1970-04-22

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House about the business for the remainder of this week. As announced, tomorrow will be the sixth and final day of the budget debate. On Friday we will call for debate the following items: First, government order 13, report stage of Bill C-10 with regard to the Canada Shipping Act; second, government order 76, report stage of Bill S-14, the radiation emitting devices bill; third, government order 15, consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the International Development Research Centre bill.
I confirm that tomorrow at the usual time I will make an announcement of the business for next week.
9 (2:10 p.m.)



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to report that the formal signing of economic development agreements with the governments of New Brunswick and Newfoundland was completed yesterday.
These are agreements of a new kind. They provide for 100 per cent federal financing of a wide range of infrastructure projects which are necessary to economic growth and social progress but which the provinces and municipalities could not afford to carry out.
In the special areas designated in the two provinces, the infrastructure projects include water and sewer systems, industrial parks, servicing of residential land, schools and roads. The agreements also provide federal grants for the construction of important sections of provincial highways.
In the case of Newfoundland, the federal funds committed for the current fiscal year are $41.2 million, of which $31 million is in grants and $10.2 million in loans. The projects covered by the agreements are all to be started this year, but much of the work will be continuing next year. The ceiling for total federal expenditures on the projects is $82 million.
In the case of New Brunswick, the funds committed for the present fiscal year total $32.5 million, of which $22.7 million is in grants and $9.8 million in loans. The ceiling for federal expenditures to complete the projects is $62 million.
I should point out that these are not my department's only expenditures in the two provinces. In both provinces there is the ARDA program, and in Newfoundland there is also our assistance to the resettlement program. Our industrial incentives are available in both provinces but are at present more heavily utilized in New Brunswick than in Newfoundland. Also, we have in New Brunswick the two FRED plans. Thus the totals of my department's expenditures in the two provinces in the fiscal year will be very similar.
It should be said that these agreements are very different from, say, ARDA or FRED agreements. They are not concerned just with the principles of programs, leaving projects to be worked out later. The agreements themselves list the projects in some detail, so that work can be undertaken promptly.
One consequence, however, is that the agreements are rather large documents, and I regret that it will therefore be some days before they are printed in sufficient quantity for distribution. That will, of course, be done as soon as practicable. Meantime, I would add that in addition to providing in detail for projects to be started this year, the agreements commit us to federal-provincial cooperation in longer-term development plans.
April 22, 1970
6152	COMMONS DEBATES
Maritime Regional Economic Expansion
On the basis of this first year alone, however, it can be said that never before has federal development assistance been provided on such a scale. I believe it will make an important contribution to the improvement of employment and earnings opportunities and to the lessening of regional inequalities in Canada.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister's statement I think it is only fair to say there is really nothing new in what he told us. We have been expecting this program for the past two months.
The question naturally comes to mind: why the delay? Why has it taken so long to get these two agreements signed? Both provinces had been informed that the agreements would be ready for signature by April 1. In the case of Newfoundland it was expected that the agreement would have been signed and, indeed, implemented by now. The minister indicated in the House in reply to questions directed to him by members of the opposition that this would, in fact, be the case. It would appear, however, that he ran into some rough weather when he placed these agreements before Treasury Board.
I notice that the agreements call for a total expenditure of $41.2 million in the case of Newfoundland and $32.5 million in the case of New Brunswick. What I find interesting is that in the case of Newfoundland the total amount is broken down into $31 million in grants and $10.2 million in loans and, in the case of New Brunswick, $22.7 million in grants and $9.8 million in loans. So far as the province of Newfoundland is concerned, I doubt very much whether the economy of the province can assume the burden of this additional debt. The province is already approaching the $1 billion mark in provincial debt and the amount is now reaching serious proportions. I doubt very much whether Newfoundland can assume this additional burden. I suggest that if the facts were known the same would apply in the case of New Brunswick, which now finds itself having to assume an additional burden of some $9.8 million of provincial debt.
I also understand that these one-year programs are to be followed by longer five-year programs which are to be signed later this year. The government of Newfoundland has indicated that it expects to have its five-year program with the government ready for signature by July, though this does not coincide with the minister's timetable.

These programs certainly cannot be the answer to all of the problems that are facing these two hard-pressed provinces. The great danger, as I see it, is that in the case of my own province, and perhaps less so in the case of New Brunswick, this particular program has been presented as the panacea for all our troubles. I think this is a great mistake because it places too much emphasis and promise on these programs, as I think the minister will be the first to agree.
It is fair to say in this regard that as far as Newfoundland is concerned the program, in my view, has been grossly misrepresented. There is no question that both provinces, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, are in very serious financial difficulties, largely as the result of many years of regional and economic disparity but also due to the consequences of the mismanagement of both provincial economies.
Unemployment in both provinces is at a rate which would not be tolerated in any other province in Canada. The per capita income of both provinces equally would not be tolerated in other areas of Canada. The per capita income of the people of the province of Newfoundland is such that it places many Newfoundlanders well below what has been defined by the Economic Council of Canada as being the poverty line.
I note that the minister's estimates are now before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion and I hope the minister will explain the programs when he appears before the committee later this afternoon. I see him shaking his head in the negative, but I hope that when he does appear before the committee he will be able to explain these programs in much greater detail.
Naturally we hope that these programs will be successful because the problems that are facing these two provinces are very severe. However, we have grave doubts about the success of these programs if the government persists in its present policy of curbing inflation without recognizing economic disparity as the number one problem in Canada.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, all of us in the New Democratic Party are happy to learn that agreements have been signed by the federal government with the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland. May I thank the minister for his courtesy in making available to us a copy of his statement prior to his announcement in the House.
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
We certainly hope that further agreements will be forthcoming shortly with the other provinces. I suggest there is urgency in this matter if in fact these programs are going to be of any benefit during the current year in relieving very difficult economic situations.
I want to draw attention to and welcome the comprehensive features of the plan as they were referred to in the minister's statement, particularly the emphasis that is being placed on infrastructure projects. Certainly we hope that this principle and approach will be applied in the agreements with other provinces as well, because we feel it is important to develop an adequate infrastructure across Canada, very often involving projects beyond the financial and fiscal capacity of the provinces, if we are to establish an equality of standards throughout the country.
It is difficult to make adequate comment on the over-all program announced by the minister since, as he mentioned, the agreements are not available yet, but I think some note should be taken of the implications of the minister's announcement in terms of an adequate degree of economic planning and the development of economic plans in all the provinces concerned. Certainly adequacy of economic planning is essential to the success of these programs. I note with regret that an adequate degree of planning has been absent from many aspects of the department's programs. These agreements I feel possibly show a continuance of this approach of ad hocery. We have had the ARDA program, then the FRED program, the industrial incentives program, and now we have these agreements. It seems to me that this involves an ad hoc approach. I believe that the department and the minister should review their programs in order to develop a comprehensive integrated plan of action. It is very important as well that adequate funds are committed to these programs if they are to be successful.
Attention should also be drawn to the fact that various regions of Canada which the minister is attempting to help with these programs are being seriously hurt by the government's present national economic policies. This includes New Brunswick and Newfoundland with which agreements have now been signed. The minister should make every effort to relate his programs to over-all economic policies in Canada. I hope he can persuade his colleagues and seatmate, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), to abandon the present sterile and ineffective policies which are
DEBATES	6153
Maritime Regional Economic Expansion doing great harm to regions of Canada such as those involved in this announcement today, and which can negate much or all of the beneficial aspects of regional development programs.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has just made to the House refers to projects in which the provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick will surely be interested. I toured those provinces last summer and I saw that all kinds of public works were called for in order to provide the population with greatly needed services.
However, since the minister says in his statement that the projects are possible through an agreement with provincial governments, I wonder if the public works will come under the jurisdiction of both provinces and municipalities or only that of the provincial government once the required agreement is signed.
I also consider this to be an effective way of creating jobs in those poor areas which really need assistance to reach the same development level as the other regions in Canada.
However, if it is possible to conclude agreements with Newfoundland and New Brunswick, I would point out to the minister that there are also special zones and designated areas in the province of Quebec and more especially in the Bellechasse constituency. There is especially in Montmagny an urgent problem to solve in connection with the dredging of the basin, in order to enable ships to reach the wharf there. That project would create some employment and give to the people the purchasing power they lack at the present time. I understand that in the carrying out of those works, most of the money would be affected to the purchase of materials of all kinds and that the labourers would receive the smallest share.
It is true that the project would surely help to improve the lot of the people, but there remains a step to be taken. I suppose that to finance these projects it will be necessary under the present system to run again into debt, to increase the burden of the taxpayer who will have even less than before. That is why I am taking the liberty of asking the minister and the government if it would not be advisable for once to use the services of the Bank of Canada to finance these public

April 22, 1970
Questions
works and thus relieve the taxpayer. When we give him something with one hand and take it back with the other, little is accomplished. It is nevertheless the practice under the present system. This is why I am offering this suggestion as I believe it would be the ideal opportunity for trying the experiment.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I refer to my question No. 1403. It is very simple and straightforward. I therefore find it very difficult to believe the government is so incompetent that it cannot answer my simple question.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: What is the total amount in tons of less-than-carload-lot traffic that has entered the Atlantic Region from the remainder of Canada during the last fiscal year of the railways concerned and what has been the gross revenue to the railways for the transportation of these goods?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The Company does not maintain records that would readily disclose the volume and revenue associated with less-than-carload-lot traffic moving from one part of the system to another as such information has no managerial significance. To develop
Non-Operating
Clerical
Mechanical Trades (Shopcrafts) Others Operating Management
Managerial and Supervisory Professional and Technical Other Supervisory
the data to answer the question would require considerable expenditure of time and money.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-LIMITATION OF SPEED OF SHIPS
Mr. Godin: Does the Canadian Government intend to implement the recommendation of a Canada-U.S. committee to the effect that the speed of ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway be limited to 15 mph?


Gérard Loiselle: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: Yes.


CNR-NUMBER OF PERSONNEL EMPLOYED IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES
Mr. Reid: For the years 1950, 1960, 1965 and 1968, how many persons were employed in the following categories by CNR (a) non-operators (i) clerical (ii) mechanical trade (iii) others (b) train operating trades (c) management (i) senior management staff (ii) middle management staff (iii) supervising staff?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: That, with the exception of the year 1950 where internal reports have been used, the figures are derived from Part VI (Employees Statistics) of "Railway Transport" published annually by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Accordingly, management personnel have been grouped as reported to the D.B.S., i.e. managerial and supervisory, professional and technical and other. The latter category includes chief clerks, assistant chief clerks, office supervisors and supervisory and assistant supervisory agents.
1950	1960	1965	196814,895	14,833	13,577	12,75920,852	13,671	12,911	12,04639,417	37,535	32,439	26,32116,610	15,223	13,568	12,6143,245	3,910	3,827	3,8631,101	1,849	3,303	3,363571	828	875	887SUBSIDY PAID TO FISHERMEN-1960-1969	Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary
Question No. 1,346-Mr. Robinson:	lo Minister of Fisheries and Forestry): 1960-
What was the total subsidy paid to fishermen $468,589.30; 1961-62, $347,347.90; 1962-63, during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive? $402,497.52;	1963-64,	$382,336.10;	1964-65,

April 22, 1970

Questions
$326,854.96;	1965-66,	$299,854.91;	1966-67, Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secre-
$284 223.84; 1967-68, $51,399.20; 1968-69, Nil. tary to Minister of Transport): The number
of near-misses which have been reported to [DOT]INFORMATION CANADA-USE OF television the Minister of Transport are as follows: TO ADVERTISE PROPOSALS OF POLITICAL 1967, 38; 1968, 23; 1969, 19.


PARTIES
Mr. Beaudoin: Will Information Canada use the television medium as a vehicle to advertise government policies and, if so, can this agency also make known the opinions and attitudes of opposition parties concerning such policies?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: It is not intended that Information Canada will advertise on any medium the proposals of any political party. It will be guided by the ethics applicable to any branch of government which must distinguish between governmental and partisan activities.
I am sure I can count on the hon. member and other colleagues in the House to bring any lapse of such ethics to my attention, but I will do my best to see that this is not necessary.


ATHABASCA CONSTITUENCY-HOUSING UNITS FOR INDIANS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many Indian housing units have been constructed on reserves and off reserves in the constituency of Athabasca in the past fiscal year?
2.	How many houses are being planned for construction during the present fiscal year and on which reserves?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. During the past fiscal year (1968-69) a total of 37 Indian housing units were constructed in the constituency of Athabasca, 19 units on reserves and 18 off reserves.
2. During the present fiscal year (1969-70) a total of 42 Indian housing units have been constructed in the constituency of Athabasca, 29 units on reserves and 13 off reserves, as follows: On Reserves: Cold Lake, 12; Frog Lake, 4; Kehewin, 3; Goodfish Lake, 6; Beaver Lake, 2; Gregoire Lake, 2; Total 29.
Off Reserves: Fort Chipewyan, 7; Imperial Mills, 6; Total 13.


AIRLINES-NEAR COLLISIONS
Mr. Mazankowski: How many near-misses were reported between light aircraft and commercial airliners during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?


REGULATIONS COVERING LIGHT PLANES OPERATING NEAR COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What regulations cover light planes operating in the vicinity of airports servicing commercial aircraft and what equipment is necessary in such aircraft?
2.	Are they considered adequate in light of the many reported near-misses between commercial airliners and light aircraft in Canada and, if not, is the government considering such changes within the near future?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Positive Control Zones have been established at 35 airports across the country and in June, 1970 additional zones will be established at 24 other airports for a total of 59. Aircraft wishing to fly within these zones must have a two-way radio capable of communicating with the ATC units concerned and must receive a clearance to operate within these zones. Ab initio Flight Training has been banned at Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal International Airports.
2.	These are considered adequate at this time; however, in the interests of further improving flight safety, Extended Terminal Control Service was implemented at Toronto International Airport on 1 January, 1968 and will be instituted progressively at other major airports.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-SAFETY AND TRAINING
Mr. Mazankowski: What safety measures and training have been instituted by the government for air traffic controllers since last year's labour trouble?


Gérard Loiselle: Provision has been made for increasing the amount of refresher training for air traffic controllers, as well as continuing our program of accelerated recruiting and training. As indicated in the reply to Question No. 1,471, Positive Control Zones have been established at 35 airports across the country and in June, 1970 additional zones will be established at 24 other airports for a total of 59. Aircraft

April 22, 1970
Questions
wishing to fly within these zones must have a two-way radio capable of communicating with the ATC units concerned and must receive a clearance to operate within these zones. Ab initio Flight Training has been banned at Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal International Airports.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL.-DEVELOPMENT OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIBRATING MIRROR
Mr. Mazankowski: What steps are being taken for the development of a three-dimensional vibrating mirror to enable air traffic controllers to visualize the actual position of aircraft?


