this as a lead taken by the government.
I am concerned as to the application of such a policy. Could it fit all circumstances? For example, the hon. member has a law practice-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I had.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We look forward to having the hon. member here for many more years instead of going back to his practice. But suppose the hon. member wants to hire a young lawyer from the east and he does not know the young man in question, though he seems presentable. Should he not ask the young man, or those in the east who know the young man, whether he has ever been convicted of theft, perjury or fraud?
Although he would not ask that question specifically in those terms, he could ask it indirectly by asking whether he had ever been in trouble, whether he had ever been disbarred. If you cannot ask such questions of a lawyer you are thinking of hiring, it seems to me that at some time or other you will end up buying a pig in a poke, and I do not think that in the circumstances that is quite fair.
Consider the case of the trust company executive. Could he not ask similar questions about an accountant? Could he not ask such questions of somebody whom he is going to put in a position of trust? Similarly, could not an insurance company executive ask the same

question? If not, how could he find out whether a prospective employee had or had not been refused a bond? Could not a bonding company ask such questions as: Have you ever been convicted of theft? Certainly they could: I suggest we must be realistic. I think we must all admit that this is a difficult problem. I thank the House for letting me speak at such length.
May I just add that I think what is required is a far more sophisticated method of dealing with people who have been convicted of offences, have served their time and are looking for jobs. I think that the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, church groups and "Big Brothers" should be given far more assistance to enable them to go to an employer with a prospective employee and help him get the job.
I would have taken longer, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that one of my hon. friends wishes to make a few remarks, and time is running out.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is fortunate that I intend to make only very few remarks because I do not want to find myself in the position of talking out this resolution. I very seldom take part in these debates between 4 and 5 p.m., and my reason for not doing so is that there is an air of futility about a discussion that ends by a measure being talked out.
I am very happy to have the opportunity to take part in this discussion because I think the hon. member's resolution is timely, sound, and deserves the fullest possible support. As has been said, the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee is dealing with a related matter, Bill C-5, which has to do with the expungement or pardon of criminal records. I am reminded that the Ouimet Commission has recommended that in the case of conviction of a summary offence the record be automatically wiped out at the end of a two-year period, and I think this recommendation is an excellent one.
This illustrates, as does the resolution that we are discussing, the fact that the House and the community generally are and ought to be concerned about the growing invasion of privacy, the multiplication of impertinent questionnaires and records, all of which oppress individuals in the world today. I think that we in this Parliament have a duty to try to do something to correct the situation.
In this respect I think the hon. member has put his finger on one item which is of great
April 17, 1970

importance, namely, the asking of questions, not about a person's actual record-which may or may not be justified in some circumstances-but about his being charged with an offence, a question which I suggest in no circumstances is justified.
Why is it not justified? We are discussing a subject that has very wide scope. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) gave illustrations of the situation in the public service and I was glad to hear that many people in the public service, when the matter is called to their attention, are ready to withdraw these offensive questionnaires. But in this respect the public service is aping what is the general practice in private business on a large scale, where I believe questions like this are a matter of course.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It not only applies to the matter of employment, the would-be employee who is coerced into having to answer questions that are embarrassing and harmful to him; it might apply to people applying for insurance or for licences of various sorts. There is a whole series of situations in which a person is bound to answer a similar questionnaire. I say they are embarrassing and are very serious because it is not just correct to say it is not harmful to admit that you have been charged with an offence.
I regret to say this, but I think it is only natural and only human that even though a person may have been convicted and the offence may not have been proved according to criminal law, the mere fact of being charged is derogatory. 1 find it difficult to conceive of an employer who finding that a prospective employee had been twice charged with a serious offence would say, "Well, they may not have been able to convict him. They *will not take a chance on a person who has been charged. Why would they ask these questions unless the mentality is such that they would accept a charge as tantamount, at least, to strong suspicion of actual guilt even though there may be no conviction whatever?
I say this is a serious matter and inflicts damage on people without any excuse whatever. We are trying to protect people who have been convicted. We are trying to protect people who have been convicted of minor offences from having to answer questions, and by expunging the record. We are dealing, in the case of this legislation, with people who have merely been charged, and convicted of nothing at all. I hope the whole matter will,

Prohibition of Inquiring into Arrests as the hon. member who introduced it suggested, be referred to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I think it is properly part and parcel of the subject they are investigating at the present time-the protection of the privacy and rights of the individual against public records, public snooping, wire-tapping and things of that sort.
