1970-04-16

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of the report of the third meeting of the constitutional conference held in Ottawa in December last.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 and I base my reason for requesting unanimous consent on the following facts: during March unemployment in Canada increased from 6.5 per cent to 6.7 per cent of the work force, the culmination of a steady rise during the past several months.
What is particularly alarming is the government's expressed intention to continue to deliberately increase unemployment as a means of combating inflation, despite the fact that it has now become clear that unemployment is the most serious problem facing the economy. High interest rates have slowed down the economic activity which provides
employment, and the government has refused to have the Bank of Canada take the lead in gradually lowering interest rates so that economic activity and employment may increase to a satisfactory level.
I therefore move the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That this House, comprising the elected representatives of all of the people of Canada, consider and recommend effective steps to stimulate economic activity, and thereby increase employment to a satisfactory level.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed for consideration by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent of the House is necessary. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the unemployment situation in Canada revealed in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics report released this morning showing 542,000 Canadians unemployed and a national unemployment rate of 6.7 per cent, which is the highest unemployment rate since March, 1964. The serious continuing unemployment problem in Canada has now reached a critical level and the House should now adjourn to discuss this vitally important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has served the required notice of his intention to move the
April 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26. The House is aware, of course, that similar motions have been proposed from time to time in recent months suggesting emergency debates to discuss either rising unemployment or the rising cost of living. The last such motion dealing specifically with unemployment was made by the hon. member for York South and there again it was based on unemployment figures released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Even if I have every possible sympathy with the hon. member with respect to the motion he has just proposed, I doubt very much that the ruling of the Chair at this time can differ from the one which was made in connection with the last similar motion.
On that occasion I reviewed the authorities and the precedents on the subject, and did so at length. In particular, reference was made to a series of rulings by Mr. Speaker Mitch-ener and to subsequent similar rulings. My conclusion was expressed in the following words:
The Chair recognizes readily that the motion raises a matter which is of importance and urgency. 1 am sure it is of important concern to all hon. members of the House. However, a careful and objective interpretation of the relevant Standing Order cannot, in my view, justify the acceptance at this time of the hon. member's motion.
I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the difficulty with which the Chair is faced in a situation such as this one. I am sure many arguments could be advanced for such a debate at this time. But the Chair has to make a procedural ruling and, with regret, I have come to the conclusion that the ruling which was made on an earlier situation such as this one must stand and that the motion cannot be accepted for debate at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the unemployment figures just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the period ending March 21. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in light of these figures, his government would now stop the measures it is taking deliberately to slow down the econo-

my and, on the contrary, take some measures to encourage an increase in employment? I ask him to consider this very earnestly because the number now out of work, 542,000, is higher than the annual figure during the last three years of the great pre-war-depression.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is that again?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The number of Canadians out of work now, according to this figure, is higher than the number of those out of work during the last three years of the great prewar depression.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see
much to be gained by making these comparisons with earlier dates because we would only have to compare the figures now with 1961 and 1962 to realize that we are doing twice as well as the opposition, when in government, was doing at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question remains very serious for the present time, Mr. Speaker, and the only way I can answer is by saying that of course these figures are a very regrettable side effect, which has been discussed before in the House, of the government's fight against inflation. We all remember that a very few months ago the opposition parties were saying that the government was not doing enough about inflation. We indicated that our approach-


An hon. Member:: Don't blame us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to the problem was
dependent upon the voluntary co-operation of all sectors of the economy and that the faster that came about the less the risk of increasing unemployment. The only comment I can add to show that the effect of our policies has not been as predicted by the opposition is that, if we compare the figures today with those of last fall, there has at least been a falling off-in the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec, which indicates that the government's anti-inflationary policies are not having the hard side effects which had been predicted for the less favoured provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary question. Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition but the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate is rising on a question of privilege.
April 16, 1970


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister. Perhaps unintentionally he conveyed to the House information which is not in accordance with the facts when he indicated that the Atlantic provinces have a rate of unemployment which is not higher than that of the fall of 1969 during which period the figure was 8 per cent. The figures released this morning, though they are a dilution of the actual unemployment, indicate that unemployment in Newfoundland is 15.3 per cent, the most serious it has had since it became a Canadian province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I would not think that is a question of privilege. He has made his point in any event and I am sure-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, he has made his point but I cannot make an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: You must not interrupt the Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it the policy of the government that it is necessary to maintain unemployment at these levels in order to conduct an effective fight against inflation? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the grave dissatisfaction that the current policies of the federal government are giving to the Liberal leader in Quebec, Mr. Bourassa.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The second part of the question can be answered by saying this is irrelevant.


An hon. Member:: Bourassa is irrelevant. You are so right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the only apparent reason for the government proceeding with its proposed consumer credit regulations would be to slow down the economy further, is it the intention of the government to proceed with this measure announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget despite these catastrophic levels of unemployment that have been disclosed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to convey to the Minister of Finance that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting he cease to fight against inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Don't be so stupid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it will be of little comfort to the 542,000 unemployed that conditions were worse ten years ago. In view of the fact that the government's anti-inflation program has not succeeded in stabilizing prices, since the cost of living according to the latest figures increased during the month of March compared with February, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government is considering changing its fight against inflation and beginning to do something about the problem of unemployment by proceeding with expansionist policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that if the hon. member feels it is irrelevant what the figures were ten years ago he should also see that it is irrelevant what the figures were 25 years ago. This is the point I was answering.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has not answered my question so I will see if he will answer my question in a previous supplementary. In view of the fact that the unemployment figure is worse in some areas of Canada than in others, particular in the Maritimes where it is 10.8 per cent, in Quebec where it is 9.2 per cent and in British Columbia where it is 7 per cent, is the government planning to adjust its anti-inflation program on a regional basis so as to alleviate the situation in those areas of Canada which are worst affected by unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this gives me occasion to disagree with the facts as they were stated earlier by another member. The September, 1969, figure for the Atlantic provinces of seasonally adjusted unemployment was 8.5 per cent; now it has fallen to 6.9 per cent. The Quebec figure was 7.8 per cent and it has fallen now to 6.7 per cent.


George Harris Hees: What are the regular, straight unemployment figures? Let us have a little honesty.
April 16. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Honesty would be of no avail if you are not intelligent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will come to the hon. member in a moment. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in my supplementary I merely wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, instead of playing with the figures of last September or ten years ago, he would answer my question. Since unemployment figures are much worse in some regions of Canada than in others, does the government plan to adjust its anti-inflationary programs on a regional basis so as to alleviate conditions in those areas which are most adversely affected by unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the point I was making about comparing the figures relating to last fall with those of today was to indicate precisely that the thrust of our antiinflation fight had not hit those provinces that are poorest and in which unemployment is highest. Precisely in those provinces unemployment has fallen over the past several months, which indicates that, difficult though the fight against inflation is, it has hit those less favoured provinces less than the more favoured provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rising on a question of privilege?


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister is allowed to present false information to the House, as he has, then we might as well give up the fight against inflation. Forget about your seasonally adjusted figures. The rate for one province on the east coast is up to 15.3 per cent, the highest in 20 years. The information the Prime Minister is presenting to the House today is not in accordance with the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is advancing his arguments in favour of his anti-inflation policy, has his attention been directed to the words of the Liberal

leader in Quebec, Mr. Robert Bourassa, who had the blessing of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? He has said that he strongly condemns the federal government's anti-inflation program and that its fiscal policy is dictated by mandarins operating in a closed circuit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows that I have to interrupt him on procedural grounds. Perhaps he might ask his question directly.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I take it that although the Prime Minister never reads the newspapers-


An hon. Member:: Let us have the question.


John George Diefenbaker: -he has read what Mr. Bourassa said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Has Mr. Bourassa
brought to the Prime Minister's attention his criticisms and is he justified in stating that if he wins the election these anti-inflation policies will be changed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member asked me if my attention has been drawn to this. The answer, of course, is yes. It was drawn to my attention by the Leader of the Opposition, to whom the right hon. member obviously does not listen, in the first question today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I always admire a witticism. Sometimes I believe the Prime Minister does qualify as a wit but I am beginning to think I am only half right-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, but before I ask my question could I answer a question put by him?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have
enough trouble now without the hon. member answering questions. I believe the hon. member has a supplementary.
April 16, 1970


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't quite hear because there was so much noise. I take it I have the right to point out a couple of facts to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's assumption is incorrect. He can ask a question but not point out facts. If he has a supplementary, he has the floor.


George Harris Hees: It just shows you cannot win them all, Mr. Prime Minister-Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is: In light of the unemployment figures made available today, does he agree that the No. 1 problem facing the economy is unemployment? Will he therefore take the lead in asking the Bank of Canada to lead the way in steadily reducing interest rates so that economic activity can be accelerated and employment provided for our people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked the same question. The only difference in the question is that the word "unemployment" is now being used instead of "inflation". He asked if inflation was not the No. 1 problem. We followed his lead and took it as the No. 1 problem. He is now changing his mind.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister obviously has a static mind. Things change pretty fast in a country like Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Unemployment is the No. 1 problem and it is up to the Prime Minister to take some action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Prime Minister aware, when he gave the House the seasonally adjusted figure for September, 1969, that it is not proper to compare a seasonally adjusted figure in September with one in March? Has he, as he ought to have, noticed that the actual figure in the Atlantic provinces in September, 1969, was 4.9 per cent as against an actual figure today of 10.8 per cent of the work force? Was the Prime Minister trying to give the House information in answer to a question or was he trying to confuse the House and the people of Canada as to the unemployment situation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the second part of the supplementary is in order. Perhaps the Prime Minister may wish to reply to the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for York South.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad to join the argument at this time, Mr. Speaker. I think the whole purpose of having seasonally adjusted figures is precisely in order to permit comparison between unemployment in different seasons. Therefore it was perfectly proper and correct to compare the seasonally adjusted figures for September with those for March. As a matter of fact, it is the only way to compare figures for different seasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will not follow the argument or exchange that has just been started. People who know anything about economics will know what to think about what the Prime Minister has said. Aside altogether from these comparisons, in view of the fact that there is inevitably a time-lag between the introduction of economic policies, whether expansionist or contractionist, and the effect those policies will eventually have on the unemployment situation, will the Prime Minister undertake to the House and the people of Canada that the government will immediately introduce expansionist policies in the hope that at least six or nine months from now the unemployment situation may be improved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION INITIATIVES

John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will not direct my question to the Prime Minister because he appears to be in need of more staff. My question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is being asked by the government to defy the law of gravity. Has his department been given authority through the policies of the government to exercise new and special initiatives in the slow growth areas of this nation in order to overcome the strangling effect of the tremendous increase in unemployment to the point where one province has 15.3 per cent unemployment, even though this is a dilution of the actual unemployment figure?
5930	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to feel the benefits of the programs of which I am responsible. The agreements with the provinces are about to be signed. Those are the only tools available to me to reduce regional disparities. I have every reason to believe that they will be effective to allow normal development of slow growth areas in order to fight unemployment.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-RATIFICATION OF SPECIAL AREAS PROGRAM AGREEMENTS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In
view of the fact that agreements in connection with the special areas program have been signed, and bearing in mind the alarming unemployment figures shown in the latest returns from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, can the minister tell the House why the government of Canada has refused to ratify these agreements to date?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, nobody has refused to ratify agreements. This matter will be settled by competent government agencies. I hope this will be done in the next few days. I cannot think of any means which would be faster at this time to remedy the problem of unemployment in underdeveloped regions than the programs we have prepared, and even if I were to draft a new policy, several months would likely go by before its adoption by the House. Moreover, I have every reason to believe that we have at least a certain influence on this unfortunate situation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yesterday, in the course of the consideration of the estimates of his department, the minister indicated that the agreements with New Brunswick and Newfoundland were being held up by the Treasury Board. Can he not exercise some influence over this branch of the government of which he is a member in order that this program, which is of such importance to the two provinces I have mentioned, may be speedily approved?


Jean Marchand: I did not say the
agreements were held up by Treasury Board.
I said they were before Treasury Board.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-

DEBATES	April 16. 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize how important this matter is, but perhaps we should given an opportunity to others to ask questions. I shall try to return to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate in a few moments, but for the time being the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.



POLLUTION


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. At approximately noon today members of the House of Commons received in their post office boxes a bulletin from the Export Development Corporation announcing the signing of an agreement between the corporation and the Socialist Republic of Roumania concerning the purchase by that country of pollution control equipment. Eighty per cent of the sale price of this equipment will be guaranteed by Canada. Is it the intention of the government to grant to municipalities, industry and private enterprise generally in Canada the benefits of a similar 80 per cent loan in connection with the purchase of their pollution control equipment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Those are the facts indeed. The contract referred to was signed yesterday, and we are delighted with it. As to offering similar terms to Canadian industry, let me say there are already some advantages extended to Canadian companies under present taxation regulations in connection with the purchase of anti-pollution equipment.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister inform us whether or not he intends to consider granting similar loans of 80 per cent to industry in Canada, as is being done for other countries purchasing pollution control equipment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that concessions in this area were announced in the last budget presented by the Minister of Finance, and that the cost of these facilities may be written off over two years.


An hon. Member:: It is not in force yet.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State I will
April 16. 1970



address this question to the Acting Secretary of State or to the Prime Minister. When does the government intend to announce its policy with regard to the recommendations contained in the fourth volume of the report of the Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism tabled yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Probably after we have announced our policy with regard to volume three.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I see I had better direct my supplementary question to the Acting Secretary of State. In view of the statements made in volume four about the great contribution to cultural activities in this country made by ethnic groups other than French and English, will the Secretary of State review the present spending policy under which between $60 million and $70 million is provided in connection with bilingualism and biculturalism compared with a paltry few thousand dollars to advance the cultural activities of other ethnic groups?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Acting Secretary of State):: That kind of review will be made, Mr. Speaker. I might say, though, that the expenditure to which the hon. member has referred in connection with the promotion of bilingualism applies to all Canadians and is for their benefit equally.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. gentleman read again the estimates which provide for the expenditure of these moneys, amounting to between $60 million and $70 million He will find they refer to the French and English cultures. I am referring to the cultural activities of other ethnic groups.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes. And I was referring to the fact that the advantages of bilingualism, and the assistance extended to Canadians to learn one or both of the official languages are to the benefit of all Canadians.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the commitment by President Nixon yesterday to devote approximately $70 million of federal funds to cleaning up the United States side of 22218-29J
Inquiries of the Ministry the Great Lakes. Does the government of Canada intend to commit federal funds to cleaning up the Canadian side?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The situation on the Canadian side is not identical to that on the United States side where there is a heavier population and more intensified industry which has been operating over a longer period of time. The pollution problem there is probably more grievous. We have meetings arranged for the 24th of this month, I believe, with the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for water to discuss our mutual concern in connection with boundary waters. I believe that through such consultations we can achieve co-ordination of the efforts on both sides.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I take it the answer to my question is no. Would the minister agree that as a result of the introduction of amendments to the Fisheries Act, the introduction of the Northern Inland Waters Act, and the absence of any federal commitment under the Canada Water Act, the Canada Water Act is now obsolete even before it has been passed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that his question is argumentative. Perhaps he would like to rephrase the question, if he has a supplementary to ask. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Simcoe North.



AIR-ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CENTRE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious menace of air pollution, which outstanding authorities estimate is contributing to 50 per cent of all illness, and the fact that there is no centre of scientific knowledge in Canada which could direct any attack on pollution, I should like to ask the minister whether he has any plans to set up such a national centre to combat air pollution?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I do not believe the premise of the hon. member's question to be correct. We have set up in the Department of National Health and Welfare an air pollution division with an expanded staff to undertake the type of program and research to which the hon. member has referred.
April 16. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Philip Bernard Rynard: I want to refer to what Dr. Solandt before the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps he would ask a supplementary question rather than refer to what has been said by the gentleman he has just mentioned.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister take into consideration the statement made by Dr. Solandt, an outstanding scientist, that there is no such centre?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ESTABLISHMENT OF OVER-ALL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will he give consideration to the setting up of an over-all environmental council to co-ordinate the fight against all pollution of our environment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for that very constructive suggestion and I will take it into consideration.



DEATH OR ILLNESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PRESENCE OF MERCURY IN FISH

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that mercury, to an extent much above the point of human toleration, has been found to be present in fish that have been used for food for several months, and perhaps for several years, has the Department of National Health and Welfare any record of illness or death in Canada being attributed to mercury poisoning?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. We work very closely on this matter with the Department of Fisheries, and if our inspectors find any fish that have any parts per million above permissible tolerances we communicate with fisheries and confiscate the fish in question.



MERCURY-WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related or a supplementary question that I should like to address to the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question is supplementary to the one just asked as well as supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
In view of the potential danger that mercury threatens to our entire environment and the knowledge of such danger since the Japanese poisonings of 1950, is the government now planning to include mercury on its list of water quality standards?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the question of mercury pollution and its control at the federal level comes very largely under the department of my colleague the Minister of Fisheries. I do not believe that there is in contemplation an amendment to the Canada Water Act to include minerals such as mercury, as I believe these can be controlled effectively under the Fisheries Act. However, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries may want to add to my answer.



HOUSING


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the large number of unemployed and the very drastic reduction in unemployment that could be effected by an aggressive housing program, and in view of the sharp drop in housing starts, is the minister giving consideration to accelerating the program of new housing starts?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there will be an increased program of housing starts emanating from the application of the funds in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget. The effect of these funds on housing starts statistics has not yet been felt, but in light of the rate of approvals now being made I think this will be noticed to be quite significant over the next two or three months. With regard to the flow of mortgage money from the private sector, we are having continuing consultation with my colleague the Minister of Finance.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any plans to accelerate the building of housing in the private sector, since housing starts are down by
April 16, 1970



50 per cent or more compared with the same period last year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can comment any further or add to my previous answer.