Gérard Loiselle: This is a recent development which will be studied and evaluated to determine its practicability for operational use in Air Traffic Control.


CNR UNION AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES- SALARIES AND EXPENSE ACCOUNTS
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many employees of CNR are union members?
2.	What is the total amount of salaries received by these workers?
3.	How many employees are non-union members?
4.	What is the total amount of salaries received by these employees?
5.	What is the total amount of all expense accounts submitted by these employees?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Employees Compensation Union	60,412	$432,722,573
Non-Union 12,695	$112,736,066
The above statistics cover employees on Canadian lines excluding hotels, steamships, Yarmouth-Bar Harbour ferry service, and Go Commuter Service.
5. It is company policy to reimburse all legitimate out-of-pocket expenses incurred by any employee in connection with the business of the company. The control of these expenses is maintained through the company's budgetary and other internal controls. To extract the information from the records in order to answer the question in the manner asked would require considerable time and

expense as the expenses involved are allocated to the specific phase of the business of the company where the expenditure was incurred.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-SURVEY UNDERTAKEN BY CANADIAN FACTS COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. Skoberg: Will the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada make available to the House the Public Opinion survey undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 196869 by Canadian Facts Company Limited?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: While Information Canada will publish reports on any public opinion surveys which it commissions, it has no authority over publication of reports commissioned for internal purpose by other departments.


AUSTIN AIRWAYS PLANE CRASH, TIMMINS, ONT.
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the altimeter setting given by the Aeradlo Station operators in Timmins, Ontario, to the pilots of the DC-3 aircraft before it crashed on November 10 last, killing its crew of two?
2.	Did the Aeradio Station operator at Timmins, Ontario, receive confirmation from the crew of the DC-3 that the altimeter setting information was received?
3.	When was the barometric pressure recording instrument that was used by the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins to ascertain the current altimeter setting last checked or calibrated to prove its accuracy?
4.	Was the DC-3 aircraft carrying a Radar Altimeter and, if so, was it functioning at the time of the crash?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The accident of the DC-3 aircraft at Timmins, Ontario, is under investigation and it is normal practice not to release any part of the investigation until the complete report is available.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	See 1 above.
4.	See 1 above.


CHURCHILL FALLS CORPORATION PLANE CRASH, WABUSH, NFLD.
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the altimeter setting given by ground personnel at Wabush, Newfoundland, to the pilots of the DH-125 jet prior to its crash on November 11 past?
2.	When was it relayed to the crew?
April 22, 1970



3.	What party or what authority gave the altimeter setting to the crew?
4.	When was the barometric pressure recording instrument that was used by personnel on ground to ascertain the current altimeter setting at Wabush last checked or calibrated to prove its accuracy?
5.	Was the jet aircraft concerned carrying a Radar Altimeter and, if so, was it functioning at the time of the crash?
6.	What weather reporting information as to ceiling and visibility was relayed to the crew just prior to its crash?
7.	What are the qualifications or what experience did the observer have who informed the crew of the jet as to weather conditions that existed at the time the aircraft made its approach?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The
accident of the DH-125 at Wabush, Newfoundland, is under investigation and it is normal practice not to release any part of the investigation until the complete report is available.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See 1 above.


STOCKS OF DIET FOOD CONTAINING CYCLAMATE
Mr. Rose: 1.	What is the value of current stocks of diet food and drinks held by Canadian food processors due to the "cyclamate" ban in Canada?
2.	Is the government considering any form of compensation for processors who have suffered financially as a result of this ban even though they have been observing Food and Drug Regulations at the time the stock was packed?
3.	What steps is the government considering taking to protect law-abiding processors in future should some other food additive be declared hazardous?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Not available.
2.	No. It is true that the dietetic foods and drinks were in compliance with the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations at the time they were packed. However, the processors were not required to use cyclamates in their dietetic products and did so on their own initiative.
3.	The government is always cognizant of the economic impact of decisions such as the removal of cyclamates from food products. However, the government also considers that the health of the Canadian public must take precedence over economic considerations.


PILOT LICENSING
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many commercial pilot licences, valid for a period of ninety days, have been issued to non-
Orders for Returns
immigrant aliens during each year, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	How many qualified Canadian commercial pilots have been unemployed during each of the above-mentioned years?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to continue licensing non-immigrant aliens as long as there are qualified Canadian pilots available?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. None. However, the Department has in the past and under exceptional circumstances when considered to be in the Canadian public interest and qualified Canadian Pilots are not available, validated a foreign licence for a specific purpose such as bud-worm spraying, Dew Line operation, etc. In some cases, the period of validation may have been 90 days.
2.	Employment records are not maintained by the Department of Transport.
3.	It is not our intention to issue commercial pilot licences to non-immigrant aliens for a period of ninety days or to validate a foreign licence when qualified Canadian pilots are available.


TRAFFIC SAFETY-REAR VISION
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to regulating the "fast-back" type of automobile rear window design with a view to improving traffic safety through better rear vision?


Gérard Loiselle: Two aspects of the rear vision problem are being considered. Initially, improvements may be effected by regulating the size and location of the rear window in order to make better use of existing mirror technique. In the longer term more comprehensive analysis of rear vision requirements may result in a fundamentally different rear vision system, such as one employing the principles of the periscope.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What departments will be laying off personnel as a result of the guidelines announced by the Prime Minister in August?
2.	For each department and Crown corporation, what is the planned reduction by category of employee?
3.	What steps is the government taking to aid those people affected by the new policy?
Return tabled.

April 22, 1970
Orders for Returns


POLYMER CORPORATION-SALARY INCREASES
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to all major separate categories of Polymer Corporation employees prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increase for all major separate categories of Polymer Corporation employees and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level of Polymer Corporation employees as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?
Return tabled.


ESTABLISHMENT OF MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the statutes of studies undertaken by Hedlin Menzies and Associates Ltd. with respect to the establishment of a merchant marine?
2.	What are the terms of reference of the firm?
3.	On what date were these terms of reference made known to the firm?
4.	What fees have been paid to the firm?
5.	Will the Company's report be tabled in the House of Commons and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


FERTILIZER SUPPLIED TO INDIA
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal year 1963-69, and/or during the period from the beginning of the 1969-70 fiscal year to date, has any fertilizer been given, by way of an outright gift, and/or by way of a sales subsidy by the Canadian Government to India and, if so (a) how much was given (b) what was the dollar value (c) what company supplied such fertilizer?
2.	Were competitive bids called for the supply of such fertilizer?
3.	What companies submitted bids and what were the amounts in each case?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF SHIPS IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FLEET
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many ships does the federal government have in its fleet and what is the role of each?
2.	Does the federal government have a policy of replacement of ships and, if so, what is the policy?

3.	Does the federal government contemplate any increase in the number of ships for (a) navy (b) coast guard (c) transportation (d) ice-breaking (e) dockyard service (f) other?
Return tabled.


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money was spent for agricultural research by the Government of Canada in each of the past three years in (a) Department of Agriculture facilities (b) the National Research Council (c) University Faculties of Agriculture?
2.	How much money is it proposed to spend in the coming year for agricultural research through each of the above three categories?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-RESEARCH STUDIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of National Revenue during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are now being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960-1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies now in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion (papers) No. 409 is acceptable to the government.



LIST OF CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS USING MERCURY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 409-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of all chlor-alkali plants which use mercury, as stated by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and reported in Hansard of March 25, 1970 at page 5463.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 26, 27, 327 and 393.
April 22, 1970

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



URBAN RENEWAL-FREEZE ON PLANS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence be-iween the Government of Canada and provincial and municipal government regarding a freeze on all urban renewal plans.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Hon. Robert Andras, Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing, that notice of motion for the production of papers No. 26 is acceptable, subject to the authorization of the government authority concerned and with the proviso that the correspondence cover the period from August 14 to October 23, 1969.
Motions for Papers
Dr. A. Vennema, Director of Canadian Medical Aid in Vietnam in 1967-68 and for copies of any subsequent correspondence between him and the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Reports to the Canadian International Development Agency by experts serving abroad under Canadian aid programs are treated as confidential. Making such reports public would breach this confidence and inhibit CIDA experts from expressing their views frankly in future. Therefore I hope the hon. member will agree with this argument and agree to drop the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion carried subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
URBAN RENEW AI_____FREEZE ON PROJECTS
Motion No. 27-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and provincial and municipal governments regarding the federal government's decision to put an immediate freeze on all urban renewal projects in Canada assisted by the federal government.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Robert Andras, Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing, I wish to inform the hon. member that a freeze was not placed on all urban renewal projects assisted by the federal government. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



MEDICAL AID IN VIET NAM-REPORT BY DR. A. VENNEMA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 327-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Interim Report made in March, 1958, by
Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



BATH-MILLHAVEN PRISON PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 393-Mr. Alkenbrack:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report made by an independent expert building inspector to the Minister of Public Works on the Bath-Millhaven Prison project at Kingston, Ontario.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: No such report exists, Mr. Speaker, and in view of this perhaps the hon. member might wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: I am very surprised at this information from the minister and I request that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might take this opportunity to rise in respect of notice of motion No. 375 in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be interested. It relates to a draft agreement on reciprocal fishing rights between Canada and the United States. Because of the imminence of the territorial seas and fishing zones bill to which this draft agreement would have application, possibly the minister could comment, if he has knowledge of the present situation, on whether or not the agreement might be made public.
April 22, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: It is the intention of the government of Canada to sign this agreement with the United States later this week and I intend to table the agreement itself, and not the draft agreement, after it has been signed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: The question period has not started yet.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, have we reached the oral question period?


Mr. Speaker:: Almost.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 32 has been on the Order Paper since October 23. I believe the House is entitled to know the functions and responsibilities of the department. This is the least we should be able to know. I would like to know when I can expect this motion to be dealt with.


Yves Forest: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As the Prime Minister advised the House yesterday that the rate of increase of productivity must equal the rate of increase of prices and incomes before the government can consider that inflation has been licked, and as the rate of increase of productivity has been steadily declining for the past four years, is the government planning to introduce in the very near future tax incentives to encourage producers to increase their productivity to a satisfactory level so that the government may once again start expanding the economy and providing the jobs our people so badly need?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: First of all I would like to say that the economy has been expanding greatly and, as my hon. friend knows, tax policy will be introduced to the House in the usual manner.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As that is precisely the same answer that the minister and his predecessor have been giving me for four years, during which time inflation has been steadily increasing and productivity decreasing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should not make a speech; he should ask a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was merely trying to assist the minister with the facts. In view of these things, would the minister advise the House whether he suffers severely from headaches these days from keeping his head in the sand so much of the time?


Edgar John Benson: I have no headache.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Do you get dizzy spells, Ben? This upside down treatment upsets you.


An hon. Member:: Back to your cage, gentlemen.
INCENTIVES TO SMALL BUSINESSES_______



PUBLICATION OF STUDY

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: If the hon. gentlemen will discontinue their dialogue I will ask my question which is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say, with regard to the question just raised and in view of the high unemployment situation, when small businesses in Canada can receive some encouragement and when the study of the department now under way on small business incentives to offset the effects of the white paper will be completed and whether it will be made public?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, small businesses in Canada do receive a great deal of assistance, as was pointed out in the white paper, through the industrial development program, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Small Businesses Loans Act, and so on. However, the white paper proposals are not law yet. The study which I have asked my department to carry out will be completed in due
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
course and I will provide the information to the parliamentary committee examining the white paper.


John Howard Lundrigan: There was a little encouragement in the last part of the minister's remarks. Does he intend to make the contents of the study public in view of the fact that the original intention was that it would be only for cabinet consideration? In view of the fact that this matter is of interest to the whole nation and quite obviously needs public reaction, would the minister undertake now to make the contents of this study public?


Edgar John Benson: The study is being carried out within my department, and I suspect that before the white paper is completely considered by the committee I will be appearing before the committee and will certainly make known to its members the results of the study.



TAXATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the fact that the white paper on tax reform is discouraging investment and development, thus causing unemployment, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said he would give consideration to withdrawing it, has the Minister of Finance given that kind of consideration to the white paper on taxation?


Edgar John Benson: do not think the Prime Minister said he would give consideration to withdrawing it, and it is not discouraging investment in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: As a matter of fact, one of the problems to be faced is the inflow of foreign exchange.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to draw to the attention of the House-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can rise in a moment but I would like to have an opportunity to complete my sentence. I was going to suggest that we are going over ground which has been covered on numerous occasions. If the hon. member has a supplemen-22218-44
DEBATES	6161
Inquiries of the Ministry tary question, perhaps he might present it in such terms as to make it possible for the Chair to accept it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the Minister of Finance will check Hansard he will find that the Prime Minister said he would give consideration to withdrawing the white paper on taxation. It is in Hansard.


Mr. Trudeau:: Where?


Edgar John Benson: At what page?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will read it to you in a
few moments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North that whether the right hon. Prime Minister did make this statement or not, this cannot be raised as a question of privilege. Whether a statement was made or not made by an hon. member cannot be discussed by way of a question of privilege.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reported disagreements in the cabinet over certain proposals in the government's white paper on social security, will the government consider doing two things? First, will it table the white paper in its present form so that the public will know what is being considered? Second, will it bring in an interim increase in old age security pensions so that our senior citizens will not have to wait any longer for an increase they sorely need?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The premise of the question being false, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I have to answer it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to answer the question regardless of the premise. Will the government consider tabling now the white paper on social security so that the country can know

Inquiries of the Ministry what is in it, and will it consider bringing in an interim increase in old age security pensions?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to table the white paper at this time. It is not completed, nor has consideration been given to it in its entirety by the government. So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I do not believe it would be possible to bring in an interim increase in old age security pensions prior to the publication of the white paper.