I notice the resolution is carefully worded to deal with the government only taking measures within its competence. I suggest in this Parliament, in regard to criminal law we have a very wide power to deal with things that are offensive to our sense of propriety. It may be that the scope of legislation that can be introduced will be considerable. I said I did not want to talk this bill out. That is a process which I despise and I want to have no part of it. I think this is a very constructive resolution. I hope it will be sent to the committee, where it belongs, and not just talked out in the House.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the member who spoke before me would like the motion now before us to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and, therefore, the debate to be adjourned immediately.
I know my colleague well enough to believe that he will certainly let other members voice their views on this matter. After discussing an issue for 45 minutes, it would be too easy to say that it must automatically be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Having heard the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I think that he has pretty well clarified the terms of his motion. On the other hand, aware of his legal competence, I told myself right away that he seemed to be pushing things a bit too far.
I entirely agree with the main objective of the motion to prevent any investigation regarding any charge, complaint or denunciation against an applicant for a job in the public service or in the private sector.
As recently as yesterday, I attended meetings of the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration which deals precisely with the matter of employment in the public service. I put questions to the officials of the department who are concerned with manpower regarding the investigations and ques-tionaires in the case of the people mentioned earlier. I was assured that there were no
6026	COMMONS
Prohibition of Inquiring mto Arrests questions about the criminal record of those who apply for a position in the public service or in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the views of the hon. member for Edmonton West were shared by all the members of his party, as not later than last week, many of them were asking the government if an inquiry had been made before granting an individual a job in the public service. I wonder whether the general principle of the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West should not apply in that case, or in other similar cases, so that his motion would be in keeping with what he thinks and says.
DEBATES	April 17, 1970
I see the hon. member is raising his eyes to heaven. However, he knows very well what I am alluding to when I speak of an insistent request made to the government to see if such and such an individual has been given a national security clearance. I do not pretend that the hon. member for Edmonton West has done it. He knows very well-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
April 17. 1970



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The Canadian Government is unable to accept the views of the USA Government concerning the Arctic waters pollution prevention bill and the amendments to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, and regrets that the USA is not prepared to accept or acquiesce in them. The Canadian Government cannot accept in particular the view that international law provides no basis for the proposed measures. For many years, large numbers of states have asserted various forms of limited jurisdiction beyond their territorial sea over marine areas adjacent to their coasts. The position of the USA Government is that the waters beyond a three-mile limit are high seas and that no state has a right to exercise exclusive pollution or resources jurisdiction on the high seas beyond a three-mile territorial sea. The Canadian Government does not accept this view which indeed the USA itself does not adhere to in practice. For example, as early as 1790, at a time when the international norm for the breadth of the territorial sea was without question three miles, the USA claimed jurisdiction up to twelve miles for customs purposes and enacted appropriate enforcement legislation, which is still in force. Since 1935 the USA has claimed the authority to extend customs enforcement activities as far out to sea as 62 miles, in clear contradiction of applicable international law. In 1966, the USA established exclusive fisheries jurisdiction beyond its three-mile territorial sea extending out to twelve miles from shore, and the USA has just passed analogous legislation asserting exclusive pollution control jurisdiction beyond its three-mile territorial sea and up to twelve miles. Canada reserves to itself the same rights as the USA has asserted to determine for itself how best to protect its vital interests, including in particular its national security. It is the further view of the Canadian Government that a danger to the environment of a state constitutes a threat to its security. Thus the proposed Canadian Arctic waters pollution prevention legislation constitutes a lawful extension of a limited form of jurisdiction to meet particular dangers, and is of a different order from unilateral interferences with the freedom of the high seas such as, for example, the atomic tests carried out 22218-35J
by USA and other states which, however necessary they may be, have appropriated to their own use vast areas of the high seas and constituted grave perils to those who would wish to utilize such areas during the period of the test blast. The most recent example of such a test by the USA and its consequences for the freedom of the high seas, as was pointed out by some Governments at that time, occurred in October 1969 when the USA warned away shipping within a 50-mile radius of the test it was conducting at Amchitka Island. The proposed anti-pollution legislation, proposed fisheries protection legislation and the proposed 12-mile territorial sea constitute a threat to no state and a peril to no one.