REVIEW OF CEILING ON LOANS FOR STUDENT ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. In view of the fact that the reduced CMHC funds available for student housing this year will cover only the shortfall or deficit in student housing requirements last year, is it the intention of the government to review the new ceiling of $45 million which it established for student housing construction for 1970? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because the present ceiling on funds is restricting university enrolment plans and is about to force students to compete against those who would normally qualify-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we did review this matter very carefully and it was with considerable regret that we found we were unable to provide more funds for student housing. Our decision was based on the fact that in comparison to low-income housing in other sectors of the market we had provided quite a sizeable proportion of our funds for student housing and had to make the hard choice of meeting priorities within an increased, but still restricted, budget.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A further supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer, is it the intention of the government to develop, in co-operation with the universities, a long-term student housing policy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is a special study going on with regard to student housing and future requirements for student housing. This study is being undertaken in conjunction and in co-operation with some universities.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the fact that housing involves the
Inquiries of the Ministry whole question of urban affairs, can the minister advise whether he has yet received the study on urban problems, with a view to making recommendations with respect to a national policy for our cities?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that whole matter is under very active consideration by myself and my colleagues.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer would he consider once the report is in his hands, placing the recommendations that come from the cabinet in a white paper so it can be studied by a standing committee on urban affairs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are considering all kinds of options for making the information available to the House, to our colleagues in other governments and to the country at large.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that action in so many fields, including old age pensions and veterans pensions and allowances, depends upon the appearance of the government's white paper on social security, can the minister say whether the writing of this paper has yet been completed?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister use his good offices to expedite this work so that we can soon have this paper, which was promised last October in the Throne Speech?


John Carr Munro: I can only advise the hon. member that the government's position has not changed. As formerly stated, we expect to have the white paper before Parliament prior to the end of this session.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
5934	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Communications. Now that the April 15 deadline has passed, would the minister tell the House whether the post office is taking on truck drivers in accordance with the Goldenberg report, and also whether anything is being done to protect the truckers from violence?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we have always done the best we could to provide adequate security in this special situation. Today is April 16, and since the union has refused to abide by the recommendations of the Goldenberg report and the government's very generous proposals, we are in fact proceeding to implement the program of reorganization that we have in Montreal.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would he kindly advise the House whether, despite the widespread criticisms of the government's white paper on veterans affairs by the national veterans associations, it is now the decision of the government to proceed essentially with the proposals contained in that white paper?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should state that the white paper was extremely well received by most of the veterans associations. They appeared 19 times before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in order to improve some of the aspects of the white paper. I hope that soon this committee will produce its recommendations, and it will then be the task of the government to consider these recommendations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Would the minister kindly tell the House whether the testimony of the deputy minister on April 7 represented the decision of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that there are procedural difficulties about the question as asked.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase it, if I may. Am I right in saying that the government has already arrived at this decision, as expressed by its representatives?
[Mr. Allmand.l
DEBATES	April 16, 1970


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, those who were present at the committee this morning had the answer from the minister.



TAXATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is a related one in the sense that it also concerns a white paper. Would the Prime Minister now agree to withdraw the white paper on tax reform in view of the fact that at this time in our industrial development as a nation we have large unemployment and the government's proposals are frightening away that investment and development which would create projects that would provide employment for those out of work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-ACTION OF SIMP- SONS-SEARS IN HAVING EMPLOYEES SIGN FORM LETTERS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question would be directed to the Minister of Finance if he were here, but perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Simpsons-Sears Limited of Toronto is preparing form letters opposing the white paper on taxation and seeking to have their employees sign such letters which the company will then forward to Members of Parliament? If he is aware of this, will he make some statement discouraging such action which is not likely to elicit a fair view from the people concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the prolonged holiday in the south, on which the Prime Minister sent the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister's plan for trying to plaster over the split in the cabinet which occurred due to the postal strike in Montreal, and when will the Postmaster General be allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 16, 1970


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, just for information I ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Has he authorized an inspection and does he now have a report made by an independent expert building inspector pertaining to the Bath-Mill-haven maximum security prison contract?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is the type of question which could be considered at the time of adjournment. If there is extreme urgency, the minister might like to reply briefly.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion for production of papers on this very point in the name of the hon. gentleman.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: When may we expect the report, Mr. Speaker?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but because of his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. In view of the government's announced intention to establish a military headquarters or base in northern Canada, could the minister assure the House that the very adequate facilities which now exist at Fort Churchill will be fully assessed and fully considered before the final decision is made?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation which he must assume will be considered.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Did the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry receive a telegram today from the board of governors of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange urgently requesting that final consideration of Bill C-197 be held in abeyance until the final report of the agricultural task force is released and studied by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the general public in order to provide and opportunity to relate all mutually relevant proposals? What was the minister's answer to this very important request?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall receiving it today. However, I shall inquire of my office. If it has been received I have not answered it. I should like to advise, however, that the report of the task force on agriculture will probably be available long before that bill has passed all stages and particularly the stage where it goes through the Standing Committee on Agriculture.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretry of State for External Affairs if he is now in a position to say whether he will be tabling the note of protest from the United States in connection with Bill C-202 and Bill C-203. I ask this question, of course, in view of my understanding that we will be debating one of these bills this afternoon.


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, today we replied to the note from the United States and raised with that government the question of whether it would have any objection to tabling. I have not yet had a reply. In any event I hope we will proceed with our discussion of this legislation not in the light of United States objections but in the light of Canadian interests.


George Harris Hees: What courage is that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a simple, straightforward question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a matter of opinion, but I suggest in all seriousness that if the Prime Minister of this country and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, sir, wish the business of the House to be conducted in an orderly way-
April 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I will allow him to ask a supplementary question, but I do not think we should anticipate the debate which will be taking place later this afternoon. This having been said, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor for a supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will always seek to co-operate with you, but I simply want to say very bluntly that with the kind of answers the Prime Minister has been giving and which the Secretary of State for External Affairs just gave it will be very difficult to proceed with the business of this House in an orderly way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the report by the Department of Manpower which notes that one of the reasons for increasing unemployment and migration of people from Saskatchewan is the decrease in public works spending, would the Prime Minister undertake to request the Minister of Public Works to take steps to increase public works projects in Saskatchewan in view of economic conditions there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works has already raised this point with me and we are discussing this eventuality.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noticed that the question period expired a few minutes ago. Perhaps we might have two sup-plementaries, one from the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with you, sir, and due to the fact that the Prime Minister is not well prepared today I will wait until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Order, please. Is the hon. member for York South rising on a point of order?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask Your Honour to permit me to ask a question

supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the tabling of notes. It is a very brief question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the fact that he is not in a position to table the notes passed between the governments of Canada and the United States, whether he has issued any kind of press release or communique about the reply Canada has sent to the United States administration and, if so, could he table a copy of that communique?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, we replied to the United States note this morning and at the same time asked the United States government, in light of the discussion we had here in the House of Commons yesterday, whether they would reconsider the question of publication and they promised an answer within a few hours. I do not think it would be advisable for me to issue any summary of what I said in my reply to the United States note until I ascertain definitely whether the United States government will agree to the publication of both.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Order, please. The President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday during the question period several members of the opposition suggested that the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be permitted to follow immediately after the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the debate, they being the two ministers responsible, so that the whole government viewpoint could be before the House before opposition speakers respond. If the House would like to follow that procedure my colleagues would be prepared to co-operate in this way. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would determine the view of the House on this point.
April 16, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of state for External Affairs, without the telegram and the statement from the United States and without his reply, has nothing too much to contribute until that time and we will wait.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEPOSIT OF WASTE;

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-202, to prevent pollution of the areas of the arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which we are considering today, concerning an Act to prevent pollution of the Arctic waters is one of the most important pieces of legislation this government has introduced in the House.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in the House last October 24, Canada has four primary interests in the Arctic: the security of Canada, the economic development of the North, the preservation of the ecological balance, and the continued high stature of Canada in the international community.
Mr. Speaker, This bill, together with the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones bill, is designed to further these interests for Canada. As such, it is a continuation of past policies of successive Canadian governments to assert Canadian interests north of the 60th parallel -for the native people who live there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I realize the minister is speaking on a difficult subject but I wonder if he would read more slowly from this lectern which is being used for the first time in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I have some reservations about the new procedure or innova-22218-30
DEBATES	5937
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill tion, a very good word suggested to me by the hon. member. I am not sure whether we should get ourselves involved in a situation where members who want to make statements will be bringing in lecterns. I have some reservations. I realize that in some circumstances, for example the budget address, it is customary for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to bring in something which resembles a podium.


Gerald William Baldwin: Or something which resembles a budget.


Mr. Speaker:: There is nothing in the rules which says that a member cannot use this kind of material assistance to deliver his speech. In fact, many of us have used an accumulation of Hansards as a prop for the speeches which are being made to the House. I have some doubts as to whether we should extend this practice, as is being done now by the minister. It might be better if we did not.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that no member would raise objections to what is being done. The minister has before him a platform, a pulpit as it were. I have seen members who have piled up Hansards by way of support, and I am sure the House would not want to prevent the minister from trying out the method he is adopting.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the remarks made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, but I will not break tradition today and I will hold my extensive notes in my hand.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) breaks it every day.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Also for the untapped wealth we seek to discover for the benefit of all Canadians, for the natural quality of the land and water which covers over 40 per cent of the territory of our country.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have reason to be proud of northern Canada. I think it fair to say that for too long we have neglected the North. Today we pay the price for some of that neglect. But since the 1950's, successive Canadian governments have accepted their responsibilities, and have developed our interest in Canada's newest and most promising frontier.
While the North is not without its problems, we can be thankful that men of foresight came before us. Let us hope that in
April IS, 1970
5938	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill twenty years time men will say that we, in this House, at this time, acted with the same spirit of realism and foresight as did those who came before us.
This is what the government is trying to do with the Arctic Waters Pollution Act-to act with realism and foresight, to seize upon the opportunities new technology is bringing to the North, and to control the use of this new technology so that it brings benefits, not disaster.
This government is deeply concerned with the problem of environmental protection. Steps have already been taken to protect water quality through the Canada Waters Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act, that have been introduced during the current session. Other measures are about to be taken or are being planned in such fields as air pollution, fisheries, and offshore shipping south of the 60th parallel.
I plan soon to recommend to the government legislation for the control and use of northern lands. I am sure hon. members will appreciate the need, in response to the quickening pulse of northern development, to ensure that this very development does not leave behind it a trail of unsightly scars which may spoil the northern landscape for years to come.
The Arctic Waters Pollution bill is a further important expression of this government's concern for environmental quality in the country in general, and in northern Canada in particular. It is further evidence that Canada is prepared to meet its responsibilities in maintaining and developing the Canadian Arctic.
During the past two or three years we have seen throughout the world instances of massive pollution disasters, which have created public awareness of the problem. The Torrey Canyon off the Coast of the United Kingdom; Santa Barbara, California, the tanker Arrow in Chedabucto Bay, have all shown the damage that can be done and have underlined the inadequacies of present law. There is no doubt about the threat. There is no doubt about the damage that can be done.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Now, as the economic pressure of resource development in the North increases in speed and scope, the need for environmental protective measures takes on a new sense of urgency.
Northern Canada is on the brink significant developments in the fields of mining and


oil and in the transportation of these resources to world markets. The Government is participating in and encouraging these developments through the Panartic Oils Ltd., and it is stimulating it through important assistance programs in favour of private enterprise.
Canadians have been excited by the break through in transportation made by the S.S. Manhattan and the ice-breaker Sir John A. Macdonald in opening up the Northwest Passage. This new technology of Arctic shipping will provide Canada and other nations with great opportunities. The government welcomes these developments. The government wants Canadian Arctic waters to be opened up to commercial shipping.
The effect of this new legislation would be to make clear that the Northwest Passage is to be opened for the passage of shipping of all nations subject to the necessary conditions required to protect the delicate ecological balance of the Canadian Arctic.
This bill clearly demonstrates to the international community the basis on which Canada, as a coastal state, with its unique responsibilities for protecting the northern environment, will welcome international use of its waters. Investors in Canada's North will now know the rules of the game regarding sea transportation, and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will encourage commercial shipping in the North and the development of our last frontier.

We are moving, by this bill, to prevent pollution of Canada's northern coast, and the government will be dealing with pollution legislation applying to the east and west coasts at an early date.
There are two reasons for separate pieces of legislation. First, the true Arctic is unique. It has a fragile ecology, meaning that the environment can easily be spoiled and that it may never fully recover from any severe violation of nature. Many Eskimo people in the region still are wholly or partially dependent on wildlife on the land, and on the fish of the sea for their existence.
The second reason relates to the fact that measures required to control pollution offshore from the east and west coasts in some respects must be far more complicated since shipping routes, regulations and patterns have developed, and land use and habitation have become established. It is the intent of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), to develop appropriate measures
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
as fast as possible to deal with this situation off the east and west coasts of Canada.
Maritime law is evolving, but more slowly than we would wish in Canada. For centuries emphasis has been placed on the right of shipping to the use of the world's sea lanes without any regard to the effect that this might have on adjacent coastal states. While this may have been practical before, now when millions of barrels of oil are afloat in tankers on the high seas on any given day the threat of pollution is real, and the interests of coastal states, as opposed to nations that have large commercial fleets, must be recognized. A state, and particularly those offering flags of convenience, cannot expect in the world community to continue these activities without regard to the interests of other nations.
At the World Shipping Conference in Brussels last year it was obvious that these states continue to expect to have absolute priorities for their particular requirements. It became clear to the government of Canada that unilateral action would have to be taken at this time if Canada was to protect its own urgent interests. That is why Canada is extending its jurisdiction for pollution control purposes 100 miles from its coast line in the case of commercial shipping, and more than that in the case of commercial exploitation of the continental shelf, where our environment may be threatened. It is doing this on the basis of its right and responsibility to protect the Canadian environment, both in its seas and on its shores, from real threats of pollution.
But let it be clear that we stand ready at any time to co-operate with the world community in the development of a regime for the prevention of pollution and the protection of the environment, particularly along the coastlines of the world. Canada, therefore, has decided to lead the way and to show by example what can and should be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will, however, continue to participate in all efforts to bring about effective pollution control regimes acceptable to all nations. I believe that both at home and abroad this bill will be viewed in its proper light as a legitimate and necessary extension of Canada's jurisdiction off-shore in an area which is of direct and unique concern to Canada alone.
I should now like to turn to some of the main aspects of the bill itself. The thrust of the bill is directed towards the prevention of pollution of Canadian Arctic waters. It deals 22218-30*
DEBATES	5939
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill with pollution arising from shipping, from land based installations, and from commercial activities such as oil drilling carried out on the continental shelf.
The bill prohibits, under prescribed penalties, the deposit of waste in Arctic waters, or on the islands or mainland under conditions where it may enter these waters. The definition of waste is comprehensive and covers any substances which would degrade or alter the Arctic waters to an extent detrimental to their use by man, or by any animals, fish or plant that are useful to man. This definition, and the provision in the bill for regulations to prescribe the type and quantity of waste that may be deposited, are similar to those provided in the Canada water bill and the Northern inland waters bill.
The legislation regarding shipping will effectively be brought into force by the prescription of safety control zones by regulation of the Governor in Council. Within a shipping safety control zone ships will be required to comply with technical requirements relating to hull structure, navigational aids, qualifica-ions of personnel, and time and route of passage. Ships not meeting these requirements will not be permitted to enter the safety control zone. At certain times of the year, or when certain ice conditions prevail, ships maybe barred from entering the zone.
Some ships may already meet most of the required standards. The bill provides that where such a ship wishes to enter the safety control zone a certificate may be issued in advance evidencing compliance with the standards prescribed. Ships owned or operated by a sovereign power other than Canada may be exempted from application of the regulations provided the Governor in Council is satisfied that these ships comply with standards substantially equivalent to those prescribed by Canadian regulations and that all reasonable precautions will be taken to reduce the deposit of waste.
Emphasizing again the preventive aspects of this legislation, the bill provides for pollution prevention officers who will be given power to enter any land based operation undergoing construction, alteration or extension, that may result in the deposit of waste in the Arctic waters, to determine whether adequate standards are being complied with. The Governor in Council may issue instructions requiring any necessary modifications to the work, or may prohibit the work entirely.
5940	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
The pollution prevention officer will perform similar functions with respect to commercial operations carried out on the continental shelf, and will also have the authority both to board a ship within a safety control zone for inspection purposes, or to order a ship in or near the safety control zone to remain outside it if he suspects that the ship does not comply with the standards applicable within the zone.
All of these provisions are designed to prevent the possibility of pollution occurring. We recognize, however, that in spite of all the careful preventive measure that may and will be taken under this legislation, there still remains the danger of serious pollution resulting from accidents or other unforeseen cause. The bill therefore provides for civil liability resulting from the deposit of waste by persons engaged in exploring, developing or exploiting the natural resources on the land adjacent to the Arctic waters or on the continental shelf, or by persons carrying on any undertaking on the mainland or islands of the Canadian Arctic or on Arctic waters, or by owners of ships navigating in Arctic waters, or owners of cargo on any such ships. This liability is absolute and does not depend on proof of fault or negligence. The bill also sets out procedures for recovering in Canadian courts.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The bill provides that the Governor in Council may require evidence of financial responsibility to be provided by these persons and it is intended that this evidence should be adequate to cover the costs of clean-up and damage resulting from any pollution. Recognizing, however, that we are as yet not able to ascertain the full extent of possible damage, the bill makes provision for regulations providing for the limitation of liability of these persons so that commercial activity shall not be unduly inhibited by unrealistic forecasts of possible damage.
In closing, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whose report to the House on December 16 last year underlined the importance of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, with this legislation we are pioneers on the frontier of international law. This legislation goes beyond any previous action by the Canadian government for the control of pollution and is in advance of any action by the international community.

DEBATES	April 16, 1970
Although we have taken this action unilaterally, we stand ready at all times to enter into international agreement which will provide for control over the dangers of pollution. Until this occurs, however, we must and will act now to protect the ecology of the north. This bill is evidence of our determination in this regard. I would ask that all members of the House give the Arctic waters pollution prevention bill full and firm support.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Oxford has a question.


Mr. Nesbill:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the hon. Minister who has concluded his remarks. Would the minister undertake to use his good offices, when this bill goes before a committee, to supply witnesses who can answer questions particularly concerning the ecology of the north so that we can find out exactly what kind of pollution dangers may be envisaged by the minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think this is quite a valid question and the government will be ready to make everything available to the committee. For example, there are people within the government who know a lot about it and we will be willing to provide the names of those experts. I know there are a lot of people in Canada who will be interested in making a contribution, in view of the importance of the ecological balance in the north, and who will be very happy to testify. However, as I understand the rules of this House it is up to the committee to decide which people they want to call. We will do everything we can to collaborate to that end.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asking a question?