Mr. Lome Nysfrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent pension plan increases for Members of Parliament, which I voted against, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -will the government now move immediately to increase pensions for our senior citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that the terms of the question make is procedurally unacceptable.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE INCREASES

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the same minister. Would he infopn the House, with respect to the order to trim some $500 million from the welfare proposals in his white paper, what was the extent of the recommended increases for war veterans allowances and whether these increases will be affected?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that question be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have understood for the past few months that war veterans allowances now come under social security legislation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary 
DEBATES	April 22, 1970
of State for External Affairs. In view of the increasing resentment against, if not actual hostility to, Canada apparently developing in the Caribbean countries, what action, if any, has the government taken to improve this situation? In particular, has Canada entered into discussions with the Commonwealth Caribbean countries for a new sugar agreement with them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question, the troubles that are taking place in Trinidad are not related specifically to Canada. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. As to the second part of the question, we are having officials come from the islands to Canada to discuss the sugar question.
Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has Canada actually abrogated the agreement that it made in 1966 for an 85 cent tariff rebate on West Indian sugar and, if so, is that going to be reinstituted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I issued a statement on April 17, to which I would draw the hon member's attention but which I would hesitate to read now. What we have done is to terminate this temporary arrangement that was made and to substitute therefor a much larger fund to be used for agricultural development in the Caribbean.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the minister not aware that the Caribbean countries concerned are not at all satisfied with the $5 million, which is to be provided really for external aid purposes, in lieu of the sugar agreement and other trade concessions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the objections that the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean have taken to the termination of the 29 cent per one hundred pounds rebate. It has been our judgment that what we are offering is more valuable in light of the needs for development in that area, but of course these are matters of differences between governments. I can understand the Caribbean governments disliking the termination because this money went directly to the governments, whereas the other money will go for development projects.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question;, Mr. Speaker. Was the decision taken unilaterally to terminate the sugar agreement, or was there consultation with the governments concerned?
April 22, 1970	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: It had always been understood that these payments were temporary. There was no agreement to continue them indefinitely. They were related in part to the successful negotiation of an international sugar agreement, which took place, and it was in light of these circumstances, and what we felt were the needs of the Caribbean countries for extra funds for agricultural development, that we made this decision.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, this is most informative, but could the minister answer my question? Was the decision taken after consultation or was it taken unilaterally?


Mitchell William Sharp: It was unilaterally.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's desire to help the Caribbean countries, I would like to ask him if he would not reconsider his policy and give them some voice in determining what is good for themselves?


Mitchell William Sharp: All the projects that would be coming forward for assistance in agricultural developments would be sponsored by the governments themselves. We do not make decisions unilaterally as to what is good for other countries.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great discontent which Canada's action has created in the Caribbean countries, does the government not consider that perhaps the Caribbean countries are in a position to know what they would like from Canada rather than our telling them what they would like?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary question is a repetition of one asked previously.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the industrial milk producers are protesting strongly and demonstrations have been and will be organized, and also since newspapers have reported that he had received telegrams from the President of the Catholic Farmers' Union on this subject,
DEBATES	6163
Inquiries of the Ministry would the Prime Minister be in a position to tell the House whether he will recommend to the cabinet to amend the dairy policy announced on March 23 last, in order to make it more advantageous for industrial milk producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the beginning of the question, but perhaps I might answer it by saying that through my recent exchange of correspondence with the Premier of Quebec, I have had the opportunity to show him that the payments made by the federal government to milk producers total more than $100 million a year, about half of that amount going to the province of Quebec.


INFORMATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Would he be good enough to advise the House whether the government or Information Canada is now sending out sound film clips of statements about to be made by ministers to various television stations across the country, and are these films delivered by Brinks trucks, with the strict embargo that they must not be used until the statements are made? Is this a part or parcel of the economy drive? If this is taking place it must cost a lot of money.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if there were any such statements I am sure their value would warrant their being carried by Brinks trucks-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -but Information Canada has no plans, no activities in that field.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister express the modest view that any view of any minister of this government should be carried around by Brinks trucks.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Garbage trucks would be
better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister specifically whether such a clip in connection with certain evidence that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was to give yesterday before the Natural Resources Committee was considered so valuable, so intrinsically worth while, and as containing information desirable enough to be protected, that it was sent to various television stations across the country in the manner which I have indicated, and does he still feel it was so worth while that it needed the protection of a Brinks truck?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman no doubt knows from statements I and the Prime Minister have made, Information Canada is not a centralized information department and has no authority over information services coming under other departments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is nothing but a propaganda agency.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of today's report from Washington D.C. that 14 million packages of Lipton soup mix are to be recalled by food and drug authorities of that country because of suspected salmonella contamination, is similar action contemplated in Canada?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no relation between Lipton products in the United States and Canada. Those products are not imported into this country. The Food and Drugs Directorate is looking into the matter as far as Canada is concerned and assures me there is no danger.


INCREASE IN USE OF ADDICTIVE DRUGS IN UNITED STATES-CANADIAN SITUATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of reports of an alarming increase in the use of heroin and other addictive drugs in the United States, particularly in New York, is there evidence of a spillover of this problem to a similar degree in Canada? If so, what plans have been initiated to deal with the situation?
(Mr. Nesbitt.)
April 22, 1970


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the government will want to make a full statement on the whole question of drugs when we receive the report from the LeDain Commission.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What action is he taking to revise the agreement signed by the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island some time ago in order to bring the federal government's share of the capital cost of roads and so forth somewhere near the percentage that has been agreed to in the agreements announced today with the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any cost was mentioned in the statement that was made this afternoon.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not have a copy of the minister's statement in front of me but I understood him to say that the federal government would pay a fairly high percentage of the total cost, 100 per cent in some cases, under the agreements mentioned. I ask the government whether it will consider making a more generous agreement with the province of Prince Edward Island? Will it modify the present agreement so that all the Atlantic provinces will be treated similarly?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the agreements are to be printed very shortly. At that time I think the hon. member will be able to make comparisons and at that stage I will be in a position to answer.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister a very simple question in order to clarify a matter of great concern. Is federal assistance for the enormous petrochemical plant on the east coast of Canada part of the assistance under the $32 million announced earlier today?


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member referring to the eastern part of Newfoundland?


An hon. Member:: Come-By-Chance.
April 22, 1970	COMMONS


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes.


Jean Marchand: No, it is not.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In January, on February 9 and on March 23 I drew the minister's attention to the fact that the insurance companies had announced increased rates for automobile insurance. These rates have now come into effect as of April 1 and the increases vary all the way from 10 per cent to 35 per cent, depending on category. Has the minister made any representations to the insurance companies asking them to defer the implementation of these increases? Has he received a favourable reply? Also, what action does he propose to take with respect to these very substantial increases in auto insurance rates?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my previous answer on this question stands. The matter is being studied by the various departments which have an interest in it and particularly by my department and the insurance branch of the Department of Finance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is not the information I sought in my question. I asked the minister if he had made any representations to the automobile insurance companies since this matter was raised last January. What was the nature of their replies and what action has he proposed to take in the light of those replies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer that question. First of all, we made representations with regard to the proposed increases in insurance rates. Not only did we do this but I had the Superintendent of Insurance examine the positions of individual companies to determine whether or not the increases were justified on a loss-ratio basis. I have that report; I believe it is in my office somewhere and I would be pleased to look it up and answer the hon. gentleman's question in more detail on a subsequent day. I believe, as I recall the report, that the Superintendent of Insurance examined some cases and the increases were justified on the basis of expenditures that were incurred.
DEBATES	6165
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands):	A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's statement that his department has examined the books of the insurance companies and that the government is now satisfied that these increases were warranted. If so, is the minister prepared to supply that data? Would he also tell the House whether or not the Prices and Incomes Commission was aware of that study?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the Prices and Incomes Commission was not involved. It was done by the Superintendent of Insurance who examines the books of insurance companies on a continuous basis. I should like to look at the report before giving a definitive answer.


INCREASE IN COST OF FISHING LICENCES BY MANITOBA GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the wide concern over the increases in rates and prices, can the minister say what action the federal government may intend to take against the government of the province of Manitoba which has just recently imposed a very drastic 33J per cent increase in the cost of provincial fishing licences?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that surely is a matter within the purview of the legislature of Ontario-of Manitoba.


An hon. Member:: The minister is really confused.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Prices and Incomes Commission and the federal government have urged the provincial governments to limit their increases in user fees and other charges, and generally the commission has received co-operation from the government of the province of Manitoba.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) asked me to inquire about changes in work schedules which might affect the Fort Erie crossing employees.
April 22, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
lEnglish]
I have investigated, Mr. Speaker, and I was assured that work schedules posted at the port of Fort Erie have not been changed to have days of rest coincide with the May holiday.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the approval of lithium carbonate by the United States Food and Drug Directorate for the treatment of mental diseases, and especially for the treatment of people suffering from the acute manic phase of manic depressive psychosis, and as there are some 10,000 mental patients in this country who qualify for the use of this drug, may I ask the minister when it will be released for use in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that this drug is available to some investigators for experimental purposes. The director is looking into the matter and has been encouraging manufacturers to file a new drug submission for the particular drug, but none has done so yet.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position today to give any further information to the House regarding the sinking of the Patrick Morris?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, two formal inquiries are under way, one by the Department of Transport and one by Canadian National. The report I have is purely interim, based on interviews with crew members last night as they arrived back in Sydney. It appears that the Patrick Morris slowed to pick up the body of one of the unfortunate victims of the fishing vessel accident and at that exact moment an enormous sea stove in the back doors of the ferry vessel. The seas at the time were running between 50 and 60 feet, according to these estimates. This appears to have been the cause. I have to emphasize to the House

and the hon. member that this is only a verbatim report from crew members. A formal inquiry will be completed as quickly as possible.


Robert Muir: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the information. From what he has said, it would appear that the doors were not opened by the captain or by any of his crew?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is correct. The preliminary investigation and report indicate that the doors were not opened. It was simply the weight or power of these enormous seas that smashed them.
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Easl
Richmond): Can the minister indicate whether the inquiry will reveal whether the construction of the ship was adequate? The explanation by the minister does not sound too reassuring.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: One of the matters which the inquiry will examine will be precisely that.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which I hope he will welcome. Can we now take it as assured that there will be an addition to the national parks system of Canada on the Pacific Coast?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was in Victoria yesterday and I had the pleasure to sign the final agreement for the development of a national park on the west coast of Vancouver island. All the details have been settled during the conversations I had with the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Kiernan.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a question of privilege, might I be allowed to offer my congratulations and also to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member can only ask questions at this point.
April 22, 1970



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I am sure the minister is aware that, by reason of the recent increases announced by the Minister of Justice for Ontario, some provincial court judges are making within $500 of the amount the federal government is paying the provincial Supreme Court justices and up to $4,500 more than the federal government is paying County Court judges. Is the minister giving consideration to an increase in salary for the federally appointed judges?


John Napier Turner: am aware of the arithmetic, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour but I see that unfortunately he has temporarily left the chamber. I will direct my question to him tomorrow. With Your Honour's permission, I will now direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the government as yet made a decision on the proposed Indian education centre in Alberta? I am sure the minister, in addition to most hon. members, has seen the model of this most imaginative project to help the Indian people to help themselves.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have not reached any conclusion at the moment since this proposal has been made to several departments at the same time. We are now co-ordinating the views of the various groups involved and we shall advise the Alberta Indian Association of our decision when it has been made.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I wish to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre a few days ago about research in the Arctic.
The nearest parallel in Canada to the use of drift stations is the polar continental shelf
Inquiries of the Ministry project. This long-term project was initiated by the Canadian government in 1958 to carry out a detailed scientific investigation of that part of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. By using bases on the islands and seasonal stations on the ocean, scientific work is being carried out over the continental shelf and beyond, into the polar basin, without the need for year-round drift stations. Last summer some 150 scientists and support staff, mainly involved in geophysical investigation, were working from these bases. This does not include research programs within the Arctic Archipelago or in the northern parts of the mainland of Canada.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the government or the Department of Transport decided what is to be done with the derelict portion of the Arrow? Also, who is to assume the cost of removing the remaining hulk?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is simple to answer. Any costs involved in removal would be for the account of the ship owner. As to whether it should be moved, a decision is now being made to determine whether it is better to move it or leave it where it is in view of the relative hazard in both sets of circumstances.



EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN CLERICAL SERVICES BY CPR

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a decision of the CPR to reduce expenditures for clerical services by 10 per cent? If so, will the minister discuss with the CPR the effect of this policy on the services provided by the company, on the communities affected and on the large number of employees who will be dismissed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not been officially advised by the CPR of any such move. I have received indirect information to that effect. Of course, the CPR is not in effect obliged to tell me anything, but I will be glad to talk to them about the effects which the hon. member has outlined.
6XE8
April 22, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSFER OF TRENT CANAL SYSTEM TO DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburlon):: My
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of statements made by the minister recently concerning the transfer of the Trent Canal system to his department from the Department of Transport, will the minister tell the House the total area involved in the transfer, and whether the lakes that feed the system will come under the jurisdiction of the national parks service?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the type of information he is seeking should normally be obtained by way of a question on the Order Paper.



POLLUTION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It is in connection with the Red River which is an international river. Because of mercury poisoning, Lake Winnipeg has been placed under fishing taboo. Will the government compensate the fishermen who normally fish the Red River and Lake Winnipeg to the same extent as fishermen in other areas are being compensated? I ask this question because of the doubt that is being expressed in Winnipeg and the area surrounding Winnipeg.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree that what is good for the fishermen of Lake St. Clair should be good for the fishermen of western Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree that it "should be good", but will the minister be as definite as he usually is and say whether the farmers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -the fishermen-most of them are farmers too-along the Red River and on Lake Winnipeg will receive the same compensation? I ask the minister to be more definite and not merely say that what is good for one is good for the other, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I want to know whether these payments are going to be made.
[Mr. Jamieson.)


John (Jack) Davis: I will be discussing this method of compensation with the Hon. Mr. Green of the Manitoba government on Monday, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: You don't know yet. Is it
not going to be done?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister in a position to make an announcement regarding the laundry facilities at Coqualeetza Hospital near Chilliwack being made available to the native Indian people in that area?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I know that this matter is being looked into, but there has been no final decision made with respect to it.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Has the minister received a telegram from Wilbur Campbell on behalf of the North American Indian Brotherhood complaining that the response from the minister in this regard was to the effect that it would take many months to work out an agreement with the native Indian people on this matter?