It is a well-established principle of international law that customary international law is developed by state practice. Recent and important instances of such state practice on the law of the sea are, for example, the Truman proclamation of 1945 proclaiming USA jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the unilateral establishment in 1966 by USA of exclusive fishing zones. Overwhelming evidence that international law can be and is developed by state practice lies in the fact that in 1958, at the time of the first of recent failures of the international community to reach agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea, some 14 states claimed a 12-mile territorial sea, whereas by 1970 some 45 states have established a 12-mile territorial sea and 57 states have established a territorial sea of 12 miles or more. Indeed, the three-mile territorial sea, now claimed by only 24 countries, was itself established by state practice.
The USA Government is aware of the major efforts made by Canada at the 1958 and 1960 Geneva Law of the Sea Conferences to bring about an agreed rule of law on the breadth of the territorial sea and on the breadth of contiguous zones for the exercise of various other types of limited jurisdiction. Subsequent to the failure of the 1958 and 1960 Conferences Canada joined with other countries in a further extensive and vigorous multilateral campaign to bring about agreement on these questions, but these efforts
[Stage Direction]
April 17, 1970
failed because the USA ultimately declined to participate in them. In 1964, when Canada passed legislation establishing a nine-mile contiguous fishing zone, the USA objected to it, only to follow suit two years later, thereby confirming its acquiescence in both the substance and the manner of Canada's action. In discussions between Canada and the USA from time to time over the last ten years, Canada has made clear its serious concern over the unresolved questions of the breadth of the territorial sea and the rights of coastal states to assert limited forms of jurisdiction beyond the territorial sea for the purpose of protecting their vital interests. With respect to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill, the Canadian delegation at the November 1969 Brussels IMCO Conference made strenuous efforts to bring about international agreement on effective pollution prevention measures, but the results of that Conference fell short of effective protection for coastal states and the world's marine environment.
It is well known that Canada takes second place to no nation in pressing for multilateral solutions to problems of international law, and that Canada has repeatedly and consistently shown its good faith by its continuous efforts to produce agreed rules of law. The Canadian Government is, however, determined to fulfil its fundamental responsibilities to the Canadian people and to the international community for the protection of Canada's offshore marine environment and its living resources, and the proposed legislation is directed to these ends.
The Canadian Government has long been concerned about the inadequacies of international law in failing to give the necessary protection to the marine environment and to ensure the conservation of fisheries resources. The proposed anti-pollution legislation is based on the overriding right of self-defence of coastal states to protect themselves against grave threats to their environment. Traditional principles of international law concerning pollution of the sea are based in the main on ensuring freedom of navigation to shipping states, which are now engaged in the large scale carriage of oil and other potential pollutants. Such traditional concepts are of little or no relevance anywhere in the world if they can be cited as precluding action by a coastal state to protect this environment. Such concepts are particularly irrelevant, however, to an area having the unique characteristics of the Arctic, where there is an intimate relationship between the sea, the ice and the land, and where the permanent defilement of the environment could occur and result in the destruction of whole species. It is idle, moreover, to talk of freedom of the high seas with respect to an area, large parts of which are covered with ice throughout the year, other parts of which are covered with ice most of each year, and where the local inhabitants use the frozen sea as an extension of the land to travel over it by dogsled and snowmobile far more than they can use it as water. While the Canadian Government is determined to open up the Northwest Passage to safe navigation, it cannot accept the suggestion that the Northwest Passage constitutes high seas.
In these circumstances the Canadian Government is not prepared to await the gradual development of international law, either by other states through their practice nor through the possible development of rules of law through multilateral treaties. The Canadian Government has repeatedly made clear that it is fully prepared to participate actively in multilateral action aimed at producing agreed safety and anti-pollution standards and protection of the living resources of the sea but is not prepared to abdicate in the meantime its own primary responsibilities concerning these questions.
With respect to the bill which would authorize the establishment of a 12-mile territorial sea off Canada's coasts, the large number of coastal states now claiming a territorial sea of 12 miles or more, and the recent efforts of the USA directed towards a rule of law on the territorial sea, rights of passage and fisheries jurisdiction, provide the best evidence of the validity of the Canadian position on this question. The Canadian Gov-erment is aware of USA interest in ensuring freedom of transit through international straits, but rejects any suggestion that the Northwest Passage is such an international strait. The widespread interest in opening up the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping and the well-known commitment of the Canadian Government to this end are themselves ample proof that it has not heretofore been possible to utilize the Northwest Passage as a route for shipping. The Northwest Passage has not attained the status of an international strait by customary usage nor has it been defined as such by conventional international law. The Canadian Government reiterates its determination to open up the Northwest Passage to safe navigation for the
April 17, 1970
[Stage Direction]
shipping of all nations subject, however, to necessary conditions required to protect the delicate ecological balance of the Canadian Arctic.