Mr. Barnett:: I should like to address a question to the minister before he concludes his remarks, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether at this stage he could make available to members of the House a map or a chart, something which would define for us visually the verbal description of the area involved. I wonder whether that might be available in a form which could be included in today's Hansard as an appendix so that the people of Canada could have a visual representation of the area involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that these things could be dealt with in committee.
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
I have no maps with me. The pollution zone will be defined later on by order in council. We cannot now table maps of these zones because we are not ready as yet to do so. This legislation gives the power needed by the government to define these protection zones where there is danger of pollution but they are not embodied in the legislation. The legislation covers the area above the 60th parallel where we will have the power to define the zones.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that the Canadian people not be misled by what is proposed in Bills C-202 and C-203 which must be taken together although, of course, I understand that we are discussing Bill C-202 this afternoon. The government has pretended to assert a strong claim to sovereignty and has made a dramatic withdrawal from the jurisdiction of international courts. Canadians should not be misled about what, in fact, is proposed.
These two bills have to be considered together. They are a package. I suggest that, by introducing them, the government does not expand our claim to sovereignty; it reduces it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: These bills together are but a half-measure and indicate the government has abandoned Canada's claim to sovereignty in certain critical parts of the Arctic. I am afraid that the weak and limited nature of the claim to sovereignty of this government will haunt other Canadian governments for years, and probably forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In so far as pollution control is concerned, of course we support the bill and I am sure the people of Canada support it. But let it be clear that there are two separate questions here, pollution control on the one hand and Canadian sovereignty on the other. While we in this party welcome and support any effective action to prevent pollution of our north, even at this late date, we cannot let the government get away with the claim that it is, at the same time, serving Canada's interests in asserting sovereignty.
As the minister has explained, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-202 defines the jurisdiction that the government of Canada proposes to exercise in order to control the pollution of a zone that is defined in the bill. The Prime Minister (Mr. DEBATES	5941
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill Trudeau) has emphasized that this is an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction rather than a claim to sovereignty.
On the other hand, Bill C-203 which was introduced at the same time, purports to redefine our territorial waters from three miles to 12 miles from a baseline as defined in the bill. In other words, Bill C-203 constitutes an assertion of sovereignty with regard to this redefinition of our territorial waters. But it is very clear from Bill C-203 that the government is not asking the Parliament of Canada to assert sovereignty over any waters beyond the 12-mile limit that is proposed. Indeed, sir, in the circumstances, it is clear in the context not only does Bill C-203 not involve an assertion of any sovereignty beyond the 12-mile limit, but by implication at least involves the abandonment of any claim to sovereignty in waters beyond the 12-mile limit. These are waters that we have claimed. We can all agree very readily that the 12-mile limit will not include all the water between the Arctic Islands or all the water between the Arctic Islands and the mainland and, therefore, if Bill C-203 is passed in its present form, there will be substantial blocks of water over which Canada has, by implication at least, abandoned any claim to sovereignty. These are waters over which this country has been claiming sovereignty.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister raised doubts a year ago about our claims to these waters, or some of these waters. I say in all frankness and bluntness that, although he raised certain claims a year ago, he now is presenting bills through his ministers which amount to an abandonment of these claims. We have asked questions of the Prime Minister before as to what waters Canada was claiming. He has told us in the House that we would have to wait to see the legislation which would define the claims that Canada is making. We have now received this legislation and can see that the waters over which Canada is claiming sovereignty fall far short of the waters over which the people of Canada and their governments were claiming sovereignty and far short of the waters over which the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has urged the government to assert sovereignty. I suggest that in these circumstances the remark of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that he hoped we would look after the interests of Canada in this debate were far out of place.
5942	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


Mitchell William Sharp: But well justified.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Bill C-202 is designed to exercise control of pollution in Arctic waters. This, of course, is a very urgent problem. I think we have been lucky. We were lucky with regard to the first voyage of the Manhattan, because the ship entered our Arctic waters subject to no regulations of ours with regard to anti-pollution matters. It suffered damage; yet, fortunately, the north apparently incurred no pollution damage as a result thereof. We were lucky.
If we are to believe many scientific experts, time is running out for the people of this earth. Everything possible must be done to halt the pollution menace facing mankind. For this reason, I cannot quarrel with any anti-pollution measure adopted with regard to the Canadian Arctic, unless it be on the grounds that it is not enough or, for some reason, cannot be enforced. I say now that the government proposal to declare a pollution zone in the Arctic may not have the teeth to effectively ensure pollution control in this delicate environment. Canada has already been exposed to endless danger by the government that has, at the least, been extremely haphazard in its approach to this pollution menace.
Scientists have long been warning us of the danger of pollution-pollution of the land, air and water-and serious doubts are being expressed as to our very future unless we show some respect for nature and the environment in which we have been given the privilege of life. The risk of a Torrey Canyon disaster hangs over us all, and the best insurance policy in the world would not and could not compensate for the damage to our environment if anything of that magnitude were to take place in the north, as the minister indicated to us this afternoon. A disaster of that proportion would upset the delicate balance of nature in the Arctic and might lead to a complete ecological breakdown. It could reach out to every man, woman and child on this earth. So, we feel that not only are we defending Canada's interests when we fight pollution in the north, but that we are serving in a very real sense the interests of the world.
Pollution control is urgent but it is important also to Canada that we maintain our claim to the sovereignty of the waters between the islands and that we do not abandon that claim. The two bills taken together, Mr. Speaker, will have a very profound effect upon Canada's position in the north for all

DEBATES	April 16, 1970
time. We cannot foresee now, in any precise way, the manner in which the north may be developed. I think it is fair to say that even the best informed people can only visualize this now in a rather dim way.
We thought that the waters between the islands, the sovereignty over which this government is abandoning, were our waters, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has said that there is a lot of sentiment about the north; nevertheless, I suggest that it is not for the Prime Minister or any minister of the government to abandon what Canadians have regarded as theirs simply because the Prime Minister or other ministers cannot see that there is any particularly useful purpose in maintaining the claim of Canadian jurisdiction over these waters. Instead of asserting in a clear fashion the Canadian claim of jurisdiction over the waters between the islands and also the waters around the islands through use of the base line technique, which all Canadians expect their government to do, the government of Canada has introduced these two bills which, taken together, imply the abandonment of our assertion of sovereignty over much of the waters that we regarded as ours.
As to pollution control and the bill specifically before us this afternoon, it is clear of course that we are accepting a large responsibility. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will perhaps give us a little more information as to why the figure of 100 miles was selected, instead of 125 miles or 150 miles, in connection with pollution control.


An hon. Member:: That is a magic number.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have accepted this
responsibility. The government has decided that it cannot wait, that it cannot take the time to work toward an international agreement, and that we must accept this responsibility by ourselves. I can accept that point of view with regard to pollution control. I said, and I say again, that we are the only ones who are going to accept this responsibility. We are accepting it and we have decided to go it alone. We are exempting ourselves from the jurisdiction of the International Court. That will prevent our being interfered with by that court, but of course it will not in itself help us to enforce our laws with regard to the control of pollution.
Having accepted the responsibility of controlling pollution in this area, and I agree that we should accept the responsibility, we must
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
now make certain that we discharge this responsibility. Having accepted the responsibility, I and the hon. members of this House will expect this government to prepare itself to discharge its responsibilities and, incidentally, to tell us how it intends to enforce these measures it proposes.


An hon. Member:: Through flower power.
Another hon. Member: Through Jamieson's navy.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When discussing the north, the Prime Minister suggested that we might make a claim to sovereignty. I suppose his remarks also applied to the question of jurisdiction. The Prime Minister said recognition could only be denied us in one of two ways, either taking us to the courts or taking us to war. I suppose the choice of weapon would be up to us. The Prime Minister has eliminated the possibility of being taken to court. Does this mean he was serious when he made those remarks? Does he expect we might be taken to war in the course of exercising this jurisdiction? Surely not, Mr. Speaker. Surely, this was a case of over-simplification when the Prime Minister put forward this view of the position of our country. I think we must regard it as one of his less sensible remarks.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government owe this House and the people of Canada an explanation as to how Canada proposes to enforce these regulations which apply to areas beyond our territorial waters. This is what this government is asking Parliament to define. If we accept that responsibility, then we must carry it out. We must not fail, not only because we do not want to look silly but because we have accepted a heavy responsibility.
I believe the Canadian people will support these measures if they are enforced. However, they want to know how the government hopes to enforce them. Without taking any more time of the House this afternoon, while there will be many questions of detail with regard to the bill that can be examined in committee, I say without any reservation that I and my party support Bill C-202 in principle. We very earnestly support it as a measure to control the pollution of the north. However, we would like some information as to why this limit of 100 miles was chosen and we would like to know how the government proposes to enforce these regulations. While this party very heartily endorses the purpose of this bill,
DEBATES	5943
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill we and the people of Canada regret very much that in the process of placing these two bills before the House the government is redefining our territorial waters in such a way as to, in effect, abandon the Canadian claim of sovereignty of waters between the islands as well as some of the waters surrounding the islands. The abandonment of this claim will likely haunt governments for many years to come. It is very likely it will prejudice the permanent position of Canada in the north, a most regrettable situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, 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. I go further and express the hope that we will have a recorded division on these bills. I think we should let the whole world know that on this question Canadians are united and unanimous in the support of exercising jurisdiction over pollution in the Arctic archipelago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think this House should seize an early opportunity to make clear to our friends south of the border that we will not tolerate anyone pushing this government around. This is a privilege which we reserve for the opposition!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would have been preferable if the government had made a forthright declaration of sovereignty over the Arctic rather than restricting itself to an assertion of jurisdiction to control pollution. I indicated in the House on January 22 on behalf of the NDP our wholehearted support of the statement which was unanimously endorsed by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in their report of Tuesday, September 16, 1969. They stated in that report:
Your committee recommends that the government of Canada indicate to the world, without delay, that vessels, surface and submarine, passing through Canada's Arctic Archipelago are and shall be subject to the sovereign control and regulation of Canada.
April 16. 1970
5944	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
Such a declaration by the government of Canada would have been preferable, but I do not consider that confining ourselves to a claim of jurisdiction for the purpose of controlling pollution prevents us in the future from making a forthright declaration of sovereignty. I hope the day will come when the current government will do just that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We regret that the government found it necessary to opt out from the jurisdiction of the International Court on this particular question. There are other methods which may have been used which I will discuss later in my remarks. These are just minor points. I want to make it abundantly clear that we are in complete accord on the main purposes of Bill C-202 and Bill C-203, because these bills set out two fundamental principles. First, there is a declaration of Canada's jurisdiction over the Arctic archipelago for the purpose of controlling pollution. Second, there is the assertion of Canada's sovereignty over its territorial waters, which are now to be extended to a limit of 12 nautical miles on base lines drawn from headland to headland.
I submit that this legislation is absolutely necessary in a modern technological age. Much is said about the law of the sea, but in many respects the law of the sea does not have the necessary provisions to deal with the problems that have arisen in a modern age. For example, the three-mile limit on territorial waters which was set in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries represented the range which a canon could fire from a sailing vessel. New problems have arisen today that could not possibly have been envisaged in the sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. These new problems include such things as pollution from oil tankers, the possibility of exploiting the resources of the seabed and the discharge of wastes which not only can adversely affect the fishing industry and the coastal state in question, but also contaminate the shoreline.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Here are three new areas which are not dealt within international law as it affects the sea. The first is pollution. This affects Canada even more than it affects most coastal states because of our extended coastline. Hon. members will recall the trouble we had with the Arrow and the pollution it caused in Chedabucto Bay. This underlines the need to 
exercise authority over tankers and other vessels likely to cause pollution and contaminate our shoreline. Because of climatic conditions, the Arctic is particularly vulnerable to pollution. Anything which upsets the ecological balance in the Arctic will have disastrous consequences for marine life in that region. Moreover, pollution in the Arctic could drift southward, contaminating our eastern and western coastlines. Canada must deal with pollution whether there is provision in international law to take care of it, or not.
The second new situation which has arisen has to do with fishing rights. The three-mile territorial limit has proven inadequate to protect the fishing rights of coastal states. This was tackled by the Norwegians in 1951 when they extended the jurisdiction of their fishing rights by drawing baselines from headland to headland and extending their territorial seas 12 miles beyond. This action was upheld by the International Court in 1968 and finally incorporated in an international convention in the 1958 conference on the law of the sea.
In September, 1945, a proclamation was made by President Truman of the United States in which the United States unilaterally declared its right to regulate and control conservation in certain areas of the high seas where its nationals were fishing and to enter into agreements with others regarding conservation if they were also fishing in the same area. This declaration, which the United States enforced without any reference to international law, was accepted by the Geneva conference on the law of the sea in 1958.
The third area which is not covered by international law, but which is calling for action, has to do with the exploitation of the resources of the sea bed. It is only common sense to recognize that no coastal state can allow nationals from another state to drill for oil or exploit the resources of the sea bed to within three miles of the coastal state's shoreline. The United States itself recognized this fact in the Truman proclamation of September 28, 1945. In that proclamation, the United States unilaterally declared that it would exercise complete control over the resources of the continental shelf, which extends as far as 250 miles off the east coast and 50 miles off the west coast of the United States.


An hon. Member:: Will you telephone Mackenzie King?
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): The United States also issued a proclamation saying that aircraft flying within 200
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
miles of the United States coast identify themselves. I am not complaining about this. In an age of aeronautics, a country must protect its citizens. What I am pointing out is that in the interest of preventing pollution, in the interest of protecting the fishing industry, in the interest of protecting resources on the sea bed adjacent to the territory of a coastal state, other nations, and particularly our friends the Americans, have by unilateral action taken the necessary steps to safeguard themselves, their resources and their people, without waiting for international law to catch up.
The fact is, the law of the sea has not kept pace with changing conditions. The release sent out by the United States information service regarding the note which was sent to the Canadian government by the State Department, reads:
The United States does not recognize any exercise of coastal state jurisdiction over our vessels on the high seas and thus does not recognize the right of any state unilaterally to establish a territorial sea of more than three nautical miles or exercise more limited jurisdiction in any area beyond 12 nautical miles.
We, therefore, regret the introduction of this legislation by the Canadian government which, in our view, constitutes a unilateral approach to a problem we believe should be resolved by co-operative international action.
No one will disagree with the sentiment that it would be desirable to settle this or any other problem by, to quote the United States note, "co-operative international action". But surely, we as Canadians have a right to know how long we are expected to wait before there are provisions in the law of the sea which will protect our people, our coasts and our fishing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me remind the House that there was a conference in 1926 at which time the United States called for an action of prohibition against the discharge of oil into the sea. It was voted down two to one. In 1954 another "conference of the sea" was held. A convention was established which would have set up a 50-mile area from the coast within which the deposit of oil was forbidden. The United States refused to sign this convention. It said the provision should require only voluntary adherence. At the 1958 conference the United States offered a six-mile territorial sea zone to replace the three-mile limit. This proposal was defeated.
DEBATES	5945
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
The so-called law of the sea as laid down in various international conventions is vague and archaic in many respects. In the main, progress has only been made when nations have issued unilateral declarations as to their jurisdiction and have then succeeded in getting those declarations incorporated in an international convention at a conference on the law of the sea. This was true of the Norwegian fisheries doctrine of 1951, which later was incorporated in the convention of 1958. It is true of the Truman declaration of 1945 regarding jurisdiction over the continental shelf with respect to exploitation of the resources of the seabed, which was later incorporated in the convention of 1958.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think that we, as Canadians, are on sound ground in saying that where our interests are at stake we are justified in following the example of some of the countries to which I have referred and making a unilateral declaration, then indicating our willingness to sit down and discuss the matter with other coastal states in the hope that we can work out international conventions that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
We have been told that a note was delivered to the Canadian government by the government of the United States, though we have only had snatches of it referred to in the press. One report is to the effect that it is understood the note "criticizes the Trudeau cabinet's decision to reject the authority of the court in these disputes". This morning's Globe and Mail has extensive quotations which allegedly come from the note that the State Department sent to the Canadian government. I always find it difficult to understand why the press seem to be able to get copies of these notes, at least extracts from them, but we in the House of Commons are not able to get that information.