John Carr Munro: To my knowledge I have not received such a telegram. Any negotiations we have had with Mr. Campbell have been with respect to a feasibility study that my department funded him to carry out. I understand that no decision will be made until the feasibility study is received. It is expected it will not be received until the end of May.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked earlier regarding the white paper on social security. Could the Prime Minister tell the House which department of government is preparing this white paper and how soon the government expects it will be tabled?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, this is a multi-departmental project, but it is essentially under the direction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
April 22, 1970


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, the Prime Minister answered the first part of my question, but I also asked to be informed when the government expects to be able to table the white paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member may have a supplementary but he will be recognized in a moment.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A further supplementary question. The Prune Minister does not appear to want to answer my second question. I ask him whether he can inform the House why the preparation of the white paper was taken out of the hands of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise the House whether or not members from Toronto have been after him about the oil spill in Toronto harbour?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Barnett Jerome Danson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite suggested that the members from Toronto were negligent in their duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would suggest that matters that are regarded as national disasters in other areas are looked after by the city council in Toronto.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. In view of the resignation of Mr. Howard Mann, who I am sure everyone agrees performed valuable service as chairman of the National Harbours Board, can the minister say whether a new appointment will be made, and when?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the assessment made by the hon. member of Mr. Howard Mann. Incidentally, if the House so desires I will be pleased to table the letter of resignation and the reply.
With regard to the second part of the question, I am examining the possibilities, within the framework of the revision of ports policy, as to whether or not we should restore the National Harbours Board to full complement now or perhaps wait until such time as the new arrangement is put into effect.



HARBOURS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering that there has been quite a heavy decline in traffic at the port of Montreal, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is considering taking strong action in the near future in order to remedy this situation which is disastrous for the city of Montreal-if he feels concerned by that situation-or whether he intends to do nothing about it as in the case of unemployment in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my point of order. The first part of my question is acceptable, even though the second part is not and the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 22. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



INFLATION-ROLLING BACK OF TINPLATE PRICE INCREASES

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On April 13 I asked him a question with regard to rolling back the price of tinplate to comply with some of the criticism made by the Prices and Incomes Commission. At that time the minister indicated that the department was looking at the question and that he would be able to report to the House in a day or so on what action he intends to take. I wonder whether the minister is able to give a report today.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. The Prices and Incomes Commission found that the price increases were within their guidelines but disapproved of the price increase made by one company. The matter is still being considered with regard to whether any action should be taken, but I would point out that the commission recommended that no action be taken in this particular case.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no time for supplementary questions. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EFFECT OF RESULT OF QUEBEC ELECTION

Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you for your recognition, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the upcoming result of the election in Quebec, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to deal with the separation of the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that I allowed him to ask the original question, even though the time had expired, because I could not help but notice he had risen on a number of occasions during the question period, so I thought he should be given an opportunity to ask his question. I doubt whether it would be in order to grant him a supplementary when one has just been refused the hon. member for

Waterloo. Perhaps his supplementary might be asked tomorrow, and I will see whether the hon. member can ask it earlier. Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not do so earlier because I did not want to interrupt the question period which I knew was coming to a close. My question of privilege relates to two replies that were given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the feasibility study by either Mr. Campbell or by people in the North American Indian Brotherhood of B.C. with respect to the Coqualeetza hospital.
According to a copy of a telegram that the office of my leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands received yesterday, we are advised that Mr. Campbell sent the minister a telegram on April 20 in which he said:
We received your telegram informing us that it would take you months to enter into an interim agreement with us regarding the use of the Coqualeetza laundry facilities. Your telegram reached us more than three weeks after we supplied you with a feasibility study concerning the Coqualeetza laundry.
I took the reply of the minister to be that he had not received any such feasibility study; yet the telegram stated it was sent three weeks ago. The minister also replied that he had no knowledge of any such telegram; yet the indication is that it was sent two days ago, and as I say a copy was received by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A dispute as to an answer given by a minister is substantially a dispute over the facts of the situation. Such a matter cannot be raised as a question of privilege. Tomorrow the hon. member might ask the question again during the question period, and perhaps this will give the minister the opportunity to reply to the hon. member. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien
April 22. 1970
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
[Stage Direction]
Laing
(Vancouver South) Lambert (Bellechasse) Lambert (Edmonton
Division Penner Pepin Perrault Peters
Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.		West) Lang (Saskatoon -Humboldt)	Pilon Portelance Pringle
Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.	Laniel La Salle	Prud'homme ReidAnd the question tien) having been	on the motion (Mr. Chre-put, it was agreed to as	Latulippe Lefebvre Legault	Ricard Richard Richardsonfollows:	Lessard (LaSalle)	RitchieYEAS	Lewis	RochonLiaid	RockMessrs:	Lundrigan	RodrigueAlexander	Douglas (Assiniboia)	MacEachen	RoseAlkenbrack	Douglas (Nanaimo-	MacEwan	Roy (Timmins)Allmand	Cowichan-The	Maclnnis (Cape Breton-	Roy (Laval)Anderson	Islands)	East Richmond)	RyanAndras	Downey	MacLean	RynardAsselin	Drury	MacRae	SaltsmanBadanai	Dube	McBride	SchumacherBarnett	Duquet	McCleave	ScottBarrett	Fairweather	McGrath	SerreBasford	Flemming	Mcllraith	SharpBechard	Forest	McIntosh	SimpsonBeer	Forget	McKinley	SkobergBeU	Forrestall	McNulty	SkoreykoBenjamin	Foster	McQuaid	SmerchanskiBenson	Gauthier	Mahoney	Smith (Northumberland-Bigg	Gendron	Major	Miramichi)Blouin	Gervais	Marceau	Smith (Saint-Jean)Borrie	Gibson	Marchand (Kamloops-	SouthamBoulanger	Gilbert	Cariboo)	StaffordBreau	Gillespie	Marshall	StanburyBrewin	Givens	Mather	Stewart (Cochrane)Broadbent	Gleave	Matte	Stewart (Marquette)Brown	Goode	Mazankowski	St. PierreBuchanan	Goyer	Monteith	SullivanBurton	Gray	Moore	TetraultCaccia	Grills	Morison	Thomas (Maisonneuve)Cadieux (Labelle)	Guay	Muir (Cape Breton-	Thomas (Moncton)Cafik	(St. Bonifaoe)	The Sydneys)	Thompson (Red Deer)Chappell	Haidasz	Munro	Thomson (Battleford-Chretien	Harding	Murphy	Kindersley)Clermont	Harkness	Nesbitt	TolmieCoates	Harries	Noble	TrudeauCobbe	Hees	Noel	TrudelComeau	Hellyer	Ny strom	Turner (London East)Comtois	Hopkins	O'Connell	Turner (Ottawa-Corbin	Horner	Olson	Carleton)Cote (Richelieu)	Howard (Skeena)	Orange	ValadeCot6 (Longueuil)	Howe	Orlikow	WahnCrossman	Jamieson	Osier	WalkerCrouse	Jerome	Otto	WhelanDanforth	Knowles (Winnipeg	Ouellet	WhitingDanson	North Centre)	Paproski	WinchDavis	Knowles (Norfolk-	Peddle	WoolliamsDeachman	Haldimand)	Pelletier	Yewchuk-198.Deakon	Lachance	NAYSDiefenbaker	Laflamme	Nil.
April 22, 1970
6172	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-203 to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. This legislation represents another milestone in a process which has been going on for many years in an effort to secure exclusive rights for Canadians over the widest possible area of water adjacent to our shores. I have studied this bill and I am in agreement with the intent of this legislation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), in his opening remarks, stated that the proposed amendment to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act contains two major changes.
The first change 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 change would authorize the government by Order in Council to create exclusive Canadian fishing zones comprising areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada. The intent of this legislation is something I have advocated and supported for a considerable time. The minister and I may differ on the proper procedure to be followed, but we share similar views on the objective to be gained. As a matter of fact, the 12-mile limit legislation has been a hot political issue as far back as 1957 when I first entered Parliament.
At that time we recognized the need to take proper concrete action to conserve our fisheries resources, and Canada's position was put forward forcefully and clearly at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva in 1958 when we attempted to get

agreement on a three-mile territorial sea and a nine-mile contiguous zone. When this effort met with some objections we put forth our proposals at the second conference on the Law of the Sea held in Geneva in the spring of 1960 in which we called for a six-mile territorial sea and a six-mile contiguous zone. Unfortunately, when this formula was put to a vote it failed to receive the required support by only a fraction of one vote. This conference on the law of the sea was the last one held in the past 10 years. In this period our actual fisheries resources have further declined and the problems associated with our fishing industry in Atlantic Canada have multiplied.
I listened with considerable interest to the statement made on Friday, April 17, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he introduced this legislation to Parliament. If one reads the words at the beginning of his speech, especially where he deals with the two international conferences to which I referred and also the discussions this government has held with the United States and other countries concerning base lines and conservation methods, one somehow gets the impression that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is confused, tired and frustrated; that he has thrown up his hands in despair.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is the opposition which causes the despair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister says it is the opposition that is causing the despair. I submit it may be the nature of his problems which burden him down. Let us look at his words as recorded at page 6013 of Hansard of April 17:
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-
I presume that here he is referring to the "six and six" 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.
What nonsense is this! The minister is implying there is no longer any value in
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
international meetings and discussions, but this implied situation is not in accordance with the facts. For example, the meetings held at Geneva were far from being failures. The five conventions approved at the end of the 1958 conference contain 113 articles which in their scope and importance offer conclusive testimony to the measure of success which was then attained. Established law was defined and codified. New laws were written. Rules affecting such subjects as the continental shelf, the conservation of the food resources in the oceans of the world, the measurement of coastal base lines and a wide variety of other new as well as old legal questions were settled. In the opinion of those attending the conference it was an outstanding demonstration of conciliation, of mutual goodwill and the progressive development of international law which in itself is the very spirit of the United Nations.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, there were only two questions remaining to be settled after the 1958 conference and these two questions were still not settled following the 1960 conference. These questions dealt with, first, the breadth of the territorial sea and, second, the size or area of the fishing zone. I agree that these are thorny problems, but if international agreement could be reached on these matters, a better international climate would be created in which the solution of our fisheries problems and many other outstanding problems could be resolved very much easier than now appears possible.
I believe that if we are to solve our problems as nations we must co-operate one with the other in the hope of reaching mutual understanding and agreement on the course to be followed for the betterment of all mankind.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Unilateral action or damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead action may be all right in wartime, but there is still a lesson to be learned by comparing the fruits of consultation with the effects of independent action.
Obviously, in other fields, consultation with the parties concerned is still considered the desirable course to be followed. Here, I refer to the negotiations going on in another but nevertheless related field at Geneva where the 25 nation disarmament committee has been working for eight years on a treaty to ban the installation of nuclear weapons on
DEBATES	6173
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act the world's ocean floors. The final draft of a treaty has been approved by the United States negotiators and it is now under examination by the Soviet Union where approval is anticipated. The new document will join the 1963 treaty banning atmospheric testing of nuclear devices, the 1967 treaty banning nuclear weapons in outer space, and the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty on the list of achievement since the disarmament committee began its work in March of 1962. Surely, if we can agree internationally not to blow the people off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons we should be able to agree internationally on the proper methods of conserving our fisheries resources in order to provide food for the people of the world.
I cannot help but wonder what is happening between our Department of External Affairs and the state department in Washington. On the surface there would appear to be little or no consultation on matters of importance between our two countries. Consultation seems limited to the sending of notes back and forth, similar to the one published in Hansard by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) on Friday, April 17.