Canada's new reservation to its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court does not in any way reflect lack of confidence in the Court but takes into account the limitations within which the Court must operate and the deficiencies of the law which it must interpret and apply. Canada's readiness to submit to the international judicial process remains general in scope and is subject only to certain limited and clearly defined exceptions rather than to a general exception which can be defined at will so as to include any particular matter.
It is the earnest hope of the Canadian Government that it will be possible to achieve internationally accepted rules for Arctic navigation within the framework of Canada's proposed legislation. It is recognized that the interests of other states are inevitably affected in any exercise of jurisdiction over areas of the sea. These interests have been taken into account in drafting this legislation; Canada has, for instance, provided that naval vessels and other ships owned by foreign governments may be exempted from the application of Canadian anti-pollution regulations if the ships in question substantially meet Canadian standards. Canada will give the interests of other states, including the USA, further consideration in entering into consultations with them before promulgating safety regulations under the Arctic waters bill.
The Canadian Government is pleased to note that the USA confirms that it is acutely aware of the peculiar ecological nature of the Arctic region and the potential dangers of oil pollution in that area. The Canadian Government agrees that the Arctic is a "region important to all nations in its unique environment, its increasing significance as a world trade route and as a source of natural resources". The Canadian Government does not, however, agree that the Arctic as a whole should be subjected to an international regime protecting its assets both living and non-living, if that is what is proposed by the USA. Canada's sovereignty over the islands of the Arctic Archipelago is not of course, in issue, nor are Canada's sovereign rights over its northern continental shelf and the Canadian Government assumes that the USA Government is not suggesting an international
regime to cover these environments (nor the land near and adjacent submarine resources of Alaska).
With respect to the waters of the Arctic Archipelago, the position of Canada has always been that these waters are regarded as Canadian. While Canada would be pleased to discuss with other states international standards of navigation safety and environmental protection to be applicable to the waters of the Arctic, the Canadian Government cannot accept any suggestion that Canadian waters should be internationalized. The Canadian Government notes that the USA intends shortly to ask other interested states to join in an international conference designed to establish internationally agreed rules protecting the living and non-living assets of the Arctic beyond national jurisdiction, and notes that the USA Government would be pleased to join the Canadian Government in such a conference. Before the Canadian Government can express a definitive view on this question, further information will be required as to the scope, nature and territorial application of the rules the USA proposes, since the Canadian Government obviously cannot participate in any international conference called for the purpose of discussing questions falling wholly within Canadian domestic jurisdiction. With regard to matters properly of an international character, the Prime Minister took the lead in his statement to Canadian Parliament on October 24 last, in inviting the international community to join Canada in promoting a new concept, an international legal regime to ensure to human beings the right to live in a wholesome natural environment.
With respect to the proposed legislation permitting the establishment of exclusive fishing zones, it is the considered view of the Canadian Government that neither existing customary international law nor contemporary conventional international law are adequate to prevent the continuing and increasingly rapid depletion of the living resources of the sea. The Canadian Government is aware of the proposals of the USA and other states concerning possible solutions to this problem through a multilateral approach, and intends to participate actively and constructively in any conferences to be held to consider such questions. The Government in the meantime proposes to take all measures necessary for the protection and conservation of the living resources of the sea adjacent to Canada's coast. It is Canada's expectation that
[Stage Direction]
April 17, 1970
other states will take similar action since it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no other effective way of preventing the rapid depletion of the living resources of the marine environment.
The Canadian Government is pledged to
the development of the use of Canada's Arctic waters for the encouragement and expansion of Canada's northern economy and has adopted a functional and constructive approach to these questions which does not interfere with and indeed can facilitate the legitimate activities of others. The two bills reflect the determination of the Canadian Government to fulfil its responsibilities to its own people and to the international community to preserve the ecological balance of Canada and to protect and conserve the living resources of its marine environment.
The Canadian Government reaffirms its faith in the spirit of cooperation which Canada and the USA have shown throughout so much of the history of their relations and is confident that it will be possible to resolve their differences amicably and with mutual understanding.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 20, 1970