Gerald William Baldwin: It comes from Information Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In this news story, there is contained in quotation marks what is alleged to be a statement that appears in the United States notes. It reads as follows:
If Canada had the right to claim and exercise exclusive pollution and resources jurisdiction on the high seas, other countries could assert the right to exercise jurisdiction for other purposes, some reasonable and some not, but all equally invalid according to international law.
The two statements I have quoted, and which allegedly come from the U.S. note of
April 16. 1970
5946	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill protest, criticize Canada, firstly, for not referring this matter to the International Court and, secondly, for taking unilateral action which might be a bad example to other countries. I want to point out, first of all, that criticism of this country by the United States with regard to not referring this matter to the International Court comes with poor grace from a country that adopted the Connally amendment in August 1946, the effect of which was to exclude the jurisdiction of the International Court from all matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States.
With reference to the criticism that we are acting unilaterally, I have already pointed out that not only the government of Norway but the government of the United States itself, in the proclamations of 1945 and 1946, unilaterally took steps which they deemed fit and proper; first to protect the resources of the seabed on both their coasts, secondly to conserve fishing activities on the high seas, and thirdly to exercise control of air space within 200 miles of their coastlines.
I want to make it clear that we in this party believe that Canada should do everything possible to strengthen the International Court. But we can only do this if other countries are equally committed to accept the court's jurisdiction. At the present time there are only 13 nations that have accepted the court's jurisdiction without reservation; the remainder; Canada and the United States included, have reserved the right to decide in each case whether or not they will allow a matter in dispute to go before the International Court.
My view happens to be that I think it might have been better to have allowed the matter to go before the International Court in order to bring it to a head. There are almost twice as many nations that have more than a three-mile limit than there are nations that adhere to the three-mile limit. I believe the weight of public opinion-


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no reservation with regard to the 12-mile limit.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was the pollution bill that carried that reservation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, that is right. But I am pointing out that the bulk of the nations that have unilaterally extended their territorial sea over the 3-mile limit would be concerned in this question. I think that the bulk of public opin-

ion, which is also concerned about pollution, would force the calling of a conference of the sea, from which we would hope to produce an international convention that would settle the matter in a manner satisfactory to Canada.
It should be made clear to the United States, in my opinion, that the course which Canada has followed is not unique. Indeed, the course of action which the government is following with respect to both these bills is on all fours with the unilateral declarations that were made by the United States in 1945 and 1946, both with respect to jurisdiction over the resources of the seabed and United States fishing rights on the high seas.
Other nations have taken unilateral action in extending their territorial waters and their jurisdiction for specific purposes. At the present time only 32 nations accept the 3-mile territorial limit, while 60 nations have extended their territorial waters anywhere from four miles, as in the case of Finland, Norway and Sweden, up to 150 to 200 miles, as in the case of Chile, Ecuador and Peru. It is significant that Mexico, a close neighbour of the United States, has had a 9-mile territorial limit for a considerable period of time, and that Panama, in which the United States has a very vital interest stemming from the Panama canal, has a 12-mile territorial limit. As a matter of fact, numerous United States fishing vessels flying the U.S. flag have been seized by Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Mexico. The United States has sent notes of protest, but the countries in question have continued to exercise their jurisdiction and, so far as I know, no case has been taken to the International Court.
To my mind, it is significant that this is the first time that the United States has objected to Canada making any declaration of jurisdiction with respect to the Arctic. As I pointed out in a speech which I made in the House on January 22 last, we made a declaration as far back as 1908 on the basis of the sector doctrine. In 1946 the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, then Canadian ambassador to Washington, made a declaration on behalf of the Canadian government.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
On December 8, 1953 the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, then Prime Minister of Canada,
made a declaration with regard to Canada's sovereignty. There is a strong feeling in some quarters, which I share, that the sudden interest of the United States and its now stated objections clearly relate to the discovery of
April 16, 1970

oil in the Arctic and the desire of powerful oil interests to get a piece of the action. We in this party believe we should seek international agreement as speedily as possible with regard to jurisdiction over the Arctic and the extension of our territorial waters. But in the meantime we strongly support the government's position that we should not be expected to wait while pollution continues and while our fishing areas are exploited merely because the law of the sea has not kept pace with changing events. The time has come to assert our basic rights while at the same time indicating our willingness to co-operate in working out international conventions which are viable in the light of modern technology.
May I also say a few words about some of the things we in this party think need to be done. Let no one think the problem of pollution of the seas and territorial waters will be solved by the passage of these two bills. First of all, the legislation in question deals almost solely with the pollution of Arctic waters by ships, with the exception of a very vague provision in clause 10. What about pollution by oil drilling rigs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is mentioned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the matter of gushers and wildcat wells? What about the construction of oil pipelines? It seems to me, if we are to deal with the problems of pollution on the mainland of the Arctic, the bill will have to be much more specific and have a great deal more teeth than are to be found in clause 10. This is a matter which can be discussed when the bill is before the committee.
I would also point out that the control of ships entering the Arctic waters should, in our opinion, be extended to cover our coastlines on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Our experience with the Arrow and the pollution in Chedabucto Bay ought to be a warning to us. On the Pacific coast, in my constituency, almost every day old tankers come into the ports. Some of these are not seaworthy. Some of them are rusted and some of them dump oil in the harbour. There have been many complaints, and in one or two cases where it was possible legal action was taken against the companies. However, in many instances the ships were gone before any action could be taken. It seems to me prevention of pollution in the Arctic is commendable, but the neglect of our eastern and western coastlines where the bulk of shipping is concentrated would be deplorable. I hope the government is to provide for the same kind of
DEBATES	5947
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill legislation in respect of our two coastlines that is now being provided in the case of the Arctic.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I mentioned that in my speech.
Mr. Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): But the difficulty is that it is not contained in this legislation. We have some unhappy memories of ministers mentioning things and then nothing happening. I would have liked to have seen legislation to deal with this very immediate problem. If tankers are to enter Canada's territorial waters there is no reason they should not be required to meet certain standards. There is no reason, if they are to go through difficult areas, they should not be required to take on a Canadian pilot and have complete, up-to-date charts so that some of the accidents which have occurred will not be repeated.
The 12-mile limit should be measured by base lines drawn from headland to headland.
I should like to remind the minister, Mr. Speaker that after the lapse of several years some of these base lines have not yet been drawn. I think Canadian fishermen are entitled to the protection of a law which was passed by this Parliament and which the government has been inexcusably slow in putting into effect. I hope the government will not only see that the fishing industry is protected by having these base lines drawn but that the extension of the territorial waters to 12 miles will be speeded up by having these base lines clearly indicated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You will get it by 1985.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to close by saying the government has taken the first important step in the war against pollution in the Arctic. We will give the government unreserved support in passing this legislation. We remind the government, however, that this bill constitutes merely a declaration of policy. The effectiveness of this legislation will depend upon the extent to which the government administers it and the degree to which it enforces the provisions of this legislation with aggressiveness and tenacity. I would remind the government that our unanimous support for this legislation will turn to bitter condemnation if the government weakens under pressure, from whatever quarter that pressure may come. If the government thinks that incurring the wrath of Washington makes it uncomfortable, I can assure the members of the government that their present
April 16. 1970
5948	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill discomfort will be nothing compared to the anger and resentment of the Canadian people if this government weakens in its determination to protect the sovereignty and rights of the Canadian people over the waters adjacent to Canada.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) on a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would like to comment on the fact that the State Department apparently proposed an international conference to establish anti-pollution measures in the Arctic and, without in any way delaying or weakening the passage of the present legislation and the firm stand he has advocated in his speech, whether he could reasonably agree to that part of the United States proposal in respect of such an international conference.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member should ask a question and not ask for a comment because the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has already made his speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I had not sat down, so perhaps I might be permitted to answer the question I asked the hon. member to ask me.


An hon. Member:: It just appeared that way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am being a little facetious. I agree completely with the hon. member. I thought I had made clear in my remarks, while making this unilateral declaration with regard to our jurisdiction for pollution control purposes over the Arctic and with regard to our sovereignty over our territorial waters to a 12-mile limit, that we should agree readily to an international conference with the coastal states of the world because while the question of pollution is a serious question for Canada it is equally a serious question for other countries. We perhaps are more vulnerable to pollution and therefore must lead in the discussions, but I would certainly support the government in making a declaration-and I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) will make the declaration in the course of his speech-that Canada will willingly help to organize such a conference, attend such a 

conference and co-operate in order to have international standards set with reference to pollution control.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said the same thing in my speech.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is evident from what has been said in this debate already that there is general agreement on all sides with the two fundamental objectives underlying the Arctic waters pollution prevention bill, the economic development of the Canadian Arctic, and the preservation of a unique environment comprising land and ice and open sea.
The government has given long and careful consideration to the means by which these objectives could best be given effect and translated into legislative terms. We have considered these questions in the light of the duty and responsibility Canada owes not only to itself but to the community of nations, that is to say to mankind as a whole. We have refused to be stampeded by clamour from any quarter, and we have rejected simplistic solutions which could create more problems than they might resolve. Instead, we have evolved, after very wide ranging deliberations, a constructive and functional approach that distinguishes between jurisdiction and sovereignty and between essential national objectives and chauvinism, which reconciles national interest and international responsibility, and which will prevent pollution without discouraging development.
The problem of environmental preservation transcends traditional concepts of sovereignty and requires an imaginative new approach oriented toward future generations of men and the plant and animal life on which their existence and the quality of that existence will depend. The problem of environmental preservation moreover must be resolved on the basis of the objective considerations of today rather than the historical accidents or territorial imperatives of yesterday.
Canada has always regarded the waters between the islands of the Arctic archipelago as being Canadian waters. The present government maintains that position, and I say to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Stanfield) that there is no abandonment of these claims whatever in the legislation that has been put forward here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 16, 1970	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: This bill aims at meeting a real and imminent problem and provides for the exercise of a limited form of jurisdiction. This exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of pollution control can in no way be construed to be inconsistent with a claim of sovereignty over the waters between the islands or otherwise. Similarly, the exercise of sovereignty over an area of the sea extending 12 miles from shore in accordance with the provision embodied in another bill that will shortly be under discussion cannot be said to be inconsistent with a claim to sovereignty beyond 12 miles.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that in framing our legislation we were very careful to examine this question because I agree with him that if in any way our legislation reflected upon our claims to a larger sovereignty, we would certainly have proceeded otherwise.
There is excellent authority for the propositions that I have put forward on this occasion. In the 1910 North Atlantic coast fisheries case between Britain and the United States the permanent court of arbitration held that a state may, without prejudice to its claim to sovereignty over the whole of a particular area of the sea, exercise only so much of its sovereign powers over such part of that area as may be necessary for immediate purposes. That case is of particular relevance to the Canadian situation since it involved areas of Newfoundland, Labrador, and other parts of Canada's Atlantic coast.
There are those who argue that the problem of marine pollution can only be met by a multilateral rather than unilateral action. Canada has attempted the multilateral approach to this problem most recently at an international legal conference in Brussels in 1969. On that occasion, however, we were unsuccessful in our attempts to persuade the major shipping and cargo owning states to provide adequate recognition and protection for the rights and interests of coastal states which are the innocent victims of pollution incidents of the seas.
State practice, or in other words unilateral action by states, has always been a legitimate means open to states to develop customary international law. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) said in his very interesting speech, there are a number of examples. I shall also cite some of them and give some others that tend to support the same position. This is how the rule of the three-mile territorial sea, and later the 12-
DEBATES	5949
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill mile territorial sea, originated. It was unilateral action by the United States in the 1945 Truman proclamation which led to establishment of the continental shelf doctrine in international law. It was the practice of Norway in connection with the delimitation of its territorial waters which introduced the straight base line system later written into the Geneva convention on the territorial sea. Again, it was by unilateral action that Canada in 1964 and the U.S.A. in 1966 established nine mile contiguous fishing zones.
The action we are proposing for the Arctic waters in no way rules out the possibility of developing international arrangements for the preservation of the marine environment in Arctic regions. The bill we have introduced should be regarded as a stepping stone toward the elaboration of an international legal order which will protect and preserve this planet earth for the better use and greater enjoyment of all mankind. A single ecological system governs the lives of all men, and the Arctic regions are an extremely important part of that system. They determine the livability of the whole of the northern hemisphere. This bin is a beginning. It puts forward a legislative framework within which we will develop controls and safety standards to ensure that this unspoiled and uniquely vulnerable region is preserved from degradation. We will consult with other countries before we promulgate regulations to this end. We hope that these other countries will show a spirit of understanding and co-operation so that together we can construct a system of internationally agreed rules and safety standards which will advance our common interests without interfering unreasonably with particular interests.
Canada has a long tradition of leadership and active participation in multilateral efforts to resolve problems which go beyond purely national concerns. This is especially true in the field of international environmental law. In the famous Trail Smelter case, we went to arbitration with the United States in 1935 and accepted state responsibility for the pollution of United States territory. In later years, we pressed hard for the non-proliferation treaty and we were in the vanguard of attempts to prevent fallout pollution from atomic testing. We have been engaged with the United States since 1909 in a unique experiment in international co-operation on common environmental problems, through the International Joint Commission. However, it is precisely this long experience with mul-
5950	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill tilateral and bilateral approaches which convinces us that immediate action by Canada is required for protection of the Arctic environment.
We know only too well that a situation requiring urgent action cannot be met by the slow and difficult process of negotiating international arrangements. However valuable may be the work of the International Joint Commission, citizens of both Canada and the United States are painfully aware that it has not prevented the pollution and contamination of the Great Lakes to the point where the very life of these vast bodies of water is threatened. The International Joint Commission is undertaking remedial action on the Great Lakes but that action is long overdue and will not easily undo the ravages that have taken place. We cannot be too late everywhere. We cannot wait until the damage has been done in the Arctic if only because such damage in that environment may well be irreversible.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The first attempts to find an international solution to the problem of pollution of the seas by oil were made in the early 1920's but did not achieve even partial success until the late 1950's. In 1926 an international conference held in Washington drew up a relatively modest proposal for the control of deliberate marine discharges of oil or oily mixtures. Even this modest proposal failed to achieve ratification.
By 1954 the oil pollution problem had reached such a state of crisis in some areas that a second major conference was convened. The result was the London Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. This convention, like the 1926 proposal, deals with the prevention of deliberate pollution by tanker cleaning operations, but leaves enforcement to the flag states rather than the coastal states suffering the damage. This convention was adopted despite strong opposition from the United States, which believed that the problem of deliberate discharge would disappear by educational programs and technological advances.
The London Convention was only slowly accepted, and it was not until four years later that sufficient countries had ratified it to bring it into force. Canada's instrument of acceptance was deposited in 1956, and that of the United States in 1961. The Convention was amended by a second conference held in 1962 under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization. [Mr. Sharp.l
DEBATES	April 16, 1970
The 1962 amendments were relatively marginal, but extended from 50 to 100 miles the minimum zones in which the deliberate discharge of oil is prohibited. Canada accepted these amendments in 1963, but they did not achieve sufficient acceptance to come into effect until 1967.
The amended London Convention remains the major international instrument in force in this field. Despite its modest aims, and despite the fact that it leaves enforcement to the flag states and thus preserves their traditional exclusive jurisdiction over their vessels on the high seas, this limited convention did not come into effect until some 30 years after the oil pollution problem first began to attract serious international attention. Its inadequacies as to the scope and enforcement of its provisions are, I believe, disputed by no one.
More recently, however, we believed there was cause to hope that the nations of the world might join together to attack the problem of oil pollution on a broader front and to adopt more effective measures for its prevention and control. The Torrey Canyon incident has awakened states and public opinion to the catastrophic consequences of a spill from a jumbo tanker. Domestically and internationally there had been increasing signs that the quality of the environment was becoming the major issue of our time. Against that background Canada went to Brussels, in November, 1969, to participate in an international legal conference on marine pollution damage. The results of the conference, however, while reflecting a certain degree of progress were seriously disappointing.
Many delegations at Brussels displayed what appeared to us to be an excessive caution and conservatism and a rigid pre-occupation with the traditional concept of unqualified freedom of the high seas. That freedom, in our eyes, seemed to be tantamount to a licence to pollute; it did not in any way strike a proper balance between the interest of the flag state in unfettered rights of navigation and the fundamental interest of the coastal state in the integrity of its shores.
As a result, despite our most vigorous efforts, Canada was only partially successful in achieving recognition of the paramount need for environmental preservation and the principle that the bulk carriage of oil and other pollutants by sea is an ultra-hazardous activity which gives rise to an absolute liability to compensate in full the victims of pollution damage arising from such carriage.
April 1G, 1970	COMMONS
The outcome of the Brussels conference was so little oriented toward environmental preservation and so much oriented towards the interests of ship and cargo owning states that Canada abstained from voting on the public law convention dealing with the right of intervention on the high seas and voted against the private law convention on civil liability for pollution damage.
While the main thrust of the bill under debate is preventive, that of the Brussels conventions is remedial and liability oriented. I do not wish, however, to be excessively severe or negative in judging the achievements of the Brussels conference. The public law convention negotiated there incorporates the very important principle that coastal states may intervene against foreign ships on the high seas to prevent or minimize major pollution damage where a marine accident, threatening or actually causing oil pollution, has already occurred.
I must say in this connection that I find it anomalous that certain countries can accept the right of a coastal state to sink a foreign ship on the high seas when a marine accident threatens pollution, but at the same time assert that coastal states do not have the right to prevent such an accident by turning away such a ship from areas off its coasts, or by imposing certain safety standards or preconditions for entry into these areas.
The coastal state's right of intervention on the high seas, as incorporated in the Brussels convention on international law, may perhaps represent a sufficient basis, for the time being at least, to protect the marine environment and Canada's coastal interests beyond the proposed 12-mile limit to our territorial sea on the Atlantic and Pacific. As I have said, however, the problem of pollution in those areas is also a matter of vital concern and will be given the most energetic attention by this government. With respect to the Arctic, other measures impose themselves.
We hope that the Arctic waters bill will provide a framework for internationally agreed safety standards. The brief review of multilateral efforts which I have just made is sufficient proof, however, that an approach of that kind would not have met the need for early action and would not have provided the stability and certainty required for investment in the development of Arctic resources and Arctic navigation.
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has tested the climate for international action against marine pollution, and there
DEBATES	5951
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill can equally be no doubt that the climate has been found seriously wanting-if that is a good simile. We are determined to discharge our own responsibilities for the protection of our territory. We are equally determined to act as pioneers in pushing back the frontiers of international law so that the laissez-faire regime of the high seas will no longer prevent effective action to deal with a pollution threat of such a magnitude that even the vast seas and oceans of the world may not be able to absorb, dissolve or wash away the discharges deliberately or accidentally poured into them.
The Arctic waters bill represents a constructive and functional approach to environmental preservation. It asserts only the limited jurisdiction required to achieve a specific and vital purpose. It separates a limited pollution control jurisdiction from the total bundle of jurisdictions which together constitute sovereignty. In this it resembles in some degree the approach which Canada was among the first to adopt with respect to jurisdiction over the exploitation and conservation of fishery resources.
The results which have been achieved in the latter field encourage us now to lead the way in developing rules to prevent pollution of the sea and of the shores of coastal states. We firmly believe that this is the best way to bring order out of impending chaos in the law of the sea.
The pioneering venture upon which we are embarked is a measure of our serious concern at the failure of international law to keep pace with technology, to adapt itself to special situations, and in particular to recognize the right of a coastal state to protect itself against the dangers of marine pollution.
Existing international law is either inadequate or non-existent in this respect. Such law as does exist, as I have already indicated, is largely based on the principle of freedom of navigation, and is designed to protect the interests of states directly or indirectly involved with the maritime carriage of oil and other hazardous cargoes.
A new "victim-oriented" law must be created to protect the marine environment and those rights and interests of the coastal state which are endangered by the threat to that environment. The Arctic waters bill is intended to advance the development of such new law. It is based on the fundamental principle of self-defence and constitutes state practice, which has always been accepted as one of the ways of developing international law.
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Where the law is deficient any action undertaken to remedy its deficiencies cannot properly be judged by the existing standards of that law. Such a proceeding would effectively block any possibility of reform. Canada remains firmly attached to the rule of law in international affairs and has the highest respect for the International Court of Justice and the part it plays in the maintenance of that rule of law. At the same time, however, we are not prepared to litigate with other states on vital issues concerning which the law is either inadequate, non-existent or irrelevant to the kind of situation Canada faces, as is the case in the Arctic. It is no service to the court or to the development of international law to attempt to resolve by adjudication questions on which the law does not provide a firm basis for decision. For these reasons, we have been obliged to submit a limited new reservation to our acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Even with the new reservation, Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction is much broader than that of many other countries. It does not in any way reflect lack of confidence in the court but takes into account the limitations within which the court must operate and the deficiencies of the law which it must interpret and apply. Moreover, it may be revoked and Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction may again be broadened at such time as those deficiencies are made good. In the interval, Canada stands prepared to appear before the court where the court is in a position to exercise its proper function and render a decision either for or against us. Such is the case, for instance, with respect to our bill on the 12-mile territorial sea. Our readiness to submit to the international judicial process remains general in scope and is subject only to certain limited and clearly defined exceptions rather than to a general exception which can be defined at will so as to include any particular matter.