Mitchell William Sharp: What about the meetings in Ottawa and Washington?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister made his speech. I did not interrupt him at that time but listened attentively to him. I hope he will give me an opportunity now to put my views on the record with regard to international negotiations which should have been undertaken, but which obviously were not.
In our opinion, the Department of External Affairs is falling down on the job. The finger points to the minister in charge of this department who obviously lacks the ability to cope with our international problems. I say this because we now know that only five days ago, five days before the state department rejected Canada's proposed extension of jurisdiction beyond the three-mile territorial sea to prevent pollution, President Nixon signed a bill giving the United States jurisdiction beyond its three-mile limit for pollution control. Two other bills are now before the U.S. senate which would give the United States government jurisdiction beyond three miles for anti-pollution purposes. The U.S. federal water pollution control act of 1970 authorizes U.S. officials to board ships as far as 12 miles off the coast to enforce anti-pollution regulations to be formed under the bill, and to make arrests. Shipowners and operators are
April 22, 1970
6174	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act liable for damages up to $14 million if they pollute the sea within 12 miles offshore.
Further, the act sets anti-pollution jurisdiction far beyond the 12-mile limit over offshore drilling operations on the seabed. I claim that nothing would indicate more clearly the complete breakdown of negotiations between our two countries than the fact that at no time in his speech did the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate that similar legislation for pollution control was being set up by the United States. I submit that he did not say this because he did not know anything about it.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is quite different.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of all the discussions of our territorial sea, I believe it is desirable to review the actions of the Liberal government on this matter since it came into office in 1963. In 1964 the Parliament of Canada passed the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. The purpose of the act was twofold. First, the act established the fishing zones of Canada at 12 miles from the coastline. Second, the act applied the straight baseline system to the Canadian coastline. The adoption of this method by Canada for delimiting its territorial waters was of great significance. Indeed, the fixing of a baseline is important because it determines how far seaward a coastal state may exercise jurisdiction within a certain breadth of territorial waters beyond the baseline. It also affects the extent of contiguous zones for purposes of customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary regulations. Now that Bill C-202 has been introduced to the House, the control of water pollution should be added to the list. The baseline of territorial waters has become significant also for the implementation of the contiguous fishing zones.
The 1964 act comprised six sections. One is very general and provides that the act applies to any federal legislation. One establishes the territorial sea at three miles from the baseline. One establishes the fishing zone at nine miles from the outer limits of the territorial sea, that is 12 miles from the baseline. One vests the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations for the drawing of the straight baselines, and one requires the minister of mines and technical surveys to establish charts showing the territorial sea limits and the fishing zones of Canada.
This act was promulgated on July 23, 1964, and it is interesting to read some of the remarks of the then secretary of state for 
external affairs, the Hon. Paul Martin, as reported at page 5208 of Hansard of July 8, 1964 when he spoke on this legislation. This is what he had to say, among other things, and I am not going to quote all his speech:
In the committee I indicated that it was the intention of the government, when this bill was passed by parliament, to establish without delay the fishing zones of Canada, and I indicated that this might be done by bringing into effect those portions of the bill relating to fishing, while deferring until a later date proclamation of the rest of the bill. After this testimony my colleagues and I considered the matter further, and subsequently the Minister of Fisheries stated on my behalf in the committee that the government did not expect any undue or substantial delay in bringing the entire bill into force. Therefore the situation is that there will be no delay in proclaiming the bill in its entirety after it has passed through the house and received royal assent.
I should like to take this opportunity to emphasize one or two points which my colleague and I mentioned in the standing committee. When the bill is proclaimed the immediate effect will be that the fishing zones of Canada will be established from existing base lines. These base lines will follow mainly the sinuosities of our coast line, pending the drawing of straight base lines by the governor in council under clause 5 of the bill.
Those countries with which we are not having negotiations will therefore be immediately excluded from the fishing zones-
Listen to the wording.
-and their vessels will be subject to penalties under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act if they operate in those areas. This will be of great importance to Canada in view of the rapid development by certain countries of large, modern fishing fleets capable of operating very far from their home ports.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is unfortunate that the government did not follow through with its intentions as stated by the minister on that date instead of waffling, procrastinating and dilly-dallying to the extent that we now see our fisheries resources seriously depleted. Many of the fisheries problems faced by our fishermen on the east coast of Canada today are directly related to the indecision and inaction of the federal Liberal government in implementing the terms of this legislation as it was passed by this House in 1964. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the eight nations to which the minister refers in his speech of 1964, which are to be excluded from our fishing zones, are still fishing, as I stand here today, in the same waters as they were fishing then. If I am in error let any minister in the House stand up and dispute that statement. I emphasize that the eight fishing nations referred to in that speech in 1964 are still fishing in the same
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
waters today as they fished at that time. Is it any wonder that our fishermen are crying out, "Oh Lord, how long do we have to wait for some action by this government"?
Even under this new legislation, Mr. Speaker, we were informed in committee yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Canadian government is powerless to restrict in any way the fishing operations of the French fleet, due to their historic and treaty rights on our coasts. We will still have this anomaly where Canadian deep-sea fishermen can only conduct their operations 12 miles off our coasts while the trawlers of France can fish up to our shoreline in many areas, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Under these conditions, how can we adopt any meaningful conservation practices to protect our fisheries resources?
Under the 1964 legislation the implementation of the Act depended essentially on the regulations to be made by the Governor in Council, as he had to provide for the geographical co-ordinates of points from which baselines would be determined. In November 1967, more than three years after the Act was promulgated, the Governor in Council adopted regulations providing for the geographical co-ordinates of points to be applied along the Labrador Coast in the southwest and east of Newfoundland, but skipping entirely the area of Newfoundland adjacent to St. Pierre and Miquelon.
In May, 1969, five years after the Act was promulgated, regulations were adopted to provide for geographical co-ordinates of points for southeast and south of Nova Scotia, for southwest Vancouver Island and the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. But to this day, Mr. Speaker, regulations providing for the information on which the baseline should be drawn have not been adopted for all the Canadian sea coasts. Is it any wonder that our fishermen are concerned about this matter?
It is worthy of note that there is no provision so far providing for the baseline of the north coast of Canada, and here I mean our Arctic coast. The same situation applies to the maps to be established by the minister of mines and technical surveys. At present there is no map showing the Canadian territorial sea on the north coast of Canada, which is the nub of the problem to which I referred when speaking on Bill C-202.
On April 8, 1970, a bill was introduced in this House, Bill C-203, which we are now discussing, which amends the Territorial Sea
DEBATES	6175
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act and Fishing Zones Act of 1964. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the territorial sea from three to 12 miles from the baseline. The method of establishing the baseline remains unchanged, but a principle of international law is stated. New section (5) in the bill provides for the use of low wlater lines of low tide elevations as baselines for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea. Another important purpose of the amendment is the elimination of the contiguous fishing zones as they were provided by the 1964 act. Under the amending bill the Governor in Council is vested with the authority to prescribe as fishing zones of Canada any areas of the sea adjacent to the coasts of Canada.
In my opinion, the Territorial Sea Act, and the bill seeking to amend it, pose a number of problems. I hold the view that each state must decide how and when it will effect the delimitation of its territorial waters, but I believe this delimitation should be made in accordance with international law. To be precise, the act of delimitation is governed by domestic law, but its international validity is governed by international law. This fact was fully recognized in the case of the Fisheries Act, and the relevant passage of the judgment, (1) 1951, International Court of Justice, page 116 reads:
The delimitation of the sea areas has always an international aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal state as expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act, because only the coastal state is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other states depends upon international law.
Therefore, it follows that any unilateral legislation may be met by unilateral protestation which, according to international law, will have the effect of rendering such legislation inoperative. In addition, the legal situation may well be aggravated by repressive economic measures in many fields other than fisheries, but which also have a marked effect upon our economy.
I also contend that the position of the Canadian government on this matter is inconsistent. In the explanatory notes included with the bill opposite page 2, we are told that the baselines for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea will be measured in keeping with state practice and international law as reflected in the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.
6176	COMMONS DEBATES	April 22, 1970
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has also recently stated in this House, on April 8, 1970, as recorded at page 5623 of Hansard:
Canada strongly supports the rule of law in international affairs.
A similar statement was made in this House by the right hon. Prime Minister in 1969 when he declared on May 15 of that year, as recorded at page 8720 of Hansard:
The law of the sea is a complex subject which, as can be understood, may give rise to differences of opinion. Such difference, of course, would have to be settled not on an arbitrary basis but with due regard for established principles of international law.
What are the established principles of international law? As far as I can determine, the main sources of legal principles are the 1958 Geneva Law of the Sea Convention, and the fisheries case decided in 1951 by the International Court of Justice, to which I referred a moment ago. But so far Canada has not ratified the above convention, and only last week the government denied the authority of the International Court over the protection of the environment and the conservation of the living resources of the sea. To justify that position the government declared:
Canada is not prepared however to engage in litigation with other states concerning vital issues where the law is either inadequate or non-existent and thus does not provide a firm basis for judicial decision.
In the same statement, the Prime Minister continued:
There is an urgent need for the development of international law establishing that coastal states are entitled, on the basis of fundamental principle of self-defence, to protect their marine environment and the living resources of the sea adjacent to their coasts.
But, Mr. Speaker, who participates in the elaboration of the international law if not the International Court of Justice? The position taken by Canada could lead to the assumption that Canada is anxious to see the development of international law in the matter of pollution but that she does not trust the World Court and prefers to legislate unilaterally. I contend that the action of the government will not establish a rule of international law but only a national statute.
Strangely enough these are not my views alone. On this particular issue my views are strongly endorsed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported in an exclusive article in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, September 18, 1969, which I have here, and which allegedly was written by

Mitchell Sharp. The entire article is factual. I will not read all of it but here are the minister's views on the interplay of systems, and they buttress my views entirely. There can be no argument between the two of us after I read this article. This is what he wrote:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Domestic law and international law are interrelated and interdependent. The domestic laws of Canada and other states can influence international law. On the other hand, it cannot be said that domestic action can be taken in isolation of international law. The interplay and interpenetration of the two systems of law is most apparent perhaps in the field of the law of the sea. Action taken internally must therefore be either compatible with the current state of international law or, at least, be defensible in a court of law.
Those are the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I continue: Otherwise, there is no chance of a domestic position being recognized by the international community.
Any action by any state touching on its jurisdiction or sovereignty has implications for other states. Assertion of one's sovereignty by domestic legislation or otherwise is not of itself sufficient to gain its acceptance by other states. If it were, there would, of course, be international anarchy.
The minister was even stronger in his statements than I have been. He continued:
Even the most powerful states must take into account the need for international acquiescence.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what we hope we will have.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister says, "That is what we hope we will have." In one place he makes one statement, and in another, another statement. Yet, according to his words of September 18, 1969, he endorses my viewpoint unequivocally.
It is our contention that it is almost impossible to implement this legislation fully. The delimitation of territorial waters requires the prior establishment of a proper baseline, but the fixing of that baseline is not an easy task. This is evident from the fact that although Canada applied for the first time the straight baseline principle in 1964, all the geographic co-ordinates have not as yet been defined. The problem is more complicated than it first appears when one reads the Canadian Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. The Act gives the Governor in Council power to make regulations for the establishment of straight baselines but it does not state that the regulations should conform to international law principles. In this respect the present amend-
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
ment may be considered as an improvement, although it only mentions the use of the low water line and low tide elevations. Moreover, it should be noted that the necessity for Canada respecting the principles of the Geneva convention on the territorial seas is only included in the explanatory note of the bill.
International law has established several rules to be followed in the drawing of straight baselines, and it makes a distinction between rules applying to coastal archipelagoes and outlying archipelagoes. Therefore, the first problem to be determined is whether the Arctic islands form a coastal archipelago or an outlying archipelago. Professor Donat Pharand, author of "The Waters of the Canadian Arctic Islands" appearing in the spring 1969 edition of the Ottawa Law Review at page 414, says between pages 418 and 420 that the Canadian Arctic archipelago under review presents considerable difficulty in categorization. Legally, however, the question arises as to whether these islands may be considered as constituting a single unit justifying a uniform regime for the various bodies of water between them. This is a question which Canada should resolve before proceeding with a delimitation of its territorial waters in the Arctic.
In my opinion, this section of the legislation which deals with our Arctic region is premature owing to the many areas of uncertainty in the region. When Dean Maxwell Cohen appeared before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1969, he enumerated these problems. He stressed how difficult it would be to establish sovereignty over an island system. He also mentioned the problem raised by the ice pack in the Beaufort Sea. For some, the ice pack is only frozen water; others, however, consider that it should be compared to land. He questioned also in what system the Beaufort Sea, where there is no Canadian island, should be included.
It seems to me, in view of these problems, that the first step taken by this government should have been directed towards establishing Canadian sovereignty in our Arctic region, not only over the islands in that region, but also over the waters separating those islands. We must never forget that we are neighbours of the two most powerful states in the world, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America. We are the three principal nations sharing the Arctic basin. In view of the
DEBATES	6177
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act resources in the American north, the resources in the Canadian north and the unknown resources in the Russian north, I believe it would be opportune for Canada to consider sponsoring a major conference on the common problems of the Arctic, a conference which could also be shared in by Denmark and any other countries concerned about the benefits that would ensue from this type of conference. Such conference would certainly not do any harm to our legal position in this area and it may well be of immeasurable value to us and to mankind generally.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe this act delegates too much authority to the government. It seems almost needless to repeat that under our modern form of government Parliament is increasingly delegating its powers to the executive. Although this action is justified for many reasons, this delegation of authority should not result in a complete abdication of power by Parliament.
In the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, Parliament has given the Governor in Council full authority to define the geographical co-ordinates necessary for the drawing of baselines. While this is a technical operation, the establishment of territorial water limits previously mentioned raised many problems with which Parliament did not attempt to deal in the Act itself. It could be argued that Parliament has purely and simply left it to the government to deal with such serious questions as those mentioned in paragraph 4 of this bill.
This legislation is a step, a very small step forward for mankind-to paraphrase another man-in his efforts to control and improve his environment. It can only be regretted that unanimity was not secured among other nations so that we could achieve our objectives and thereby have a better opportunity of preserving our fisheries resources.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, this bill, and the one which just passed second reading by the unanimous vote of this House, are rightly regarded I think as being two very important measures and, in many ways, complementary measures. Just to emphasize the fact that the party to which I belong is giving its support to both these measures, may I briefly refer to what the leader of our party had to say on Bill C-202 when it was introduced. I quote from page
8178	COMMONS DEBATES	April 22, 1970
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act 5943 of Hansard for April 16. The hon. member said in part:
...it is quite apparent that Bills C-202 and C-203 complement each other. Therefore, I think they must be considered together when the basic principles underlying this legislation are under discussion. I want to begin by congratulating this government on introducing this legislation. Any reservations we may have about some aspects of this question should not detract from our wholehearted endorsation of the legislation contained in these two bills.
Although these two bills have been introduced by different ministers, and although following second reading they will go before different committees of this House, I hope we will not lose sight of the fact they are interrelated. Indeed, if I may just interpolate here, I hope that those in charge of arrangements for committee meetings will see to it that the committee meetings relating to these two bills will be scheduled in such a way that interested members from either of the committees involved will be able to attend the committee consideration of both bills. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the questioning that will be involved, and the evidence to be given by some expert witnesses, will be of such a nature that this will be a most desirable procedural arrangement for us to follow.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when speaking to the second reading of this bill, mentioned four specific reasons the government had in mind in introducing the legislation. A little later on in his remarks the minister added what I consider to be a fifth, and in some respect perhaps the most important, consideration involved in this bill.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I do not intend to enter into any extensive discussion of it, but it should be noted the minister did make reference to the impact of the proposal to extend our territorial waters to a 12-mile limit upon the Northwest Passage across the northern part of Canada. I wish to refer at the outset to what the minister said. I quote from page 6015 of Hansard:
Since the 12-mile territorial sea is well established in international law-
I find that a very interesting assertion by the minister. I hope at the committee stage additional information will be put on the record to support that statement. Certainly, it is one with which I will not quarrel.
-the effect of this bill on the Northwest Passage is that under 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.
That statement raises many interesting questions to be explored at the committee stage. If I understand it correctly, territorial waters are not really under the complete sovereignty of a nation. The minister should give some further explanation of what he had in mind when he said that this bill, and the territorial law of the sea, would give Canada complete sovereignty over these two particular passages. He should relate that statement to some of the assertions made in the debate on Bill C-202 concerning Arctic pollution control and the general Canadian position of sovereignty in the Arctic. I am intrigued by the remarks the minister made prior to the portion of his speech I have quoted.
If I understand him correctly, the declaration or assumption of a partial sovereignty by a state has been construed in international law not to lessen its claims to a wider extension of sovereignty. This has been upheld in a judgment of the international court. This matter was dealt with briefly the other morning when the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Because of the imminence of today's debate, some questions in this general area were raised. I hope in the committee stage this whole area will be further explained and amplified. One or two of my colleagues may have something further to say about this whole question from the standpoint of international law before this particular stage of the debate is concluded. I welcome the information from the minister that the impact of this bill will strengthen Canada's control over any actual attempts at navigation through the Northwest Passage. We in this party fully agree with the intention of the government in this regard.
Another important question raised in the minister's speech is the impact of this bill on the matter of pollution control. The minister indicated it will provide adequate control over pollution on our east and west coasts. In that sense, it is a companion approach, although not identical, to the measure for pollution control in the Arctic. I feel that any real understanding of some of the aspects of the minister's assertion that this bill will protect the full range of Canada's vital interest in our coasts and provide the comprehensive jurisdictional base which Canada requires to enforce anti-pollution controls outside the
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
Arctic waters will occur only after we see the legislation that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) intends to introduce in the form of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not quarrel with my suggestion that the kind of control we are prepared to exercise over shipping and the discharge of oil into our coastal waters, either directly or as a result of an accident, is a very vital matter. Some aspects of this important question lie within the general area that is covered by the Canada Shipping Act and come under the purview of the Minister of Transport.
I recall when the House considered an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act in 1956. At that time Canada ratified the international convention for the prevention of the pollution of the seas by oil. Additional legislation, as set out in part Vll(a) of the Canada Shipping Act, was enacted for this purpose, as well as providing that the regulations required for the control of shipping in respect to the discharge of oil would also apply within Canada's own waters, both internal and territorial. It was felt that this amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, and the terms of the 1954 international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil, which was considered by the former railways, canals and telegraph lines committee, made significant progress in solving the matter of pollution of our waters by oil.
The passage of time has made it very evident that the proposals of the international convention and the domestic legislation adopted by Canada at that time were certainly no longer adequate in providing protection from oil pollution. For quite some time further action has been required, both in the international field by way of new treaty arrangements and in changes to our approach to domestic legislation. It was in my mind at that time that we should consider more closely this question of the pollution of the sea by oil. I pointed out that the coast of North America was not set out in the annex to the treaty, which provides what are referred to as prohibited areas in which the dumping of oil is forbidden. It was suggested to me that the density of traffic and the incidence of the discharge of oil into the sea around this continent were not sufficient to cause any special concern. I mention all this to illustrate the extent to which knowledge of the danger resulting from discharging oil into the sea has advanced since 1956 when this proposal was being considered by the House of Commons.
DEBATES	6179
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am not at all convinced that the bill as it stands will provide comprehensive protection, despite the minister's assertion. Its success will depend a good deal on the kind of legislation which the Minister of Transport will be placing before us. I hope this legislation will at least be introduced and read the first time before we proceed very far in the committee with our study of the bill now before us, so that we may be familiar with the terms of both these measures. Nor am I convinced that protection is adequate because of the government's intentions with regard to the declaration of fishing zones. The proposed amendment to the Fisheries Act, which is also to some extent a companion piece of legislation, will provide authority for some control over the extent to which waste matter goes into the water within our fishing zones. These fishing zones are considered to be coastal waters. In my view the present bill is not adequate to control pollution in terms of what could be done under the proposed amended Fisheries Act. However, it will enable the government to exercise more jurisdiction over an area extending a further nine miles seaward, enable us to control more effectively navigation close to our shores, and will allow us to exercise more stringent controls over what may be put into those waters by sources other than vessels. So, the minister is quite correct in saying that these proposals will make possible some measure of control over the pollution of our coastal waters on the Atlantic and the Pacific.
I do not intend to try to analyse what further effects the bill may have, other than in relation to increased control over navigation, ship movements and so on. I do not know whether the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) intends to enter the debate at any point. One inference from the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that these proposals will make for increased national security. I would interpret this as meaning the defence of Canada, though it seems to me that in this day and age, with the kind of hardware modern nations possess, this aspect must be a relatively minor one. Perhaps when the minister closes the debate he will have some comments to make on the importance of this element in relation to the full range of Canada's vital interests, to use the hon. gentleman's phrase. Possibly other hon. members who are more knowledgeable than I am on these matters
April 22, 1970
6180	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act will be commenting on this subject before the second reading stage is completed.
The aspect of this measure with which I find myself most directly concerned is its impact on the future of our fishing industry, aside from, of course, the whole question of the quality of our waters. I might recall that the bill establishing the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was considered so closely related to fisheries matters that it was studied after second reading by the fisheries committee rather than by the external affairs committee. It is therefore important to analyse the effect of the measure from the point of view of its effect on our fisheries and our fishing resources, as did the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I feel that the change from a three-mile limit to a 12-mile limit will really have little practical effect as far as an impact on our fisheries is concerned. When the act we are now amending was first presented to the House, my hon. friend from Skeena and I argued diligently that then was the time we should proclaim our 12-mile territorial sea. We felt this would give us control over those waters for all purposes and that we could then have begun to think of our fishing zones measured from straight baselines. This would have given us a complete area subject to our regulation, an area including some of our most important fishing grounds. Unfortunately, as the hon. member for South Shore mentioned, one of the most important aspects of that bill originally, the establishment of fishing zones, never, in fact, came into effect because our baseline system left wide open certain important parts of what many of us feel should properly be regarded as internal Canadian waters-I refer, for example, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to the waters between Queen Charlotte Islands and the mainland of Canada.
I realize that the present bill is not designed to declare such waters to be internal waters, though 1 wish it had been. It will, however, close in part, at least, the gap which was left because the baselines contemplated in the original act were never drawn.
Before leaving this question of the territorial sea and its width, let me say I was interested to find in my files a draft of a suggested committee report-it was not presented to the House because it was not approved by the whole committee. It was drafted by my hon. friend from Skeena and myself in June, 1964 when Bill S-12 was before us for consideration. We suggested that the committee recommend as follows: first, that the principle of a

12-mile territorial sea measured from straight baselines between given points be affirmed by the Parliament of Canada; and second, that the bill should be divided into two parts, the first of which would deal with the territorial sea and a separate bill would deal with the question of baselines, co-ordinates, and their effect upon our fishing areas.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is rather interesting to look back to a document of this kind, which one helped to draft as long ago as that, and to realize that over that period of time these matters have moved to the point where the government itself is now prepared to put forward as being well established international law-to use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-the proposals that the hon. member for Skeena and I were urging upon the government in 1964. I suppose one can take the pace of the events in this connection as an indicator that some of the suggestions that we advance at this time may in another 6, 8 or 10 years be put forward as proposals by the government of Canada, though I hope sooner than that.
The Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was brought forward in 1964, but I think it was not until June 1969 that action was finally taken on the matter of proclaiming straight baselines. We moved away from the territorial sea and fishing zones concept of following the traditional sinuosities of the coastline.
One of the suggestions that I want to put forward at this time, suggestions that I would be very happy to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs take up because I believe the law would provide for this if the bill as drafted were passed, is that this proposed bill be used not merely for the purpose of closing certain gaps in our existing baseline system in order to encompass certain areas like the Gulf of St. Lawrence and areas on the west coast as fishing waters, but that it also be used to establish our fishing zones on a basis which would be much more realistic as far as providing some real protection to our fisheries and fisheries management is concerned.
The proposed amendment in clause 2 of the bill suggests that the fishing zones of Canada comprise such areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council. I remember the battle we had to try to convince the House that the baseline co-ordinates should be established by Parliament rather than by regulations passed by the Governor in Council; but I am pre-
April 22. 1970	COMMONS
pared to suggest that the terms of this legislation would be appropriate if the government were prepared to act upon it to the fullest extent that the meaning of the words make possible.
What I am suggesting is that, while we are in effect abolishing our fishing zones as they currently exist, the present government should, since it intends to cover areas like the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance-something which I feel should have been done in 1964-go a step further and consider this proposed amendment to mean that the areas of the sea adjacent to the coasts of Canada for fishing zone purposes be defined as the areas of our adjacent waters extending to the edge of the continental shelf. I touched upon this matter the other morning when the Secretary of State for External Affairs appeared before the fisheries committee and asked for some clarification of the meaning of this bill on that particular point. The minister indicated a restricted approach, that is to say, merely the closing of these areas that I have contended should be inland waters within the fishing zone boundaries.
May I make the plea to him at this time that he give further consideration to what I think he himself is prepared to admit would be a desirable step as far as the realistic management of our fisheries is concerned. Indeed, the Minister of Fisheries has given indication from time to time that he recognizes the necessity for this sort of action. This need for action has certainly become apparent to the commercial fishermen on the west coast of British Columbia as a result of the incursions made by large foreign fishing fleets with their mother ships, supply vessels and so on. If one looks at what other fishing nations have been doing, and if one takes the view that the minister has expressed with regard to the 12-mile limit being well established by international law, then it seems to me that we are well on the way toward being able to uphold internationally the validity of the concept that international law provides for control of fishing areas adjacent to coasts, namely the areas lying above and within the outer boundary of the continental shelf.
This is one of the principal regrets that the members of this party have about the proposed application of this legislation. Indeed, it is one of the reservations that was in the mind of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) When he spoke on behalf of this party during the introductory stage of Bill C-202 and expressed
DEBATES	6181
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act the view, which I have put on the record, that in many respects these are companion pieces of legislation. I hope that before the bill passes and after we have explored the whole question in committee of how important it is to take steps at this time to protect the resources of our seas above the continental shelf, we will be given some declaration by the government of their intention to adopt the principle of fishing zones extending to the outer extremity of the continental shelf. I would be interested to hear the views and comments of the Minister of Fisheries on this aspect of the matter.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
He has referred publicly on more than one occasion to the idea of extending our management, particularly over our groundfish stocks, in some such manner as this. As he knows, one of the members of this House who represents a Vancouver Island constituency has put forward a proposal of this nature in a bill. I feel there is growing concern that this Parliament should take this kind of action in order to protect the resources of our Canadian fishermen. It is all very well for the minister to talk about the management of these resources, but I do not think we can take any steps towards the proper management of these resources unless we are prepared to say they lie within our fishing zones. By that I am not necessarily saying we would not continue to recognize existing rights that fishermen from foreign nations may have in some of these areas. We do not take this stand with any desire of altering what may be going on in respect of negotiations for withdrawal of other nations from the Atlantic coast areas that are to be enclosed within the original concept of the fishing zones, but rather to assert our desire that the resources of the seas be properly managed and conserved for the benefit of this and future generations of the human race.
Since up till now we have not been able to get full international understanding in these matters, we feel it is vital that we indicate our desire to accept the responsibility of ensuring that these resources are allowed to survive and thrive, and that they should be harvested only in a manner that is in accordance with proper conservation, primarily for the benefit of our fishermen in Canada, while not refusing to recognize that the fisheries of the world are important to all nations of the world. We are prepared to co-operate with other nations in ensuring that those who need
April 22, 1970
6182	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act these resources must have proper access to them either through purchase or engaging in fishing activities in some of the areas that might be within the limits we could claim through adopting this principle.
I should like to conclude by saying I am glad to know the government has moved as far as it has in these two bills we have before us. I hope that the unanimous vote given to Bill C-202 would be repeated in respect of this one if one were to be called. Unless there is some indication to the contrary, it would hardly be necessary for us to call another formal, recorded unanimous vote on this bill as we did on the other one. We could perhaps take the two of them as being read together to ensure that Canada's interest in the general safety of the world is, in our view, enhanced by the kind of legislation that has been put before us by the government.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words today about Bill C-203. This legislation will amend Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. It will push our territorial sea out from three miles to 12 miles. It will also enable the government to draw a number of important fisheries closing lines.
The extension of our territorial sea by an additional nine miles is important in so far as Canada's fishing interest is concerned, but more important particularly to our commercial fishermen and to Canadians generally is the completion of our fishing zones. As a result of this all important legislation, we will be able to complete a fisheries map of Canada. We will be able to draw fisheries closing lines across the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, across the Bay of Fundy and across Queen Charlotte Sound on the west coast.
Those of you who followed my announcement last year about the drawing of baselines on both our coasts will recall that we drew a series of straight baselines from headland to headland. We published maps of Canada's existing sea within these lines to down along the east coast of Nova Scotia, for example, and down the west coast of Vancouver Island. They enclosed literally hundreds of bays and inlets. They declared those bays and inlets not only to be exclusive fishing zones of Canada but also, because of the nature of our legislation of 1964, Canadian territory as well.
Now, we are introducing another concept. It is the concept of fisheries closing lines. These closing lines will finally enclose large addi-