David Lewis: Why don't you say you mean the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member makes a comment with which I will not disagree.
I have already stressed the government's hope that it will be possible to achieve internationally agreed rules for Arctic navigation within the framework of our proposed legislation. We recognize that the interests of other

April 16. 1970
states are inevitably affected in any exercise of jurisdiction over areas of the sea. We have taken these interests into account in drafting our legislation; we have, for instance, provided that naval vessels and other ships owned by foreign governments may be exempted from the application of Canadian antipollution regulations if the ships in question substantially meet our standards.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Russian tankers.


Mitchell William Sharp: We will give the interests of other states further consideration by entering into consultations with them before promulgating safety regulations under the Arctic waters bill.
I should point out that the interests of other states in the uses of the sea are not necessarily in conflict with ours. We, too, are concerned to preserve the essential freedoms of the seas. We, too, do not wish to place unnecessary or unreasonable restrictions on maritime commerce. Security factors are vital to us as well as to others. It is because we share the concern to head off developments undesirable for common interests that we ask other states to adopt a flexible attitude which is responsive to new needs and special circumstances, and that we seek the co-operation of other states and offer them ours.
In recognition of common interests and in the spirit of co-operation, Canada has for many years engaged in periodic consultations with the United States on matters concerning the law of the sea. We have not always agreed on those matters but we have always benefitted from obtaining a better understanding of our respective positions and concerns.
I should like now to turn to a point of some importance in considering the international aspects of this legislation, namely the position of the United States government concerning it. The government of the United States has on a number of occasions recently expressed a particular interest in the various aspects of the law of the sea raised by the Prime Minister's statement in the throne speech debate when he announced the government's intention to introduce legislation to protect the ecological balance of the Canadian Arctic, and requested an opportunity to discuss them with us. Two rounds of discussion were held for this purpose. On March 11 the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Marcel Cadieux, accompanied by two Canadian officials, Mr. Beesley, head of the legal division of the Department of External Affairs, and

April 16. 1970	COMMONS
Mr. Head, Legislative Assistant to the Prime Minister, called on Mr. Alexis Johnson, United States Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and a group of senior United States officials. These discussions were very frank and friendly but they revealed, as expected, differences of views between our two governments on a number of questions, and it was agreed that a further round would be held after the United States government had had time to consider the matter further. On March 17, President Nixon telephoned the Prime Minister to express his interest in the matter and offered to send a high level team to Ottawa for further discussions. On March 20 a team of senior United States officials led by Under-Secretary of State Johnson and including the Under-Secretary of the Navy and an Assistant Secretary of Transport, as well as senior officials from the State Department, Defence Department, the Coast Guard, and the Department of the Interior, came to Ottawa and met with me, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and senior Canadian officials, including the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Canada's Ambassador to Washington, to make known the United States views on the questions under discussion. These discussions lasted all day and were again frank but friendly. Subsequently, there were further discussions in Washington between our Ambassador to the United States and Mr. Johnson, and a telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and Secretary of State Rogers. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible for the two governments to reach agreement on all aspects of these questions, as has since been made known by the United States government. I think this account of these discussions makes quite clear that we have taken very seriously the United States interest in these matters.
These differences can be resolved, and resolved in a manner consistent with our interests as a sovereign nation and our long history of close and mutually co-operative relations with the United States. We cannot abdicate our responsibilities in a matter of special importance to us, and we cannot abandon our right and duty to protect our territory. Given this fundamental and irreversible position on our part, there remains nevertheless a wide range of possibilities for bilateral and multilateral co-operation which could advance the cause of environmental preservation in the Arctic waters in harmony with the
DEBATES	5953
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill interests of all concerned. We are prepared to go forward from this position, but only forward and not back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister a question so that we can be perfectly clear about his position on the 12-mile limit, particularly under Bill C-203, although we have been discussing the two bills. Regarding the Arctic Islands, will Bill C-203 draw geographic lines of the 12-mile limit around each island or is it intended to draw a line enclosing all the Arctic Islands? In other words, will the territorial sea as defined in Bill C-203, include areas between Arctic Islands of more than 24 miles?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since obviously we claim these to be Canadian internal waters we would not draw such lines, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Greenwood has a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question similar to that asked of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). One proposal in the United States government note was that Canada should join in organizing an international conference on antipollution measures in the Arctic. Is the Canadian government willing to accept this proposal, at the same time maintaining its clear and unwavering intention to proceed with the legislation and the measures proposed by it unless and until some satisfactory solution is arrived at by international agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, not only did the United States government give notice to us in the note, and the version of it which they published, that they would like to have a conference on Arctic pollution, but we have subsequently received a formal invitation to join with them in sponsoring a conference of this kind dealing with, as we understood it, areas beyond national jurisdiction. We have, of course, in principle, been very happy to consider such a suggestion but I think it is important that before we say we would go to such a conference we have a better understanding of what the discussion would be.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a further question for clarification, Mr. Speaker? With regard to the
April 16, 1970
5954	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
Arctic Islands, where will the 12-mile limit begin? Will the line start at the outer limits of all the Arctic Islands, since the minister has said he would not draw lines around the inner limits? Surely, the bill will apply in the Arctic?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no limitation on where the territorial waters would lie. There may be territorial waters around the Arctic islands and along our coasts. I doubt very much, however, whether the government will fill in all the gaps as yet. The hon. gentleman knows, for example, that we have not drawn in lines within the St. Lawrence and the reason that we have not drawn those lines is that we do not want to compromise our position as to the status of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-202, which is one of the three bills recently introduced relating to the sea and our territorial limits, 1 cannot help but note the real and necessary concern of the government for the establishment of pollution controls in the waters adjacent to our shores.
In recent years the official opposition has carried on a vigorous campaign in the House of Commons, urging the government to make a clear and unqualified declaration of Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic. This campaign increased in intensity when it became clear that the government itself had sown the seeds of doubt in Canada and the international community by hedging, waffling and refusing to take a stand on this issue.


Mr. Perrault:: Nonsense.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member who makes many of his contributions from his seat says this is nonsense.


An hon. Member:: He also makes very good speeches.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He may make very good speeches, but he said this was nonsense. I will answer him in a minute. The campaign increased in intensity when it became clear, as I said, that the government was waffling on this issue. The Arctic region, so long regarded as Canadian territory by everyone, was about to be lost through default by this government.
Concern over Canadian rights in the Arctic was expressed at the time of the experimental voyage through the Northwest Passage of
fMr. Aiken.]
the giant Humble Oil tanker Manhattan. This concern came to a head when the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, comprised of Members of Parliament who had made a close study of this issue, recommended that the government claim sovereignty over northern lands anc waters which traditionally had been considered as belonging to Canada. What happened: The government resisted every effort to have this committee report brought before the House for discussion until the Progressive Conservative Member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) eventually won the right to debate a motion that the House concurred in the committee's report. Naturally, it was hoped at this time that the government would end the uncertainty by declaring our sovereignty over our northern archipelago, in keeping with the committee's recommendations. And what happened again? The motion was talked into adjournment by government supporters.
I have been asked, Mr. Speaker, why the members of the official opposition take such a strong stand on the question of Canadian sovereignty in the north. I can only reply that it stems from our threefold concern which cannot be brushed aside by the government's indifference. By our declaring sovereignty over our northern lands and waters, Canadian citizens in the north will be protected from exploitation. By our declaring sovereignty over our northern lands and waters, development in the Canadian north will remain in the hands of the Canadian people under the control of the Canadian government. By declaring sovereignty over our northern lands and waters, we will have the right to prevent an ecological disaster that could affect the people of this nation and, indeed, the whole world.
The bill before us refers many times to the Canadian Arctic, but at no time does it specifically define what is meant by the Canadian Arctic. In my opinion the Canadian Arctic should be clearly defined. There are no teeth in this legislation which spells out our sovereign rights to the waters and the islands as listed on the map called "Canada's Arctic Islands" which is published by the Canadian Hydrographic Service through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. All these individual islands in Canada's archipelago are named; they stretch right up to the Lincoln Sea in the Arctic Ocean and the names are as picturesque as the islands are numerous. They include Queen Elizabeth Island, Ellesmere Island, Borden Island, Mac-
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
kenzie King Island, Prince Patrick Island, Prince of Wales Island, Borden Peninsula on Baffin Island, Victoria Island, King William Island, and many more too numerous to mention. Obviously, preceding prime ministers and governments had the courage to name these islands. Has not this government the courage to claim them?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have always claimed the islands. It is only the water that is in dispute.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is there any question about the water?


Mitchell William Sharp: Other people question it; we do not. Nobody questions our claims to the islands.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Secretary of State for External Affairs further confuses the issue by saying that some people dispute our claim to the waters but nobody disputes our claim to the islands.


Mitchell William Sharp: My statement clarifies it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not claim the waters, and that completely refutes the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: He reiterated my views clearly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He reiterated the minister's views in a strange way, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister's views are on record and I will include them in my remarks in a few moments.
This bill is cited as the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. In my opinion, Canada cannot risk its whole policy on Arctic pollution control by refusing to declare our sovereignty in this area. However, when interviewed outside the House by the press following the introduction of this bill, the Prime Minister stated as follows-and I am now quoting from a transcript of his remarks:
This is the first bit of legislation-
It is not an assertion of sovereignty; it is an exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution and by defining 100 miles as the zone within which we are determined to act, we are indicating that our assertion there is not one aimed towards sovereignty, but aimed towards one of the very important aspects of our action in the Arctic.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, by our Prime Minister completely refutes the statement made a moment ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to Canada's Prime Minister, this bill is not a declaration of sovereignty over the waters in our north-
DEBATES	5955
Metropolitan Toronto Harbour Act ern archipelago. The statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is refuted. May I call it five o'clock, sir?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-Industry-Criteria for payments to automobile companies; the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Pollution-Phosphate detergents-Door-to-door distribution of Arctic Power; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford)-Administration of Justice-appointment of judges.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make a proposition, namely, that the subject matter of Bill C-195 be referred to a committee. I believe there have been consultations about this matter.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed that the motion may be put now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the understanding that the
motion deals with the subject matter of the bill, we also agree.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Order for the second reading of Bill C-195, An Act respecting the Port of Toronto, be discharged and that the subject matter of the said Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
April 16, 1970

Federal Sales Tax on Drugs Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie): Mr. Speaker* I am instructed, by my house leader that our party agrees to the unanimous consent needed for this motion. Since some specific problems may arise, we do so with the understanding, of course, that when the occasion arises for such a motion to be moved on our part, the hon. member and his colleagues will also agree to giving unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I believe the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) is ready to deal with item No. 176 on today's list. After this has been dealt with, then we shall deal with item No. 2, which is also in his name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR COPIES OF REPORTS; REVIEWS OR STUDIES ON FEDERAL SALES TAX ON DRUGS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any reports, reviews or studies of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the removal of the federal sales tax on pharmaceuticals and drugs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is great importance to this motion in the sense that we really need the particular information for which I have asked in order to properly assess how effectively the policies of the department are. At the time that the federal sales tax was removed on pharmaceuticals and drugs, some questions were raised as to whether these savings would be passed on to the consumers. By comparing prices considerable evidence is accumulating which shows that many of these savings are not being passed on to the consumer.
The reason for asking whether the department is prepared to issue copies of these reports, reviews or studies is to ascertain the effectiveness of this program. If the department has these studies, certainly Parliament should be aware of them so that we can do an 
effective job of lowering drug prices to the consumers. On the other hand, if by asking for these reports and studies the government is placed in a somewhat embarrassing position because they do not have them, the public should be made aware of this shortcoming. Therefore, for any reason Your Honour may wish to examine, it will be seen that we are very much in order in asking that this information be made available.
In a more general way, we have repeatedly asked for information on this and other subjects only to be told that the documents are internal working documents and cannot be released to the public. I see no reason why internal working documents cannot be released. We realize that sometimes there is controversy within a department. There may be different views held within a department as to the way to proceed. If that is the case, I feel this information should be available.
The government often accuses the opposition of being irrelevant or not dealing with a subject as well as we might. In the same breath that they make that accusation, they deny the opposition information which would assist them in debating a subject. Surely, there can be no argument against the opposition having as much factual information as possible in the interests of having a more meaningful discussion in this House.
In concluding these remarks, I urge upon the hon. gentleman who will be speaking on behalf of the government department to indicate in a very clear way why he cannot comply with this request. More hopefully, I trust he will agree with the argument made today and give us an opportunity of having this information, so that our work in this House can be more effective and, as a result, more beneficial to the public.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I have some further information for the hon. member. I hope after the hon. member hears what I have to say that he will withdraw his motion. I am informed that primary responsibility for dealing with representations made in connection with the removal 'of the sales tax on drugs rested, of course, with the Department of Finance. At that time the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had not been established and its predecessor was not directly involved in the decision to remove the tax.
The office of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investiga-
April 16, 1970

tion Act however, did undertake a survey to determine if the savings represented by the repeal of the tax had been passed on to the trade. For a number of reasons this test could only be a rough one, although the broad conclusion reached that on approximately 90 per cent of the items the savings were passed on is believed to be dependable.
The survey was carried out on the basis of price data obtained from roughly 60 drug manufacturers. In total, the prices of approximately 7,500 items were examined. The problem was complicated by the fact that the application of the sales tax on drugs was subject to rulings by the Department of National Revenue which permitted a manufacturer to deduct allowances for transportation and cash discounts from the base to which the sales tax was applied. In addition, the base varied from sale to sale depending upon the type of customer, whether wholesaler or retailer. A further complication was that some price lists showed suggested resale prices, while others showed prices to the trade. It was therefore necessary to calculate many prices in order to make a meaningful comparison.
The documentation arising out of this survey is therefore voluminous, involving several file drawers of price lists for approximately 60 companies, and of worksheets relating to approximately 7,500 drug items. Without the expenditure of an inordinate amount of time this material could not be assembled in any way which would be meaningful, beyond the broad conclusion mentioned. With this information, I hope the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Parliamentary Secretary will answer a question, since he recognizes that there is much detailed information available. Was there an accurate evaluation made of this vast amount of material? Is there some kind of a workable presentation? Surely, the department did not collect all these figures, make this investigation and then not reach some kind of conclusion or prepare some kind of breakdown to show what these figures represent. It is not my intention to ask for every scrap of paper in the file. That would be rather pointless. What I want to know is what conclusions the department reached and what studies arose from the collection of this data? Could that be presented to the members of this House so that they can form an opinion as to the effectiveness of the reduction of the sales tax?

Federal Sales Tax on Drugs Mr. Forest: Mr. Speaker, I cannot readily inform the hon. member whether a resume of all this information has been prepared by the department and, if so, whether they are prepared to table it. I am not ready at this time to deal with this request.


Max Saltsman: May we adjourn the debate at this stage until more information can be supplied, Mr. Speaker? I might perhaps lodge a small grievance at this point. I placed this question on the Order Paper a considerable time ago. If the department felt that the information was not available to them, as a matter of courtesy and as a matter of expediting the work of this House, surely I could have been informed that the question should be directed to the Department of Finance. I would have been quite willing to do that. There are various ways in which this question could have been handled without allowing it to reach this stage. An answer could have been made in a cursory way in the House when the order for motions for papers was called. I still find the government's position is most unsatisfactory, and I would appreciate having the debate adjourned at this point in the hope that a better approach may be taken next time.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is a slight procedural difficulty here. The motion before the House at this time is the hon. member's motion. I do not think it would be proper for him to move the adjournment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could I do that? Could I move the adjournment of the debate, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)?


Yves Forest: I do not think we could consent to that, Mr. Speaker. The minister has already informed the hon. member that the reports, reviews and studies mentioned in the motion comprise work sheets and memoranda made up for the internal use of the department, that they are privileged documents and cannot be revealed. We have given further information as to the complexity of this question, the amount of time and money which would be involved in furnishing this material. We could not agree to such a motion as the hon. member suggests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is one further objection. I am informed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seconded

Federal Sales Tax on Drugs the original motion. Maybe the simplest thing would be to put the question, if the House is ready.


Max Saltsman: If the motion to adjourn is not in order, I should like to continue addressing questions to the government.


Yves Forest: The hon. member has already spoken on this matter, and I do not see why the question cannot be put now, unless there is someone else who wishes to speak on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has the right, under the standing order, to conclude the debate. If there are no further contributions I am certainly prepared to recognize him for five minutes pursuant to Standing Order 48, I think it is. I would point out to him that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I still cannot understand the government's position. I cannot understand what there might be in the analysis of the information it has acquired which could be considered as confidential. I am not asking for figures regarding specific costs. I am interested in finding out what has happened to prices of various drugs since the removal of the sales tax. Surely, this information cannot be considered confidential. The public is entitled to know what has happened to the tax money. If a tax amounting to 11 per cent is removed from a drug and the benefit is not passed on, the price must eventually be paid by the general public. There is no point in giving these companies a bonanza. We heard a great deal about the benefits which would follow this move. We were told that if the sales tax was removed, drug prices would go down. However, there is no clear evidence that the removal of sales tax has had any such effect. Indeed, drug prices seem to be rising.
It is regrettable that the government is not prepared to be frank with the House and tell us what has happened. Either the department has collected a great deal of information and made no use of it, in which case the entire exercise has been worthless, or else it has the information and is withholding it from members of this House. In either case, the government is to be strongly criticized for its stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour, please say aye.


Some hon. Member:: Aye.