tional bodies of water such as the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Queen Charlotte Sound on the west coast.
The idea of fisheries closing lines is a new one. It is new to our fisheries in Canada and it is new to the international fishery. It is a new idea which we Canadians have invented to suit our own fisheries situation, yet I know it is also one which, like the 12-mile fishing limit which Canada pioneered in the 1950's, will recommend itself to other countries, particularly to other fishing countries of the world.
I would draw hon. members attention more specifically to subsection (1) of Section 4 of our present Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. This is to be repealed and the following substituted in its place:
-the fishing zones of Canada comprise such areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
In other words, the cabinet can approve and by Order in Council set certain co-ordinates on the map of Canada and then draw fisheries lines between these co-ordinates, thereby describing as exclusively Canadian, or for the exclusive Canadian management, large bodies of water in this country. Where we have already drawn straight baselines we will continue to claim an additional 12 miles as being part of our fishing waters in Canada. But there are still important gaps. These gaps on the east coast, such as the gap across Cabot Strait and the Strait of Belle Isle, can be closed by fisheries closing lines,
There is an important distinction here between baselines, as the terms used in the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1964, and the additional or supplementary concept of fisheries closing lines. Baselines in our legislation apply to two things; they apply to territorial sea as well as to the fishing zones of Canada. The fisheries closing line concept, on the other hand, applies exclusively to fishing. It does not necessarily apply to territory. It applies to the protection of the living resources in the fishing waters of Canada. It does not apply to transportation, it does not apply to shipping as such, it does not apply to aircraft flying over the zone in question and it does not apply indeed to submarines passing under the surface of the water.
Perhaps I should put it another way. We are putting the finishing touches with this fisheries closing line concept to the fishing map of Canada. Under this legislation we will be able to close all the remaining gaps around
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
our shores. We will be able to manage all of those fishing waters and all of those resources within our fishing zones, both from the point of view of conservation and from the point of view of protecting our living resources in the water from pollution.
I mentioned last week when we were introducing the amendments to the Fisheries Act that we would be putting more teeth in that legislation with regard to pollution. That legislation extends to the limits of our Canadian fishing zones. These fisheries closing lines will provide one further way in which we can properly define these fishing zones of Canada. In other words, they also define the limits of our jurisdiction in respect of the anti-pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated in the House of Commons that Canada strongly supports the rule of law in international affairs and that Canada is prepared to participate actively in multilateral efforts to develop agreed rules on environmental and fisheries matters. He has also said that Canada is not prepared to engage in litigation with regard to vital issues where existing law is either inadequate or non-existent. We are not prepared, in other words, to argue our case in a court of law when there is no firm basis for a judicial decision.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Canadian government has, therefore, submitted a reservation to Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This reservation relates to those areas of the law of the sea which are undeveloped or inadequate. One of these areas, as hon. members know, relates to the bill we passed unanimously this afternoon dealing with the prevention of pollution in our Arctic seas. The other has to do with the present Bill C-203 Which will establish the right of the government by Order in Council to proclaim fisheries closing lines. In other words, we have declared we will not go to the International Court of Justice in relation to both these matters and specifically in the case of this bill in respect of the new concept of fisheries closing lines.
Hon. members who have an intimate knowledge of Canada's fishery will realize that the mere drawing of lines will not in itself stop foreign fishermen from fishing off our shores. Some countries have long standing treaties with Canada in respect of fishing outside and inside our fishing waters. A larger number traditionally have fished in
DEBATES	6183
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act these areas and have used traditional methods of fishing for particular species in what we regard as the fishing zones of Canada. These practices will have to be phased out. We do not intend unilaterally or overnight, so to speak, to rule these countries out of our fishing zones.
We will have to enter into negotiations with these countries and arrange for the phasing out of those privileges within what will now be clearly defined in maps published in the first instance in the Canada Gazette, as our fishing zones. We have already had talks with the countries. These talks commenced in 1964 right after the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was first passed. These talks were not finalized because at that time we were unable to specifically define what we regard as the geography, if I may use that term, of our own fishing zones. Until we were in a position to table maps and be specific about the co-ordinates involved we were not in a position to conclude any agreements or understandings with other countries. Now, with the completion of the fisheries map of Canada, hopefully this summer we will be in a position to complete this phasing-out process.
There are several treaties. We have a treaty with the United States in respect of fishing in Canadian waters and reciprocal rights of Canadians to fish in United States fishing waters. We also have a long-standing treaty with France. I understand it dates back to 1713 when the Treaty of Utrecht was signed between Great Britain and France. This was modified to some extent by a further convention in 1904 between Great Britain and France. It had relation to Newfoundland, which at that time was a colony of the United Kingdom. This treaty of 1904 is referred to as the French treaty or as the treaty relating to the French shore, essentially the western coast of Newfoundland. Under that treaty, which still obtains at the present time, the fishing vessels of France can come and go as they please and when they please. They can fish right up to our shores. They are not bound by our Canadian fisheries legislation. Our own fishermen must observe this legislation and large Canadian trawlers in the main must stay 12 miles off-shore.
Because we as Canadians are prevented from doing certain things which fishermen from France can do under this treaty, this is a source of irritation. We will have to reexamine this treaty after this legislation is passed with a view to creating a set of cir-
April 22, 1970
6184	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act cumstances which are tolerable from our Canadian fishing industry's point of view, and which I would think would be better from a public relations point of view so far as France is concerned. Later this week reference may be made again to the treaty we have with the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said a few minutes ago in the House that we will be signing a reciprocal fishing agreement with Washington. We have arrangements with the United States which essentially are reciprocal. Our fishermen in most cases enjoy the same rights in their waters as we provide to United States fishermen in our waters. These reciprocal arrangements with amendments have gone on year after year.
Essentially, we are out-fishing the United States fishermen. We certainly are doing so on the east coast. It is to our advantage to have this reciprocal agreement and make it as broad as possible. They can enter our exclusive fishing zones and we can enter theirs. On the west coast this reciprocal agreement is of particular interest to Canada because a large percentage, more than half, of our west coast halibut fishery depends on access to the exclusive 12-mile fishing zone of the United States, along the coast of Alaska and in the Bering Sea. As I am referring to Alaska as well, their coast is roughly four times the length of the British Columbia coast and therefore this reciprocal arrangement on the west coast in respect of the shoreline is very much to our advantage. What I would envisage with the completion of our fisheries map of Canada, with the drawing of the remaining fisheries boundaries and the fisheries closing lines is that we will still want to have, and indeed enjoy, a good relationship with the United States and welcome any type of reciprocal fishing arrangement which in the main liberalizes reciprocity in fishing between Canada and the United States.
There are a number of other countries whose fishermen during the years have fished in Canadian waters. The United Kingdom, France, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Italy have had a long record of performance. They have traditional fishing practices in some of our east coast areas. Their fishermen and fishing vessels will, therefore, have to be phased out over a period of time. They, however, are in a different category. Their continuance there is not based on a treaty but merely on the fact that they have come and gone over a period of many years. I am not one of those who believes in shutting out

foreign fishing fleets entirely. I know there are certain species of fish off our shores, and some of them within our exclusive fishing zones, which will be of interest to people of other countries and which may not be of any immediate commercial value to Canadians. I would hope we would always encourage their development by visitors to our shores up to at least a sustained yield level of production. I could conceivably see a species like the west coast dogfish in this category, and there may be others that we may continue to want to see exploited off our east coast as well.
Having said that I am concerned, as I know many hon. members are, about the management in the sense of a sound conservation practice in respect of a limited resource. The fishery of the world is indeed a limited resource. It is in a position which cannot withstand the tremendous pressure from modern fishing gear and the latest fishing techniques. Our capability to catch fish already exceeds the supply. It certainly exceeds the ability of the resource to withstand this great attack by man. We need, therefore, to limit our efforts in many areas and scale them to the resource to make sure the resource is cropped on a sustained yield basis.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Within our own fishing zones we have begun a system of licence limitation by which we are cutting back on the numbers of vessels active in our own Canadian waters. We are reducing the fishing capacity in some cases to one-quarter or one-third. A quarter or a third fewer vessels can catch all the fish that could possibly be caught and still leave enough fish for future years which will provide a reasonable level of income for the fishermen. If we are to scale down our efforts in this way, and in a sense, to withdraw the fishing capacity from our waters, we need to have these waters managed and under control. They cannot be subject to the capricious attack of fishermen of other countries who come when it suits them, then leave and not come again for years after the resource itself has been depleted.
On the west coast beginning in 1965 the Russian, and to some extent, the Japanese fishing fleets moved in. They moved into Queen Charlotte Sound. Over a period of two years they reduced the catch per unit of effort, the quantity of groundfish that could be caught per day at sea, by approximately 60 per cent. They have not come back to
April 22. 1970	COMMONS
Queen Charlotte Sound. Now, with the drawing of our fisheries closing lines, they will be unable to come back. But it is this indiscriminate fishing on a very large scale in areas which cannot sustain that level of activity, which must be discouraged. It is within our power, and certainly will be within the power of the Canadian government with this legislation, to protect our fishing waters from efforts of this kind.
On the east coast last spring as many as 60 vessels owned by foreign nationals arrived to explore a brand new fishery here-the new herring fishery. It was developing here because we had exhausted our herring fishery on the west coast. The westerners came east and began to exploit the resource in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Their success was news overseas. It was news in the North Sea where the herring fishery is all but depleted. So last spring 60 vessels arrived. We intercepted those vessels and let them know that they were not welcome in this new fishery. Many of them turned back to fish elsewhere. However, there has been a limited attack on our new herring fishery as a result of this intervention on our part. We did not really have the law of Canada behind us. We could merely ask them to turn back. Now, with the fisheries closing lines we will indeed have the sanction of Parliament behind us and we will be able to prosecute foreign vessels which might cross our fisheries closing lines.
I mentioned the drop in our catch on the west coast due to the large foreign trawlers operating there, the large Russian and Japanese fishing fleets. On the east coast, the fleets of more nations have also been active. Our Canadian trawler fleets have also been active. Of course they have been kept out 12 miles by our regulations, but the impact on the inshore fisheries has been substantial to this extent. The catch in quantity of our inshore fishermen in Newfoundland, for example, has dropped roughly by half over the last 10 to 15 years. The average catch of the average small inshore fisherman in Newfoundland is down to about 50 per cent of what it was in the mid 1950s. These are the situations which we are encountering. They are particularly difficult for small people with low incomes struggling to make a livelihood for themselves in many remote locations. By drawing baselines, by drawing fisheries closing lines, by pushing out our fishery limits 12 miles beyond the baselines, we have at least reserved for these people many bays and inlets which formerly were open to foreign fishermen as well. We 2221&-45
DEBATES	6185
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act are at least fencing off some significant areas for better management, for conservation and for the protection of the livelihood of small people in many outlying areas in this country.
I hope that, like the Arctic seas pollution prevention bill this afternoon, this legislation will also commend itself to members in all corners of the House. I hope that it will be passed unanimously as well. It is legislation which, as some hon. members have said, is long overdue. It is long overdue in one sense, but let hon. members remember that again we are creating a precedent. We are creating an international precedent here in the form of fisheries closing lines. We will be criticized for it, but I believe that our defence is primarily one of conservation and good management and also pollution prevention in the sense that all of the provisions of our Fisheries Act, for example, will extend out to these fisheries closing lines, out to our fisheries limits, to protect us from pollution of all kinds and from damage which can occur to our fishery resource.
This is a good bill and I think it warrants the support of all parties. I know it will be discussed in the Committee on External Affairs, but I hope its period there will be brief, that it will be back shortly and that we will soon be able to publish the list of coordinates and maps completing the fishing zones of Canada for all time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the minister would permit me to ask him one question. Earlier in his remarks, he referred to the fact that this legislation was putting the finishing touches- I think that was the expression he used-to our approach to conservation of our fisheries. Did he mean that in a completely literal sense, that this was the final step that the government has in mind? Would he mind explaining whether or not we are to take those words literally?


John (Jack) Davis: This legislation does not in any way refer to waters beyond what I might refer to as the exclusive fishing zones of Canada. These lines will indicate the limit where Canada has sole authority in respect of its fishery. In time I hope Canada will also have a very substantial voice in the management of fishery resources over all of its continental shelf. It is the largest continental shelf in the world, including the Grand Banks. We must take initiative there, initiative which should be taken by the coastal states. We should make sure that our resources over the shelf, 400 miles out of Newfoundland over
April 22, 1970
6186	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act the Grand Banks, are properly managed. We must take the initiative there. But I do not regard those waters as exclusively Canadian from the point of view of exploitation. However, they are of vital concern to us and we must do everything we can to make sure that they are cropped intelligently and that our share in that cropping increases as time goes by.


James Aloysius McGrath: As
the minister indicated, this legislation will certainly commend itself to the House. As my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has said already, it is our intention to give it our support and to expedite its passage in order to get it before the committee. In this particular case, however, I regret very much that the bill will be going before the external affairs committee and not the fisheries committee, because I think the type of study that this legislation requires can only be conducted in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry where there is a fund of knowledge on this subject. The suggestion has been made that it might be a good idea, for the purpose of examining this bill, to combine the two committees. Certainly, I am strongly of the view that only the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry can give this bill the scrutiny it warrants.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), who just took his seat, said that this bill completes the fisheries map of Canada. I would like to think that it does but, unfortunately, as the minister said in his subsequent remarks, it falls short of achieving that goal. So far as completing our fisheries map is concerned, in my view the bill represents nothing but a pious hope. I do not blame the Minister of Fisheries for this, because it is something which concerns areas outside his responsibility. Nevertheless, the bill merely expresses a pious hope that it can do what it says it will do, the same pious hope that was outlined in the legislation when the fishing zones Act was passed in July, 1964.
At that time, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the former hon. member for Essex East, said as reported at page 5209 of Hansard.
This bill wil lestablish a 12-mile fising zone in Canada. It will enable the government to establish the straight baseline system. The straight baselines are not spelled out, for the reasons we gave in the committee, because this would interfere with the negotiations that are under way.

That was six years ago, Mr. Speaker, when the negotiations were under way.
This is following the practice established by other countries who have initiated new fishing zones based on the straight baseline system, countries such as Norway and Iceland, and other countries I mentioned in the committee.
I repeat that it is six years since that Act first came before Parliament. I think it is fair to say that measure was supposed to be the fulfilment of a rash political promise made during the 1963 election campaign when the Liberal party promised that if it formed the government it would unilaterally impose a 12-mile limit. They said they would declare the 12-mile limit first, and negotiate afterwards. History has proven the folly of this course. Six years later the promise is still unfortunately unfulfilled.
The minister, who has a great deal of sympathy for the plight of the inshore fishermen of my province and of the Atlantic Coast generally, referred to the fact that the inshore fishery yield has dropped to half of what it used to be. In my view, Sir, this drop in the yield from the inshore fishery is a consequence of our inability to enforce our own laws, our inability to protect our own coastline from infringement by the fishing vessels of foreign nations. The legislation which we impose, which has to be adhered to by our own nationals, is ignored by the fishermen of other countries who fish off the Atlantic coast. You have the paradox of Canadian deep-sea trawlers not being permitted by law to fish within the 12-mile limit whereas foreign trawlers such as French, Spanish, Portugese and Bussian do so with impunity. Indeed, as the minister himself just said, the French fleet does so With the full protection of law.
The French fleet fishes within the 12-mile limit with the full protection of ancient treaty which was referred to by the minister, the Treaty of Utrecht, signed by Britain and France in 1713 and amended and renegotiated in 1904. That treaty today has as much force of law as it had when it was renegotiated and signed in 1904. What the minister forgot to mention was that, in addition to the fishing rights which this treaty gave France in 1713 and 1904, it also gave France the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. It is because of these islands that we will never be able to successfully conclude negotiations with France to have this ancient, out-moded, out-dated treaty, which we inherited from Great Britain, repealed.
I think the minister knows that, and I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
(Mr. Sharp) knows it. I think it is unfortunate for us because the consequences are serious. The minister is aware of what is taking place today on the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which lie within ten miles of the coastline of Newfoundland. Substantial funds are being expended by the government of France, as a program under the Common Market, to develop additional harbour facilities at St. Pierre and to provide substantial cold storage facilities for the storage of fish. This makes it possible for foreign trawlers, many of them from Common Market countries, which fish within the 12 mile limit as a consequence of either traditional or treaty rights, to land their fish within sight of our shores on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In my view this is the great weakness, the great anomaly, the great shortcoming of this legislation.
We have treaty and traditional rights with Britain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain and Italy, and until we renegotiate these treaty and traditional rights in the light of present-day circumstances, all of the legislation that we pass in this House, including the amendments now before us, will be useless. They are in fact redundant. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they are nothing short of deception to the fishermen of the Atlantic coast who have to obey this law knowing full well that their competitors can disobey it with impunity. You have the double hazard of these trawlers fishing within our 12-mile limit and then having the privilege of landing their fish for cold storage and trans-shipment right on the Grand Banks themselves, on the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
As a consequence of questions directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a number of occasions, we were told in this House that the government was still negotiating with the government of France with a view to obtaining an agreement to establish a baseline on the south coast of Newfoundland. We are still negotiating. That is diplomatic language, Mr. Speaker, probably indicating that the negotiations have reached a stalemate. That is probably the diplomatic way of saying we have come up against a stone wall and the French government will not yield an inch. As the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) pointed out in committee the other day, if we were unilaterally to establish our baseline on the south coast of Newfoundland it would go right through the French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In fact, such a line would literally go right through 22218-451
DEBATES	6187
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act Miquelon if the baseline were to be extended from Cape Race to Cape Ray, or from the tip of the Burin Peninsula to Cape Ray.
There is the problem, Mr. Speaker, and it is a double-barreled one. I know that the Minister of Fisheries feels very strongly about this, matter, notwithstanding the fact that he had to leave the chamber a few moments ago, but obviously he has not been able to convince his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on it. To me our course is an obvious one. Why should we be bound by the terms of an ancient treaty contracted between the government of France and the government of the United Kingdom in 1713?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: A piece of paper; that's all.


James Aloysius McGrath: A piece of paper, the Secretary of State for External Affairs says?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what the hon. member suggested it was.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps the minister would give me a chance to conclude what I am about to say. Why should we be circumscribed by the terms of this treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Because it is a treaty.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is a treaty made between Britain and France before Newfoundland was part of Canada, indeed before Canada was a nation. Surely, in the light of present day circumstances our government, if it has any backbone at all, should be able to go to the government of France and demand a renegotiation of this treaty in the interests of conservation, of protecting our own fishermen and fishery resources as well as enforcing our own pollution laws. All these things would give the Secretary of State for External Affairs a strong case for asking the government of France to reopen this treaty so that it may be renegotiated in the light of present day circumstances. If the government of France refuses to renegotiate, as it probably will refuse, then I suggest we ought to appeal to the International Court of Justice and ask to have the treaty repealed. If that fails, then I suggest that we, as a sovereign state, could tell the world that the provisions of this treaty are not in our interest. We did not negotiate the treaty in the first instance; it was negotiated before we were a country, and we no longer accept its provisions. However, at the same time we would respect, as we must, the sovereignty of France over the islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon.
6188	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act


An hon. Member:: Why respect that
sovereignty?


James Aloysius McGrath: Obviously, we must respect the sovereignty of France over these French islands. But why should we respect the right of fishermen of that country, in the light of the knowledge we have, to fish where they do? Why should we extend to fishermen of that country the right to fish within the three-mile limit while we, in fact, do not permit our own nationals to do so.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is amazing.


James Aloysius McGrath: This legislation makes a mockery of justice. It is sheer window dressing. All it will do is impose a handicap on our Canadian fishermen and give to the fishermen of France an extreme advantage.


An hon. Member:: Why will you vote for the bill, then?


James Aloysius McGrath: I intend to vote on it because it represents half a loaf, and half a loaf is better than no loaf.


Mr. Thompson:: There, you have your
answer.


James Aloysius McGrath: There is another aspect of the legislation to which I want to refer. I find it difficult to understand why your rights on the continental shelf, which were spelled out by the 1958 Geneva convention, are not incorporated in this bill. When the Secretary of State was out of the House the Minister of Fisheries remarked on this point and strongly suggested or implied-I do not want to put words in his mouth-that that provision ought to have been included within the ambit of the legislation. These rights are acknowledged by the Geneva agreement and are for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf. I repeat, why cannot they be incorporated in this bill? It is just as important for us to spell out in a piece of legislation our rights to the continental shelf as it is for us to spell out, in a half hearted and practically meaningless way, our rights to extend our territorial seas from three miles to 12 miles offshore.
I think we ought to finally define what traditional rights of the countries we are talking about are. I am sick and tired of hearing about the traditional fishing rights of those countries; they compete with Canada in the markets of the world for fisheries products. I wish the government would define what those traditional rights are. Why does someone not

DEBATES	April 22, 1970
sit down with the governments of Portugal, France and Spain and say, "Let's talk about these traditional rights because we have pollution laws to enforce and conservation laws to enforce. We must protect our own nationals and our own fishing industry." Last and by no means least, I say that if this legislation is to mean anything, the treaty made by Great Britain in 1713 and amended in 1904 ought to be renegotiated or, in my view, repealed.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcolin):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a disposition in the House to wind up this debate fairly early. I will be very brief in my intervention. I rise, of course, to support the legislation. It has been very heartening for me to see, both in this debate and in the debate on the previous bill dealing with Arctic pollution, the interest that has been generated in southern Canada in the great north country. True, we have seen that interest rising and falling throughout the history of Britain and of our own country. Perhaps this time the interest aroused will remain.
1 will not urge the ripping up of treaties, as the previous speaker did. I certainly welcome the support Conservative party members have expressed for this bill, qualified though their support is. I find their reasons for supporting the bill a trifle confusing. The first two or three spokesmen for that party berated the government for taking unilateral action and establishing an Arctic pollution control zone in the absence of international law in this field. The hon. member who just spoke wanted to rip up a treaty that we have had with France since 1713 and renewed in this century.


James Aloysius McGrath: It was not renewed by us.


Paul St. Pierre: Well, if the hon. member suggests that Canada should rip up every treaty which preceded our assertion of full sovereignty following the first world war, I am afraid he will have difficulty in explaining his actions to other nations of the world.
I want to deal very briefly with only one aspect of this legislation. In the debate on the bill preceding this one, and of course the provisions of Bills C-202 and C-203 are interrelated and inextricably linked together, several members of the opposition parties said that increasing our territorial sea limit from three to 12 miles means in some way that we are abandoning our claims in the Arctic to larger expanses of water. This, as I said previously, I
April 22. 1970	COMMONS
dispute. However, some hon. members went farther. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), according to page 6004 of Hansard, goes so far as to say, as I understand his words, that we should claim great tracts under some sector theory. He said, as is reported about the middle of the page, in the left hand column:
We own the whole of the area between the 60th meridian and 141st meridian and up to the North Pole.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a claim to regions far beyond the waters of the archipelago. It is a claim to waters, therefore, that go beyond even, in some cases, the 100-mile limited jurisdiction which we are seeking in the Arctic pollution control zone legislation. Unless and until I can be corrected, I can find no substantiation in my reading for this claim of ownership of the ice of the Beaufort Sea, to name one region.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The drawing of sector lines on maps of the north orginated with Senator Poirier. I gave the wrong date to the House the other day when quoting the senator. I said it was 1903, but it should have been 1908. He suggested, and the government later adopted in its cartography, that we should draw these sector lines to the pole to include lands so far undiscovered or unclaimed within these lines. The Russians at various times, including April 15, 1926, did the same. They claimed the lands which might be discovered within their sector lines.
I wish to deal briefly with the Russian position today, as I understand it. There seems to be no doubt that the government of the U.S.S.R. has greatly blurred its claim under the sector theory. It certainly claims the islands of the north. It claims extensive territorial seas, as we are claiming, but I draw to the attention of the House that the American coastguard ship Northwind sailed north of the Russian Island of Severnaya Zemlya without protest from the Russians. The Northwind went north in 1967 and, as I understand it, crossed what could be called the Russian sector line, without protest. However, when this ship sought to pass through the Vilitsky Strait lying between the mainland and island, the Russians did consider this their territorial waters and forbade passage. As it happened, the Northwind became stuck in eight feet of ice and was broken free by our own icebreaker, the Sir John A. Macdonald.
I do not raise this point in order to urge the Canadian government to cease drawing sector
DEBATES	6189
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act lines on the map. We should continue to draw them. However, I draw to the attention of the House that it is not in the interest of this nation to make unreasonable claims. It is not in our interest to make claims more extensive than those of one of the two great superpowers on earth, namely Russia. Our claims should be those which meet our interests and those which we can sensibly enforce. At present, this is the extension of the three-mile limit to the 12-mile territorial limit which, as I pointed out in a previous speech, if all else fails, creates a gate of territorial waters across the Northwest Passage. I maintain that one gate is the equivalent of many gates.
The country remains faced with a test on this matter in which we find the two superpowers, the United States and, according to my understanding the U.S.S.R., in agreement. It is the position of the United States that the waters of archipelagos lying between oceans should be subject to a high seas passage. It is my understanding that Russia, which has some concern about the right of Turkey to close its canals to military traffic in times of war, is supporting the American government in this position. Needless to say, this must be vigorously resisted by the Canadian government. We cannot accept a high seas passage through the Arctic archipelago.
Because my time has almost expired, I am not going to deal with the various questions of international law which I, as layman, understand to support the perfectly justifiable Canadian claim that the Arctic archipelago is not comparable with oceanic archipelagoes such as Indonesia in the West Indies. The Arctic archipelago has never been an international waterway. I am convinced we can prevent it from becoming a high seas waterway. I do not urge the Canadian government to bar innocent passage to safe shipping. In fact, we all look forward to the establishment of considerable commercial traffic through the Northwest Passage, provided it is safe and provided we are the judges as to whether it is safe.
With my eye on the clock, Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its courteous attention.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I too will try to be brief, Mr. Speaker. This bill and Bill C-202 are additions to an awareness of the laws of the north. I think it is right to put things into context as the last speaker did, and I will follow his example, on what was somewhat disparagingly called the northern vision. I participated in an election campaign where the talk was that the govern-
6190	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act ment, led by the right hon. member tor Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), was moving from igloo to igloo. I do not think many people today are quite as disparaging about this foresight. The right hon. member was not the only one. There have been many Canadians throughout the past 100 years who have foreseen the laws of our north.
I do not believe the unanimous vote today in this House was, in any sense, an exhibition of Chauvinism or what might be called hysterical xenophobia in this country. I think we are taking positive action. I know I am not supposed to refer to a vote, but it is very difficult not to do so since these bills came before us in tandum, so to speak. I hope our discussions on this bill and other legislation will be free of anti-Americanism and will present a positive and sensitive view of our country and our needs, both in the north and in our seas. I think the two can be differentiated very easily. I do not see why the government of the United States should have been surprised by this and other legislation.
On February 19, 1970, a distinguished senator, Gaylord Nelson, delivered an important address in the United States Senate when introducing legislation entitled, "The Marine Environment and Pollution Control Act of 1970". I will not bore hon. members or spend time giving the details of this legislation, but the senator could well have taken part in a debate the other day on the bill having to do with pollution in the Arctic.
There is also the matter of the Amchitka Island tests. I am trying to be fair about this. The United States government was also insensitive toward the understandable misgivings of this country about moving nerve gases from Okinawa to the State of Washington. These are really forerunners and part of the total picture of Canadian concern. There is another hon. member who wants to speak about the reservation concerning the international court. I am sure this is so. It is certainly the point of view of members of this party that these reservations are but preludes to international agreements. If there is no international jurisprudence on this aspect and on the pollution aspect, so be it. However, it does not in any way inhibit governments from reaching agreements, as they tried to do in Brussels and I assume will be doing in Stockholm in 1972, to avoid pollution of the oceans.
I cannot resist a rather amusing quote by the former Secretary of State for External Affairs whose views on international matters used to grip the House, for part of my time

DEBATES	April 22, 1970
here, in any event. Speaking of the rule of law in world affairs, he said that international law, while not his mistress, was assuredly his constant companion. Well, the government leader in the Senate is now without a mistress and, apparently, in the light of these reservations, he has no companion.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh, oh.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the well-known interest of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) in this subject matter, I wonder if there might be a disposition on the part of hon. members not to see the clock until, say, ten minutes after six, should the hon. member require extra time in which to give us the benefit of his thoughts.


James Aloysius McGrath: That would depend on how the hon. member proceeds in the few minutes we have left.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: can assure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that should I still be talking at six o'clock he throw a book in my direction and I will take the hint that I have spoken long enough and promptly sit down. Seriously, I thank him for his suggestion, and I am grateful to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) for cutting his remarks short so that I might be able to speak at this time.
I intend to speak first of all on the subject of the territorial sea, the feature which at present most concerns the Canadian public. This new legislation makes it possible for the Canadian government to consider Barrow Strait, and all of Prince of Wales Strait to be entirely Canadian territorial waters, rather than waters in a more questionable position, at least as far as the opinions of some other governments are concerned. We have made it clear by the provisions of this legislation that we regard these as entirely our territorial waters, regardless of the opinions of other nations.
I believe it is becoming a generally accepted idea among all nations that the concept of innocent passage is a term which includes freedom from the risk of pollution. The passage of a ship is not innocent if it results in pollution of the shores on either side of such straits as those I have mentioned. We have no intention of being dogs in the manger on this issue; I agree with previous speakers
April 22, 1970	COMMONS
that we should not become anti-American on this issue. Nevertheless, a coastal state has a special interest in preventing marine pollution, and innocent passage does not include passage through these straits by vessels which do not adequately meet safety or anti-pollution standards which this country has every right to insist upon. I therefore welcome and support the clause of this bill which would repeal section 3 of the present legislation. I feel this is necessary at the present time to make the government's position on the north perfectly clear.
The other point on which I should like to comment is the concept of fisheries closing lines. This is a new concept. It does not go quite as far as I would wish. Some times ago I presented a private member's bill to the House, Bill C-91, which would have made all waters over the continental shelf exclusive Canadian fishing zones. This would be better, in my opinion, than the present bill, but I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this. However, the present proposal is a step in that direction; it is a step based on more traditional concepts than was my bill, and I think it is well worth while.
The fact that we have at present foreign vessels fishing in Queen Charlotte Sound on the west coast, and similar bodies of water on the east coast, is most unfortunate. This new concept of fisheries closing lines will, I hope, tidy up the untidy situation which was left in the original territorial sea and fishing zone legislation of 1964. I would point out that it is not, of course, the final step that should be taken. I commend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for questioning the minister on this point a few minutes ago. It is clear that the minister views this as perhaps a step only in what should be done with regard to the Canadian exclusive fishing zone, and not conservation on the continental shelf affecting many species, and conservation on the high seas affecting such species as salmon. Per-
DEBATES	6191
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act haps this matter might be further clarified at the committee stage of this bill.
We have heard a great deal today about how slow the government has been in bringing forward this amendment-from 1964 to the present day. Some members have stated that we have shown too much concern for the opinions of other nations. May I at least point out that in the five-year period before the original bill the Conservative party was in power, and saw fit to do nothing at all about this subject.


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have kept this discussion on a non-partisan basis so far and I hope the tenor of the debate will continue as it started out. I put on the record the fact that in 1958 and 1960 Canada made worth-while contributions to improving the law of the sea. We were within half a vote of getting agreement.


David Anderson: It is true efforts were made at the Law of the Sea Conferences. But I am talking in terms of legislation, of unilateral action such as has been commended to the House by the hon. member from Newfoundland who spoke earlier this afternoon-I am sorry, I am not very good at remembering names of constituencies.


James Aloysius McGrath: St. John's-the oldest city in Canada.


David Anderson: St. John's. It is important to point out that the original legislation was brought in in 1964 and that it is now being made more effective. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to continue until now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 23, 1970