DEBATES	April 18, 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against, please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view, the "nays" have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion (Mr. Saltsman) negatived. COMBINES



REQUEST FOR COPIES OF STUDY BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA

Max Saltsman: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports and studies undertaken for the Economic Council of Canada review of Canada Combines and Anti-Trust legislation.
He said: Again I appeal to the government to make this information available, particularly since there is a strong possibility that the pertinent legislation will be reviewed. It would be very helpful in the course of an examination of the government's proposals if we had the benefit of some of the background information which has been provided. Again,
I see no reason why the government should not be more co-operative in this regard.
In looking over the wording of my motion, I see it calls for copies of all reports and studies undertaken by the Economic Council in this field. I realize that the word "all" is unlimited in scope; it was used only in the absence of a suitable alternative. I could not have used the word "some" for instance; it would have been too indefinite. I hope the government will not reject our request simply because the word "all" is used.
I should like to make it clear that I am quite prepared to be accommodating in the sense that if the government says it is willing to make the significant information, or precis, our outlines available to me, I would be happy to accept that kind of response rather than insist that everything which has been done be presented-though I still believe it would be highly desirable that all this information should be disclosed. However, if that is too formidable a task I would be happy to accept an undertaking by the government that sufficient information will be made available to prove satisfactory in meeting the objectives of the motion before us.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliameniary Secreiary to Prime Minister):: I am pleased to recip-
April 16, 1970

rocate the reasonable attitude taken by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). On December 17, of last year, when he put this motion, the reply I gave implied no refusal. I said at that time that the Economic Council of Canada intended to publish the research underpinning this report. As of today's date, it has released the first of those studies, an essay on some critical aspects of the activities of international corporations. This was done by J. N. Behrman of the University of North Carolina. The Council has supplied me with a list of additional studies it intends to release as rapidly as they can be prepared for publication. I commend them for their attitude in not just being pressured into releasing this information but for being anxious to supply it to the House as well as to the country at large. They have supplied all the information they have in the best form available. If there is any hold-up it is only because these additional studies that I will now recite are underway and are being prepared as rapidly as possible for publication.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It would be useful information for the House to know that the council intends to release the following studies which are now in the course of preparation: "Industrial Concentration in Canada", by Max Stewart of the University of Alberta; "Economic Criteria for Assessing Restrictive Trade Practices" and "Detrimental Situations that Escape Control by the Combines Investigation Act", by Don Eldon of Trent University; "The Regulation of Restrictive Practices-Recent European Experience", by James Cairns of the Royal Military College; "The Development of Canadian Antitrust Legislation", by Joel Bell, Harvard Law School; "The Economic Theory of Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Designs", by Brian Hindley, London School of Economics; "The History and Context of Copyright Law", by Bruce MacDonald, Queen's University; "The Meaning and Potential of the Existing Principles of Fair Dealing", by Grant Sinclair, Queen's University; and "International Copyright", by J. Hucker, Queen's University.
The council is planning on the publication, through other organizations, of the following additional studies prepared for the council under this reference: "Anti-Combines Legislation and Policy in Canada: An Overview", by Milton Moore of University of British Columbia, the publisher yet to be decided; "Some Evidence on Economic Determinants
Combines Legislation
of R & D Activity"-as an aside, I must confess that I am not sure, though the hon. members may be, what R and D activity is- the study to be made by Mr. H. E. English and E. Choudhri of Carleton University, and to be published by the Private Planning Association of Canada. The last is "Survey of Views About the Canadian Patent System and Industrial Research and Development Activities in Canada", by A. W. Wilson of the Science Council of Canada, formerly of the Economic Council, the study to be published by the Science Council of Canada.
I hope the hon. member has received this statement with some satisfaction. Again, may I say that I am pleased by the co-operation that I have had from the council in their desire to make these publications available and as widely distributed as possible at the earliest possible moment. In view of this statement, I wonder whether the hon. member feels that the matter has been adequately dealt with.


Max Saltsman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very satisfactory reply. My only regret is that I did not get that answer earlier, in which case we might have avoided the situation today. I was very pleased to hear the comprehensive outline presented by the parliamentary secretary. I am quite happy to accept this explanation, subject to the option of putting the motion on again should I require further information.


James Edgar Walker: If the hon. member does not put it on again, then I will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Waterloo wishes to withdraw his motion?


Max Saltsman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would point out to the House that, according to Standing Order 50, he must have unanimous consent of the House to do so. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there are any other members who are ready to proceed with Notices of Motions for Production of Papers. I suggest that the House agree to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?
April 16. 1970
5960	COMMON
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-202, to prevent pollution of the areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking in this debate at five o'clock this afternoon, among other things I indicated our support in principle of this legislation. However, I pointed out at that time the obvious difference of opinion which exists in respect of this legislation between our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).
During his speech this afternoon, and in reply to questions following his remarks, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that Canada has always considered the northern waters in Canada's archipelago as territorial waters of Canada coming under the sovereignty of Canada. The Prime Minister, however, when interviewed outside the House by the press following the introduction of the bill made the following statement. I shall quote from a transcript of his remarks:
This is the first bit of legislation. It is not an assertion of sovereignty-it is an exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution and by defining 100 miles as the zone within which we are determined to act, we are indicating that our assertion there is not one aimed toward sovereignty but aimed toward one of the very important aspects of our action in the Arctic.
Who are we to believe? Who speaks the truth so that all Canadians will understand- the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State 

for External Affairs? Surely this important point should be clarified before this bill receives second reading and goes to the committee. Surely the Prime Minister must realize what he is doing. Surely he must realize that any waters beyond our territorial limits are regarded as the high seas. The apprehension of any vessel on the high seas could be construed as a hostile act. Anyone who arrests a vessel on the high seas could be accused of piracy. Because of these facts I contend that Canada must exercise her sovereignty over the whole Canadian northern archipelago and over the whole area of pollution control, if this legislation is to stand up in a court of international law.
The reasons generally accepted as justifying the extension of the sovereignty of a state over its territorial seas have been laid down by practice and by tradition. First, the security of the state demands that it should have exclusive possession of its shores and should be able to protect its approaches. Second, for the purpose of furthering its commercial, fiscal and political interests a state must be able to supervise all ships entering, leaving or anchoring in the sea near its coast. Third, the exclusive enjoyment of the products of the sea close to the shores of a state is necessary for the existence and welfare of the people in that state.
In my opinion, political and economic considerations are the predominant factors which will determine the extent of the territorial sea over which a state would want to assert sovereignty and jurisdiction. The question of the breadth of the territorial sea of a coastal state is therefore inseparably connected with the question of self-preservation or survival. In the light of this basic fact different states have claimed varying extents of territorial seas, and because the circumstances and conditions of states vary there is no absolute uniformity in their respective claims concerning the breadth of the sea adjoining their coasts which comes under their sovereignty and jurisdiction. In some cases this assertion and exercise of sovereignty is based on historic title, in others upon existing treaties, and in still others upon actual occupation.
I submit that Canada has claim to our Arctic islands and waters by historic title and actual occupation. Any proposal that would limit the extent of territorial waters over which Canada should now actually assert and exercise her sovereignty would amount to an impairment of our territorial integrity. The validity of our established rights should not
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
be affected by the mere fact that the limits set on some bodies of water in our northern islands may exceed the maximum width of our territorial sea. These must be regarded by everyone as acquired or vested rights which cannot be claimed by any other country or given away by our government. I believe this is a sound fundamental legal principle that was established at the Law of the Sea Conferences held in Geneva in 1958 and 1960.
I believe, frankly, that there is likely to be more world support for an outright claim for sovereignty in the Arctic than for an oblique claim to sovereignty through pollution control which may well establish a widely applicable principle. It is now evident that this is one of the areas of concern of our friend and neighbour to the south. Although the intent of this bill to control pollution in our northern waters is desirable, I only regret that it has been introduced into this chamber in a cavalier manner without proper discussions and consultation with our friends in the United States.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The headlines in our newspapers emphasizing in unequivocal language the U.S. government's rejection of the Canadian government's position respecting our Arctic waters indicates the total breakdown within our External Affairs Department under its arrogant and incompetent minister. I find it hard to believe that the American people and their government are not as vitally concerned over establishing proper controls for preventing pollution of our waters as we are.
Scientists have been warning us of the dangers of pollution of the land, air and water, and doubts have been raised as to the very future of mankind unless we begin to show some respect for nature and the environment in which we have been given the privilege of life. These scientific facts have been made available to Canadians, to Americans and to all the people of the world, and the control of pollution is not a special Canadian problem but a worldwide problem causing worldwide concern. Machinery has been set up by man to deal with worldwide problems. Here I refer to the United Nations and to the International Court of Justice. What is happening? Canada, under this administration, has now become a lone wolf. We no longer recognize the International Court of Justice. We cannot be bothered to sit down and talk over our international problems with our friends at the United Nations because we obviously have alienated all of them.
DEBATES	5961
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In fact, despite all the cultural, traditional and economic ties which we have with the United States, with all that should be going our way, we cannot even sit down and talk over rationally and sensibly with our American friends the need for establishing pollution control methods on Canadian territory.
What is happening in our External Affairs Department? Obviously, when the Prime Minister dictates the course to be followed, his puppets Punch and Judy, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), jump up and down and do his bidding. Our foreign policy is making this country a loner and is turning the world against Canada. It is having an evident effect internally upon this nation. All you have to do is look at the unemployment problems to realize the effect of some of our loss of external trade.
I would remind the government that a policeman is only a symbol of authority, a symbol which cannot keep law and order when mob violence rules, and by and large it is respect for the law which enables our police forces to retain law and order. It is for this reason that I suggest there should have been consultation with our international friends at the United Nations-if we have any-before we endeavour to put into effect pollution controls over our Arctic waters.
If our case had been properly presented- and evidently it has not been, for no international conference has been called since 1960 and ten years have passed during which this problem has not been debated or discussed with our international friends-hopefully there would be international respect for our laws and our position, making enforcement over this vast area a much simpler matter than may now be the case. After all, let us face facts. Irrespective of any pollution control laws which we may pass in this Parliament, those regulations could not have stopped the Arrow disaster and the resulting pollution which occurred in Chedabucto Bay in Nova Scotia. Neither will these laws prevent the accidental pollution of our northern waters or the waters off our Atlantic or Pacific coasts.
I suggest that if this were a reasonable government, having outlined their objectives they would not find it too late to discuss our proposals at the United Nations in the hope of securing some form of agreement to our
5962	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill claims. This has been the course followed by most countries on international problems ever since World War II: agreement rather than state practice has become the accepted norm.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, when I have finished my remarks, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the firmness of the U.S. position, you realize there is a very real possibility of a head-on clash the first time the Canadian Coastguard interferes with U.S. ships in what the United States considers are international waters.
The Arctic ocean has remained a great mystery until recent times, but the last two decades have witnessed considerable progress: the unknown ocean has become one of the most studied in the world and it is gradually revealing its secrets to scientists. The voyages of the submarines Skate and Nautilus have proved that the ice in our northern archipelago is neither uniform nor permanent. These submarines blazed a new, submerged northwest passage and when and if nuclear-powered cargo submarines are built the new route will cut 4,900 miles and 13 days oil the route from Japan to Europe. There are, of course, certain problems involved in operating submarines under the ice, but these are gradually being solved.
So we need pollution control authority in our northern waters because obviously they will be used more in the future than they have been in the past. But I believe that in order to be effective we must have some international agreement to our proposals as outlined, if we hope to be credible in world courts. Unfortunately, Canada's official attitude toward the status of our Arctic waters has never been altogether clear. Over the years a number of government ministers, including two prime ministers, have stated that Canada claimed jurisdiction right up to the North Pole. In 1956, however, the Minister of Northern Affairs made it quite plain that Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic was limited to lands and territorial waters and that we have never subscribed to the sector theory in application to ice.
Except for an occasional rather vague statement to the contrary since that time, it appears that the official position expressed in 1956 by the minister responsible still represents the government's view. However, it is somewhat surprising to note that the official maps prepared and issued by the government

DEBATES	April 16, 1970
continue to show the boundary lines of Canada as extending to the North Pole.
I believe it is time to end this anomaly. This can be done by the government issuing a clear statement indicating we have sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago, thus terminating many years of indecision on this important matter. By this action we would have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
We have a responsibility to our native peoples, the Indians and Eskimos who stand the risk of being exploited by commercial operators, before it can be said they have in any way benefited from today's enlightened society. If Canada does not assert its claim to sovereignty over the Arctic, these people will be exposed to exploitation which already disfigures the permafrost of their land and threatens to eliminate the northern wildlife upon which they depend for existence.
In my view, northern development must remain in Canadian hands and Canadian sovereignty over this area will guarantee our claims to these resources. There are many who say that the future of Canada lies in our northern areas, and if there are vast resources of oil, as exploration indicates, it is up to Canada and to Canadians to regulate the growth of this development. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will do everything possible to make this Canadian development a reality.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat may I say that I was interested in his remark that since the war the international community had proceeded to establish international law only by way of mutual agreement. Does he recall the Truman doctrine which the United States used in making a unilateral claim over the continental shelf, and which ultimately led to agreement? How does that fit his theory?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am not sure I have followed the minister's question, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The United
States asserted a unilateral claim to the continental shelf. How does that fit in with the hon. member's theory that they proceeded only by mutual agreement?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: At the present time we are talking about Canadian sovereignty over our own territory, the northern archipelago, a section of this country which Canadians generally have assumed and which I certainly
April 1$, 1970	COMMONS
have always assumed, even if the hon. gentleman has not, has always belonged to Canada.
I have always felt that the islands in the archipelago and the waters between those islands belonged to Canada.


Mr. Borrie:: That isn't what you said.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is exactly what I said in my speech.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I assume that is what the hon. member meant to say. I will read his speech with interest, and I suggest he should, too.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I hope these points will become clear. I hope that the division which obviously exists between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be resolved, so that there will not be one statement made in this House and another one outside it on television, which is totally misleading to the Canadian people. This is why I am asking for clarification, simplification and a little bit of the truth so that all can understand the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The truth of the matter is that you do not have any answer to my question.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days I have been reminded of history under totally different circumstances at the beginning of the First World War.
I refer to the situation in which Britain found herself when she had an agreement with France and the British cabinet was hesitating, after the German invasion of France and Belgium, as to whether it would adhere to that agreement. The French government sent notice after notice to the British government asking whether it would adhere to the agreement.
I think at that time Sir Edward Grey gave a classic answer when he said, "Britain will act in what she conceives to be her national interest." This, Mr. Speaker, is the reality of international politics, and this has been said many times since. I am sure some hon. members have read the book of Mr. Dean Ache-son, the respected, long-time Secretary of State of the United States, who put the same thing in another way in saying that the object of foreign policy is the national interest. That is only common sense.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is acting unilaterally. It is acting in advance of international law. It is acting in 22218-311
DEBATES	5963
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill what it conceives to be the national interest, and this is what it has a clear right and duty to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this government and all governments which succeed it will work for international harmony, will work to be on good terms with our neighbours and with all nations, and will work for the rule of law in international affairs.
But in all things, as has been said many times in this House, there are priorities. There is one priority which must apply to every Canadian government and it must override all others; that is, its first duty is to the Canadian national interest. On this legislation we are so proceeding. I welcome it.
I consider this legislation to be bold, to be imaginative, and to be progressive-not regressive but progressive. I predict that it will win the support of the world in the great forum of public opinion, informed public opinion, and in that respect later in these remarks I have a recommendation which I shall make to the government.
What is our reason? Our reason has been very clearly stated. International law in relation to the sea, made largely by shipping nations for shippers, has ignored and overlooked the rights of the third parties, the coastal states, and until international law develops to the required level this country is obliged to act unilaterally. The prime reason is the new and unexpected threat of massive pollution.
Yesterday, in company with a number of other members of this House, I was at Cheda-bucto Bay where a rotten old tub of Aristotle Onassis' sank and spewed more than half of her 3 million barrels of bunker fuel over some 1,200 square miles of Canadian waters and over approximately 80 miles of beaches.
I think we were all impressed, those of us who travelled the route yesterday, with the ingenuity that is being shown by those who are cleaning up the mess under the direction of Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan. We saw a great deal of ingenuity exercised. We saw some remarkable co-operation among Canadian government departments, the Canadian armed forces and the American navy. In fact there was co-operation from almost everyone except, I understand, the shipping company involved.
Mr. Speaker, what appalled me there yesterday was not the extent of the mess. The
April 16, 1970
5964	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill mess is bad, but in a few years it will be eliminated. I was impressed by the amount ol scientific knowledge we are getting out of this incident, because this is cold water and we are learning lessons in that area which can be applied some day if necessary-I hope it will not be-in the Arctic.
I was impressed by the methods of cleaning up the mess, including one developed by a west coaster, 1 am proud to say, Mr. Richard Sewell, who has developed a machine called a slick-licker which has become one of the best proven methods of cleaning oil off the surface of water. But when I looked at all these operations, which are being conducted at great expense and with success, I could not see any one of them that could now be applied to a ship sunk in the ice in McLure Strait, or in Prince Gustaf Adolf Sea, or the Beaufort Sea.
Possibly in time they can be adapted to such a situation, but in my opinion-it is admittedly a layman's opinion-there is not one applicable to such action in the Polar pack. Let me remind hon. members that the Polar pack averages 9 feet in depth. It is in almost constant motion, from 1.2 miles to 4 miles per day, and these waters are in darkness for much of the year. Incidentally, the Arrow, Onassis' ship, grounded on a well marked reef, well charted, buoyed, in broad daylight.
Mr. Speaker, who can suggest that in circumstances such as these, when we face the prospect of oil tanker shipments through the Northwest Passage, this country can sit back any longer and wait for international agreement?
How long do we have to wait, and how hard to do we have to try to get it?
We tried in 1958. We tried in 1960. We tried last fall at the IMCO meeting in Brussels. Time and time again we have been faced with the fact that international sea law is primarily made by shipping nations for shippers and that the rights of the third parties, the coastal states, are not sufficiently recognized.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I can give many examples and I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members one which illustrates further that international law has not yet been able to perceive the danger of oil pollution. There are no regulations in international law affecting ships entering port. The regulations which may apply are to ships leaving harbour. Unsafe ships may be forbidden to leave.


In times past this was sensible because the primary interest was the safety of the cargo, the safety of the crew and passengers. Who could perceive, in the sailing ship days or even up to the time of the supertanker, that an incoming ship could pose a threat to a state? Except a ship of war, of course.
So, Mr. Speaker, Canada has moved unilaterally and has done so properly. We are opposed in this stand. We are criticized for it by the United States government-perhaps I should say specifically by the State Department. I should be interested to know what the United States Department of the Interior feels. As for the feelings of some Senators, notably Senator Stephens of Alaska, who could be expected to recognize such threats when he sees them, he is one who has publicly stated that he favours the Canadian action.
A speaker who preceded me suggested that we had obviously alienated all the nations at the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: It must have been a Tory.


Paul St. Pierre: I would draw to the attention of the House a statement made on Sunday night by Dr. Stavropoulos, the Undersecretary General for Legal Affairs at the United Nations. Mr. Speaker this statement was made on a CBC program called "Cross Country Checkup", and this excerpt is a transcription from the tape recording. Dr. Stavropoulos was asked if he thought the Canadian action in reserving our position at the Hague Court was particularly important and he replied:
No, I don't think it is particularly important, I think it is particularly interesting. It is the first time we have a reservation dealing with pollution.
He was then asked about te Prime Minister's statement that international law at the present time was inadequate or imprecise on sea pollution. When asked if he agreed with this his answer was, "I would say yes." But he went on:
I wish that this is the first step toward a general acceptance of the law, which can be very good for humanity.
There, Mr. Speaker, are the words of a man who thinks in global terms and recognizes the Canadian government's action for what it is, a progressive step, admittedly taken in our own interest primarily but nevertheless eventually of benefit to all the sea coast nations of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 16, 1970	COMMONS


Paul St. Pierre: World opinion will support Canada in this matter, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I would go further and predict that American public opinion will support us and that in a very few years the United States government will recognize the necessity for similar legislation in relation to its coasts off Alaska.
I said earlier that I would have a suggestion for the government. I think that Canada should not hesitate to make her position plain at home and abroad, and specifically in the United States. I am not suggesting at all that the Canadian government carry on some sort of propaganda action in the United States against that government: that would be an intolerable action and they would naturally object to it.
But there could be no objection, Mr. Speaker, to our embassies and other offices proclaiming the justice of the Canadian position with facts-facts on the danger we are facing, facts on the peril of a 300,000-ton spill of oil in the Arctic, facts on the danger to all humanity of damage to the Arctic. These facts should be repeated until our message gets through and until it is recognized that Canada is not just exercising a narrow chauvinism but a legitimate self-interest.
Indeed, this is not only in our own interest but in the interest of all nations and of our good friend and ally, the United States of America, our oldest friend. We have been their faithful ally, their best customer and I hope that the American people will remember this. The statements of the United States government have been rational, reasonable, friendly and frank, but I am afraid that the people might be misled by statements from irresponsible parties in that country in the next few weeks.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress again that it is not my aim to speak against the United States. I am not pouring trouble on oily waters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul St. Pierre: It sometimes happens, Mr. Speaker, that when a Canadian speaks for Canada he finds himself being criticized for speaking against the United States. But I am not speaking against the United States. However, following that I must say that the intransigent attitude expressed by the United States State Department has puzzled me.
Ample precedents for Canada's actions have already been mentioned in this debate; for instance, the United States government
DEBATES	5965
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill itself with its Truman doctrine of ownership of minerals on the seafloor of the continental shelf which later became international law.
Canada and the United States together have a regulation to check on incoming aircraft 200 miles off our coast. If we are to pay this kind of lip service to international law first, last and foremost, what is this? Is it a continuous and continuing violation of international law by Canada and the United States, or is it a legitimate self-interest and self-defence? I claim, Mr. Speaker, that it is the latter, just as this Arctic pollution bill is in the same category for Canada.
Hon. members will recall that the United States government protested in 1964 when Canada extended beyond the traditional three-mile limit an additional nine-mile exclusive fishing zone. But two years later in 1966, Mr. Speaker, the United States government adopted a contiguous zone of nine miles to add to the three-miles of her territorial waters in which she controlled fishing. In this same area there is a Senate bill on pollution which has since gone to a Congressional group of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I am referring to the old bill HR-4148 in which they applied pollution controls and other regulations not only to their territorial waters but to the contiguous zone.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that when our motives are better understood and when the intent of this legislation becomes clear to the world, other nations including the United States will introduce similar legislation for similar good reasons.
I am sure that everyone in this House hopes for an eventual international agreement binding on all nations, at which time the need for our unilateral action will disappear. Until that time, however, let us be clear, let us be positive and act as the government has acted in this case, in accordance with the recommendations made to this House by the parliamentary standing committee. I have mislaid my paper, sir, but the language of it was clear: it said that the Canadian government should immediately make clear to the world the necessity of a declaration of sovereign control to prevent pollution in the Arctic.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should like also to support very strongly the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who said he hoped there would be a recorded vote on this bill and that it would be passed
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill unanimously. I do not know if there is precedent in this House for a vote to be recorded when all are in agreement.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


Paul St. Pierre: I am happy to hear that there is. I hope we follow this practice at the conclusion of this debate. Both the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) have stated that they are in favour of the legislation-in principle, of course. We can go further than this at this time.
I have read the bill with some care and attention. I would only say there are very few bills coming before the House which cannot be improved by a hardworking parliamentary standing committee, and I have no doubt that improvements can be made to this legislation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The government will not pay attention to them.


Paul St. Pierre: The bill, I am happy to see, has brought strong support from two of the parties of the opposition; the third party at the moment is still silent. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of legislation association with this bill. He was speaking of the establishment of the 12-mile territorial sea limit. I agree with him, and I also agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that these two bills really are linked together and that we scarcely discuss one without the other. The Leader of the Opposition said this implies that we are abandoning our assertion to sovereignty over the waters we consider to be ours. In this I totally disagree with him. My opinion is quite the reverse and I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to review this matter.
What is the effect of the 12-mile territorial sea legislation which is to come before us later, and how particularly does it apply in the Arctic? Questions which were asked of the Secretary of States for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) related to the drawing of baselines from which the 12-mile territorial limit could be extended. The question is, of course, where are these baselines to be drawn? If they were drawn from headland to headland they would be in accordance with the Norwegian decision in the international court of 1954. Would they be drawn around the perimeter of the Arctic islands? The Norwegian decision is, I suggest, crucial in this matter. It had to do with the surrounding of a smaller archipelago by baselines at the northern part of Norway.

April 16, 1970
In the subsequent dispute before the world court a dispute which resulted at the conclusion of that hearing in a Norwegian victory, it was established that baselines could be drawn not only from mainland to island but from island to island, including small islands. In the Norwegian decision some of the baselines are as long as 44 miles.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, how much farther might we extend baselines in the Arctic? If we were to enclose the entire outer perimeter we would in one case at least, in the case of such a line stretching from Prince Patrick to Banks Island in the McClure Strait, have to draw a baseline of 120 miles. Could we successfully sustain this in the world court, bearing in mind that it has been announced in this debate that Canada is fully prepared to go to the world court and defend her declaration of a full 12-mile territorial sea limit? I do not know the answer to this, Mr. Speaker, and neither does the world court which is not now seized of it.
I would draw the attention of the House to an associated matter. The purpose of our establishing control in the Northwest Passage is, to my mind, primarily this: we wish to control pollution and bar the passage to tankers which we consider to be dangerous. We have an interest in this. I do not think that any member of the House has suggested seriously that Canada would deny innocent passage to ships on any occasion, provided that passage was truly innocent, and this would apply not only to our territorial waters but also to our internal waters.
May I next draw to the attention of hon. members of the House the four small islands between Prince of Wales and Bathurst Islands; they are Garrett, Lowther, Young and Russell. That sounds like a firm of lawyers. The distance between these islands is less than 24 miles, well below the maximum limit of 44 miles in the Norwegian decision. By any rule current in international practice, the territorial waters of Canada would extend completely across the Northwest Passage in the Barrow Strait. I do not suggest that this is sufficient authority, but I suggest it would back the government in its statement that the waters between the islands are Canadian.
In all common sense, sir, let us face this fact: we are attempting to make new law in our establishment of Arctic pollution control measures contained in this bill. We are extending our authority, although no further than 56 other nations, in this 12-mile ter-

April 1G, 1970	COMMONS
ritorial sea bill. Let us be sure that we retain in that bill the advantage which geography-gives us. Let us extend the territorial waters across a portion of the Northwest Passage. And one gate in that passage, Mr. Speaker, is worth as much as ten gates when ships want to pass through from one side to the other.
As to the requirement that we permit innocent passage, I do not think Canada has anything to fear from adhering to the rule of innocent passage. Innocent passage is not extended to a ship which offers a threat to the peace or good order of the coastal state involved. A supertanker in the Northwest Passage, carrying 25 times the amount of oil we have been cleaning up in Chedabucto Bay as a result of the spill,-25 times, Mr. Speaker,-which is in a dangerous condition would clearly, in any international court, be treated as a threat to the good order of this nation.
Yet the United States' position is that we should not have this. The United States position has been stated quite recently by Hon. John R. Stevenson, who is the legal adviser to the Department of State. I will not read the whole of his remarks; there is not time and my time is running out. In essence he states that the United States position is that through any archipelago there ought to be a high seas passage. In terms of our Arctic archipelago, Mr. Speaker, this simply does not make sense. Can any hon. member of the House conceive of our permitting a high seas passage through the Northwest Passage of a piece of junk like the Arrow which sank in Chedabucto Bay?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I wish to refer to a couple of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition-one in particular. He asked what the intentions of the government are with respect to enforcement of our Arctic pollution control zone. That is a good question and I wish to deal with it briefly. We may not do anything. We must recognize the possibility that Panarctic may never discover oil in the Arctic, the Baffin iron ore deposits may never be open, or the nickel deposits on the mainland or numerous other deposits. The Arctic may go back to sleep for another 50 years. It slept before and it may sleep again. But I do not believe this will be so. Personally, I believe that the Arctic maiden is finally awake. Our duty is to ensure that she is not raped.
In answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I suggest there are three things that can be done immediately. One is research. We are gaining some valuable
DEBATES	5967
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill data from Dr. Cowan's work at Chedabucto. We need research in the Polar pack. We need knowledge as to what the perils are and how they can be overcome. It is the primary duty of this nation to carry this out. In accepting and claiming new responsibilities in the Arctic, the Canadian nation must accept new duties. That is one of them.
Navigational aids are another matter. We should look forward to that, assuming that passage proves economically feasible for either ore carriers or oil carriers. At the very least we should install a Decca system. Five Decca stations can be built at an estimated cost of $10 million-a very modest amount. We must provide these and other services.
I assume that the Arctic is going to continue to grow. I believe it is going to become an extremely important and productive part of this nation. Even though it will involve considerable expense, we must build a modern ice-breaking fleet. At the moment half a million dollars is being spent by the government on the design of one such ship. I do not know what the total cost would be of building ships far above the class of the St. Laurent, ships with at least 80,000 horsepower which would be capable of handling the Polar pack even in the open Beaufort Sea. Possibly a fleet of two or three would cost an estimated $200 million or $300 million. We owe a duty to ourselves and to other nations in the Arctic to be prepared to spend this amount of money. Let us do it cheerfully.
In conclusion, I congratulate the government without reservation on the principles which are expressed in this legislation. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member who has just spoken will permit a question. Just before the hon. member concluded his remarks he said he was going to deal with the question of how the government would enforce the new pollution regulations inasmuch as we have declared ourselves as sort of outlaws, outside the field of international law in this regard. I was listening attentively to what the hon. member had to say, but he dealt with another subject. I wonder whether he forgot to continue his remarks as to how we would deal with a country or a ship that would not obey our regulations.


Paul St. Pierre: I suggested we provide the services in the case of the Decca system. As the hon. member knows, Canada is not a signatory-is the hon. member listening?
April IB, 1970
5968	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am trying to.


Paul St. Pierre: As the hon. member
undoubtedly knows, Canada is not a signatory to the convention which requires us to provide free Decca service. We can charge ships for providing icebreaker services. Without it, ships may be left stuck, such as was the case with the Manhattan yesterday or the day before. It had to be broken free by the John A. Macdonald.


An hon. Member:: The St. Laurent.


Paul St. Pierre: I am sorry, the St. Laurent. This is a part of the exercise of sovereignty.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What does the government plan to do if a ship of one of the major powers of the world, such as the Soviet Union or the United States, said it would not pay any attention if one of our pollution officers wished to go aboard? What will we do? Will we shoot at 'the ship? That is a very practical question, and I should like to know the answer.


Paul St. Pierre: What would the hon.
member suggest we do if American troops marched into Saskatchewan? That question is about as sensible as the hon. member's.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose at this stage of the debate to enter into the area of the question just asked by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). However, I overheard a suggestion that we have had a little bit of experience in the matter of enforcement of our authority on the sea with respect to our fisheries legislation. If the hypothetical situation which the member is trying to provoke in his line of questioning does develop, undoubtedly this Parliament will be convened. If such a major emergency as the member is trying to conjure up does develop, we will debate the situation when it ceases to be hypothetical.
At times I am rather surprised at members of the official opposition, such as the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I intended to make reference to him in my remarks. The member for South Shore, for whom I have great admiration and who is a hardworking, diligent member of this House, seems to get cold feet and the jitters at certain stages of important and crucial discussion in the House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We just want to know what they are going to do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: An example of this was the attitude taken by the hon. member for South Shore during the debate on the territorial sea and fishing zones. I thought at the time that the Canadian government was being far too timid and afraid in exercising its proper jurisdiction in being responsible for the welfare of the Canadian nation in the world in which we live. As the matters stand at the moment, I am much happier with the stance the government has now taken than I was at the time of the debate on the fishing zones and straight baselines in 1964.
There are two aspects of the debate in which we are engaged. I feel this is one of the more significant debates that will be entered Upon in the Canadian Parliament for some time. This bill is merely one facet of a debate which will carry into two or three other pieces of legislation that are either on the Order Paper or which have been announced by the government. There is the international debate and the internal debate as to the actual content and substance of the bill we have before us, regarding which we can only touch on a few highlights at this second reading stage.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
At the present time, the international debate appears to be confined to exchanges between ourselves and our neighbours to the south: we all regard them as our friendly neighbours. It is important that we examine the bill in the terms of the attitude which the Canadian Parliament, on the one hand, and the government of the United States on the other, are taking toward it. As hon. members know, the subject matter was discussed in advance by the committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The discussion is summarized in the committee's report which is still awaiting disposition; a motion with regard to it is at present on the Order Paper.
I felt that in participating in this debate I should discuss the bill in both its international and its internal aspects in relation to the report which the committee has placed before the House. The motion that the report be placed before the House was made, in its present form, by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), perhaps a bolder colleague of the hon. member for Oxford, and the hon. member for South Shore.
I should like to draw attention to the contrast between the comments made by the United States and the views expressed by my leader this afternoon. I will use as a founda-
April 16, 1970	COMMONS
tion a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 16. This follows the text of Wednesday's Hansard reproducing the bulletin put out by the United States Information Service:
If Canada had the right to claim and exercise exclusive pollution and resources jurisdiction on the high seas, other countries could assert the right to exercise jurisdiction for other purposes, some reasonable and some not, but all equally invalid according to international law.
Some of the submissions which were put on record this afternoon by my leader makes it clear that what is valid and invalid under international law is not so lightly to be summed up as it is assumed in this statement from the United States. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) referred to this during his speech and it is pertinent also to the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford. In the long run, whether or not we can assert the jurisdiction which this bill proposes to assert will depend on whether, in the eyes of the world community, this is a reasonable extension of our authority or not.
I submit it is a reasonable extension of our authority. This is a view already expressed by the standing committee of this House particularly charged with the subject matter which has been brought before us today in the present bill. This is really the area of debate in which we are engaged with the United States at the present time. I maintain the government has leaned backward in seeking not to go beyond the bounds of reasonableness in asserting our jurisdiction. The posture taken is much less positive than that taken by the committee and reflected in the report which was unanimously adopted by its members. I should like to quote from page five of the committee's first report, where it is stated:
Your committee is unimpressed with arguments that adequate pollution safeguards could be effected by international agreement. Not only has progress towards international accord on maritime pollution control been extremely slow, but serious doubts are now being expressed by reputable scientists that present proposals for such international pollution control are adequate even for the world's temperate waters. As desirable as international maritime pollution control would be, the delicate balance of nature in the Arctic can only be protected by a more stringent set of pollution controls than anything that has been proposed internationally to date.
Your committee rejects the suggestion that an international waterway exists through the Canadian Arctic archipelago.
DEBATES	5969
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill In other words, the committee asserted our sovereignty over these waters in advance of the government. Further on, the report reads: The waters of the Canadian Arctic achipelago lie over the continental shelf; the Arctic Islands and the continental shelf are a geological extension of the Canadian mainland and the North American land mass.
I submit that the report of the committee and the position taken by the Canadian government are so eminently within the bounds of reasonableness that the United States, even though it may at the moment be adopting an attitude contrary to the one we have chosen, will eventually recognize the logic of the Canadian position and recognize that it is not only in Canada's interests but, in the long run, in the interests of the United States as well.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend the rest of the time available to me dealing with what I have called the internal debate, speaking as a member of the committee, as one who was concerned with the drafting of the report and also as one who has spent some time examining-as have many other hon. members-the terms of the bill before us. I should like to refer to the clause which is entitled "The application of the act". Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) whether he would make available to us maps or charts outlining in graphic form the area encompassed by this bill. I should like to quote briefly from the definition in the clause to which I have referred.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
-the area enclosed by the sixtieth parallel of north latitude, the one hundred and forty-first meridian of longitude and a line measured seaward from the nearest Canadian land a distance of one hundred nautical miles; except that in the area between the islands of the Canadian arctic and Greenland-
That is not the part with which I am concerned. It goes on:
-where the line of equidistance between the islands of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland is less than one hundred nautical miles-
I note that at no point in this definition is any reference made to what might or might not be done about the establishment of baselines. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, I think it was, referred to something of this in his remarks and it does raise the question as to what kind of area we are going to enclose. If one measures 100 miles from the nearest Canadian land, just what does that mean
April 16, 1970
5970	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill when one is thinking of an area on the map where the name "McClure Strait" is printed? This is an important consideration that could fruitfully be clarified, so far as the government's idea is concerned, prior to the second reading of the bill.
I suggest that the thinking of the government on this point could best be served by giving the House a picture of what they have in mind. We all like to look at maps and pictures and I am sure that the minister of Indian affairs could produce a very interesting portrayal, if he would. However, it should be obvious both to the government and to the minister that once this bill goes before the committee this will be one of the first and perhaps most pertinent questions which will be raised. I doubt very much that the committee will be satisfied to report the bill back to the House until there has been a pretty specific clarification of just what is the intent of the bill on this particular point.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is 100 miles from the coast; that is quite clear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member is getting curious too, I see.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: 
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to see you finally agree with me.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Oxford, who is so interested in my remarks, when he implied that as a solution we simply develop a large Canadian navy and
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill put it around the Arctic islands to make sure no ships go near there. This is not a solution which I am sure even he-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, fun is fun but when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) gets to the point of distorting my remarks and putting in my mouth words which were not implied, it is a little too much.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be too much, but it is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, if there is a difference of opinion among the opposition members I know one of the government members would like to intervene to settle any difficulty which may exist there. This has been a reasonably amicable day. It is heartening that apart from certain technical criticisms, there exists in the House widespread support for Bill C-202.
I must meet one criticism that was made earlier this evening by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). He suggested that Canada had lost its position of prestige in international affairs and that we had not been sufficiently co-operative in matters related to protecting the world environment. At least, the implication was there that we had avoided opportunities to co-operate at the international level. I can tell members that no nation has fought more earnestly to undertake useful initiatives to protect the world environment than has Canada. I do not think a statement attacking Canada's reputation abroad is a useful one to introduce in this debate.
Canada, however, I think is somewhat frustrated. The United Nations Economic and Social Council report entitled "Problems of the Human Environment" outlines very well the situation which exists in the world today in respect of pollution of the sea. This is the source of our frustration. I quote as follows from page 15 of this document which was tabled at the last session:
Pollution of the sea is a continual threat to its future productivity. Although the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil has been in existence since 1954, oil pollution remains a major concern, and other forms of equally damaging pollution continue with little or no control.
This is the source of Canadian concern and frustration. No nation has been more willing

April 16. 1970
to co-operate at the world level to accelerate the process of developing her national standards. But when the United Nations itself admits failure and an inability to develop these standards, and when the ecology of the Arctic is in serious danger, Canadians cannot remain, as Churchill said, supine and silent while the destructive process goes on. At page 64 of this report we have the great hope held by U Thant. This is what he said:
The control of pollution in marine environment raises problems of legal nature such as measures which States can take outside their territorial seas in self-protection against pollution-
This is a recognition by all nations that this question has to be dealt with by nations of the world. The report continues:
* liabilities arising from casualties involving discharge of oil or other pollutants, powers of surveillance by coastal states to implement measures for improving the safety of navigation and controlling maritime pollution.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Then it tells us about the convening of the conference to be held at Brussels from November 10 to 28, 1969, with a view to adopting conventions on both the private and public law aspects of these problems. Canada was one of the most co-operative nations in the world to make the Brussels conference a success. The conference was not a success; it was another in a series of frustrations experienced by Canada and other nations with serious threats to their maritime ecology.
But let no one in any section of this House suggest that Canada has not made an earnest endeavour to inspire international concert to meet this problem of pollution and the protection of the environment. No nation has made a greater contribution at the United Nations to suggest ways in which the resources of the sea can be developed for the benefit of all mankind, and it is to the honour and credit of Canada that this has been done.
The hon. member for South Shore should not have made the statement he did. The need for legislative action to protect the delicate ecological balance in the Arctic has been treated very eloquently this evening by my colleague the hon. member for Coast Chilco-tin, who I thought made a splendid contribution to this debate. But some very useful remarks have been made by opposition members as well.
Recent pollution catastrophes have served to emphasize the pressing need for stringent anti-pollution measures on all of Canada's

April 16, 1970
coasts, not merely on the Arctic coast but, perhaps because of its unique ecology, particularly on our Arctic coastline. As the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin stated, yesterday some of us had an opportunity to visit the site of Canada's recent pollution crisis. Certainly one factor emerged-that very little scientific research exists to assist this or any other nation to combat a major oil pollution catas-trope, especially should that pollution occur under subzero conditions.
When the Arrow foundered on our east coast, the fact of the matter is that Canadian science had not one single precedent to assist us in meeting that serious pollution crisis. It is to the credit of Canadian scientists from coast to coast, and members of our armed forces, that such a splendid job was done. But let no group of scientists be ever faced with that kind of problem again. The team of scientists and defence personnel who won the victory at Chedabucto Bay would have found it impossible to win a similar victory in Canada's far north had a mammoth supertanker been crushed in the ice, a tanker carrying not three million gallons of bunker-C but 75 million gallons.
I was in New York when the Manhattan came back from her historic visit to the Arctic. All of the New York tugs welcomed her. Not much mention was made of the role of the John A. Macdonald in all of the speeches of welcome that were delivered. But when placed in drydock it was soon determined that had the Manhattan been carrying oil in her tanks instead of test-run water, the result would have been very different. There were two large holes below the waterline in the cargo tanks, and one hole would have accommodated a large truck, and yet the voyage was termed a resounding success.
Had there been oil in the tanks of the Manhattan instead of seawater, there would have been serious ecological damage in our Arctic. Surely our friends in the United States who suggest they are not prepared to recognize our proposed claim of Arctic jurisdiction for the urgent and critical purposes of pollution control must realize that some of our concern at least stems from this incident, as well as from oil pollution caused by their numerous recent drilling accidents on the west, the east and the Gulf coasts.
The Americans have acted to protect themselves from further catastrophes. They have recently adopted a law calling for unlimited liability in cases of wilful negligence, plus fines of $100 per gross ton up to a maximum
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill of $14 million for even accidental spills. We must logically and understandably act in an even more critical area. American losses have been mainly affecting the leisure industry and the shrimp and oyster beds. There are fewer sandy beaches in Santa Barbara, and Louisiana shrimps will not be in as good supply this season.
The Americans are logical people. Apart from official policy pronouncements, undoubtedly they recognize Canada's need to protect the entire Arctic archipelago with its hundreds of thousands of square miles of surrounding sea and ice as a region into which ships should venture only under strict pollution controls.
It should be recalled that there is reason for Canadian concern. A spokesman for Standard Oil stated, as the Manhattan completed her maiden voyage in New York:
We may well see 25 to 30 supertankers operating across the top of the continent during the 70s. and if Arctic oil can be shipped in quantities through the northwest passage, so can iron, zinc, lead, copper, nickel and asbestos. They are only to be unearthed and delivered. The sleeping Arctic could become a very busy place.
I quote from the Congressional Record what a member of the United States House of Representatives said the other day:
Imagine a nation with our maritime history... being forced to rely on a foreign-flag icebreaker for the completion of the Manhattan project. We appear to be on the threshold of a dramatic breakthrough for commercial carriage in the Polar regions. Thus it is imperative that we establish and maintain a responsive icebreaking capability.
Congress has now authorized a start by the U.S. coastguard on the construction of the most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world. The first ship will cost $59 million and it will be twice the size of the durable, hardworking John A. Macdonald.
Canadians are concerned about what might happen to a tanker that breaks up in the Arctic. We should be concerned. Not only is more oil being moved by sea each year but the size of oil tankers has also increased. The average tanker used during World War II had a capacity of 16,000 tons. By 1965 that average had risen to 27,000 tons, and a new tankers delivered in 1966 averaged 76,000 tons. A Japanese company has launched a 276,000 ton tanker, and other Japanese yards have orders for tankers as large as 312,000 tons. More than 60 tankers of 150,000 tons or more are on order throughout the world; tankers of 500,000 to 800,000 tons are on the drawing board, and those of more than one million tons are thought to be feasible. On the new

April 1G, 1970

Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill 1,010-foot British tanker Esso Mercia two officers have been issued bicycles to help patrol the decks of the 166,890-ton vessel. If they build that million-ton tanker, they will be buying them automobiles!
The size of the tanker fleet itself is growing at a rate that rivals the growth in average size of new tankers. In 1965 it had increased to 3,500, and in 1968 it numbered 4,300 ships. At the present time nearly one ship out of every five in the world merchant fleet is engaged in transporting oil, and almost the entire fleet is powered by oil-yet some people question why Canada is concerned about the movement of ships of this size through our Arctic waters.
Is it really suggested that we should do nothing about pollution while plans are being .evolved which would see massive tankers carrying potential pollutants across our northern seas? Indeed, the tanker danger in the Arctic may be so great-and I believe this-that no economic benefits can justify it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Let us build a pipeline.


Raymond J. Perrault: Perhaps we should not have tankers travel there at all and we should insist that oil go out by pipeline. The Canadian people-and this is not restricted to one party-are determined to guard the Arctic ecosystem, its people, fauna, flora and the delicate balance among them from the disaster from a calamity such as a supertanker's oil spill.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Our friends in the United States insist that they, too, are concerned about "the dangers to marine environment and the absence of international guarantees to protect against pollution." But surely it is fair to suggest that there have been serious shortcomings in all programs, including the American program, to combat pollution. Significant oil spills have occurred in the United States alone with increasing frequency-180 in 1968, 192 in 1969, and 61 to March 1, 1970.
Surely any government of Canada would be remiss in its responsibilities to the people of this country if it procrastinated with respect to Arctic pollution control, and instead waited for other nations to establish international precedents which might eventually result in a body of international law which might again, at some vague, indeterminate future date, form the basis for a decision by the world court. Surely the Arctic is an area where Canada, of all nations, must develop and

create its own precedents. The initiative lies with us. The measure before us would provide some of the world's toughest pollution penalties, and so it should.
While the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) delivered what I thought was a useful speech today with reference to the subject of international law, it was indeed disheartening to note the nature of the opposition criticism directed toward this government by the deputy leader of that party. He stated on April 8, 1970, as recorded at page 5624 of Hansard:
-it is obviously extremely regrettable that the government of this country, a government which has a position of some importance in the international family, should find it necessary to reduce the extent to which Canada is ready to submit itself to the rule of international law.
He continued:
If every country in the world, every country of the United Nations, were to reduce the sphere in which it would be internationally bound every time it is faced by a matter of national interest, pretty soon the whole concept of the International Court and, indeed, of the United Nations itself, would be dead and buried.
Of course this kind of statement is palpable nonsense. 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 [DOT]efforts, as it has already, to develop agreed rules on environmental and fisheries protection; but that Canada is not prepared to engage in litigation with states on vital issues where existing laws are either inadequaie or non-existent and thus do not provide a firm basis for judicial decision. As the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin has pointed out, such custom as does exist leans without any question in favour of the world's shipping companies, with little or no reference to pollution and that this, to Canada and its Arctic in 1970, is an intolerable situation.
So we have submitted, and quite properly, a reservation to Canadian acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice relating to those areas of the law of the sea which are underdeveloped or inadequate. I suggest that in spite of these reservations the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) should confer with his leader and be reminded that Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains much broader than that of most other members of the United Nations. It is to be regretted that the hon. member for York South was not in the cham-
April 16, 1970

ber today to hear his leader's speech. The deputy leader of the New Democratic Party need feel no embarrassment about Canada's position regarding that court, nor should he nor anyone else feel apologetic about the constructive role that we have played and continue to play at the United Nations.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is something quixotic about the position of the hon. member for York South. The other day he urged support for what he termed "the rule of law in international affairs." He accused the government of "hypocrisy in international affairs." Yet today his leader expressed opposition to world court intervention and made a compelling case for unilateral action by Canada.
Today, also, in another display of verbal acrobatics the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) expressed general support for Bill C-202 after criticizing the government in his initial statements. In January he accused the government of being dilatory, of lacking resolution, and I recall that he said the government "lacked old-fashioned guts." The challenge was issued to stand up and unilaterally declare our sovereignty over the Arctic. But after the government acted on April 8 to introduce two bills, one relating to pollution and the other to Canadian territorial waters, the hon. gentleman from Halifax who was a militant hawk in January became the dove of April. He criticized the government for failing to submit the matter to the International Court of Justice. There were no emotional appeals for old-fashioned guts. Here are his words:
We must recognize that it constitutes a serious step, a step hardly in the right direction, for Canada to reduce the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice-
He questioned the wisdom of taking this action-
-in an arbitrary manner without.. . giving an opportunity to the members of this House ... to express their views on this matter before the adoption by Canada of a position with regard to the jurisdiction of the court.
His words are to be found at page 5624 of Hansard. It is encouraging that today he expressed support for the pollution measures but mentioned only in passing his view that we should act through the world court. Most of his opposition was to Bill C-203 which, he told us, actually serves to limit Canadian sovereignty in the north. The allegation is spurious; indeed it is mischievous. Both measures will advance substantially Canada's claim in the Arctic.
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill Mr. Aiken: Will the hon. member accept a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: When I have finished my speech I will be glad to do that. If you will just listen to the burden of my argument, perhaps I can convert you.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is a burden all right.


Raymond J. Perrault: We were told today and on other occasions that we should declare our sovereignty immediately and not wait. Opposition leaders have been calling for a "ringing declaration of sovereignty." Those are great words for the hustings. Those who advocate a dramatic unilateral proclamation of Canadian sovereignty urge a policy which is far from simple.
Today, Canada's statements on sovereignty over the years were chronicled very well. Among other statements about our sovereignty was one made by Alvin Hamilton. He made a ringing declaration about Canadian sovereignty in 1958, but now we have the official opposition demanding again that we make another ringing declaration of our sovereignty over the Arctic. This just indicates how effective the Hamilton declaration was. The problem is not how to proclaim Canadian sovereignty, but how to get other nations to admit to our claim. Words are meaningless. Actions which create precedents are meaningful.
Surely those who advocate reference to the world court should be reminded that the notice to the United Nations, known formally in international law as a reservation to Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the international court, had to be sent before the bill was tabled. Unless Canada had given notice to the United Nations in advance of the tabling of the legislation, it would have been tied up by any international court ruling arising from an unexpected American challenge to the bill. This is how unrealistic was the initial suggestion from spokesmen for the opposition parties.
Those who want to place the fate of Canada's Arctic ecology and Arctic sovereignty in the hands of a world court without sufficient precedents to render a sound decision perform a notable disservice. No government need accept the jurisdiction of the world court. An exception lies in the so-called optional clauses by which some states agree to accept the jurisdiction of the court in disputes with other states which have likewise agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the court.
597G	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill
Despite the statements made by the hon. member for York South and by the Leader of the Official Opposition, only one-third of the United Nations members have signed the optional clauses and less than a third of that third have signed without some sort of reservation. Only 45 of the 126 member states of the United Nations have accepted some measure of compulsory jurisdiction by the international court. Only 13, technically, place no limitations on that jurisdiction, yet even among that 13 some limitations exist. Eighty-one nations have not filed declarations of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction by the international court. Canada was not among the 13 before this week's action-we already had reservations.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The United States, which today disputes our jurisdiction and asks for international cooperation, reserved everything when signing, starting with immigration, including tariffs, trade, the Panama Canal and finally throwing in for good measure "all disputes essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States," empowering itself to decide just what these might be. Yet our friends to the left suggest that Canada was remiss in her responsibility not to bring this entire problem before the world court.
Is it really fair for any nation to criticize Canada for withdrawing in part from the court's domain, especially in the domain of pollution where international law is critically underdeveloped? Understandably, Washington is concerned that our claim to our archipelago ocean may create a precedent which could embarrass it in some parts of the world. But the Beaufort Sea is not the Java Sea. As one writer has stated, Ottawa is not Djakarta. Those who may be frightened or dismayed by the reaction of the United States should be reminded of the Truman proclamation of the continental shelf theory of 1948-a very unilateral action. As far back as 1780 the United States unilaterally established a 62-mile limit for anti-smuggling inspection of vessels.
If the world finds it difficult to act in concert, the fact is that Canada is prepared to tackle the problem of environmental pollution in the Arctic alone and, Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying that this effort commands the support of most members of this House.
At the recent session of the United Nations it was clear that the world is faced with an environmental crisis. Many statements were made. The concept of the ocean as a limitless

DEBATES	April 16, 1970
drainage basin for the world is wrong. The ocean itself has limitations, but we are faced with an environmental crisis and the world does not have laws for its own protection. The United Nations does great work, nations of the world working together and performing magnificently in many areas, but they have not been able to operate successfully in this battle against pollution. The inadequacy of world measures is not the fault of Canada. We continue to be one of the most active nations in the quest for international controls.
Surely it is not for a world without environmental standards and precedents to rule on the special problems of the Canadian Arctic, for Canadians will be the prime victims of any massive kind of pollution whether from oil spill or any other source. We are acting now to forestall the irreparable harm which might be caused while international law is developing to meet the current need. In 1972 there will be in Stockholm a conference on the environment, and Canada is a member of the planning committee. This conference will be vital to the world, but it would be a mistake to assume that Canada should wait until 1972 before acting to protect the ecology of her Arctic.
Those who suggest, almost in hurt tones, that they were surprised this measure was brought in without sufficient discussion or consideration should be reminded of the following paragraph in the Speech from the Throne as reported at page 3 of Hansard for October 23 last:
While the Atlantic and the Pacific retain their traditional importance for Canada, the Arctic Ocean and its coastal regions may soon enter a period of rapid economic development. Much of this development will undoubtedly occur on the islands of the Canadian Archipelago, or in the adjoining continental shelf whose resources, under international law, we have the exclusive right to explore and exploit. With resource development, and the benefits it entails, may come grave danger to the balance of plant and animal life on land and in the sea, which is particularly precarious in the harsh polar regions. While encouraging such development, we must fulfil our responsibility to preserve these areas, as yet undespoiled and essentially in a state of nature. The government will introduce legislation setting out the measures necessary to prevent pollution in the Arctic Seas. It is also considering other methods of protecting Canada's ocean coasts.
Through the United Nations and its agencies, Canada is seeking to establish a system to combat the pollution of international waters which threatens so many forms of life on this planet.
There is nothing inconsistent in the action taken by the government. As the Prime Minister said-
-the new Arctic legislation is not an extension of sovereignty, but a weapon against pollution-

April 16, 1970
But if it serves to strengthen Canada's undoubted sovereignty in the Arctic, would anyone in this House decry that auxiliary accomplishment? Beyond the immediate need for Canada to preserve the ecology of the Arctic it is essential that all Arctic nations agree on methods to protect the Arctic ecology.
Our present concern with Arctic sovereignty should not overshadow the fact that we share the Polar region with the United States and other nations. The Soviet Union already has cities in the Russian Arctic and has reputedly found large oil deposits there. Beyond the measure before us she obviously enjoys a special degree of support. Canada should initiate talks with all her Arctic neighbours, including the Soviet Union, and pool information on ecology for the purpose of setting and extending anti-pollution standards not only throughout the Arctic but to all other areas of the world seas.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, the House will now consider the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on March 23 last I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as recorded at page 5460 of Hansard. It had to do with the comments of the Auditor General as they appear in volume I of his report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969, at pages 94, 95 and 96. My question concerned the Auditor General's comments on the $180 million paid out by Order in Council P.C. 1969-172, $173 million of which was paid to a single auto manufacturing company, which I take to be the Ford Motor Company of Canada.
I asked why this money was paid out by Order in Council to this company when other companies such as General Motors and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Chrysler were paid under Motor Vehicles Tariff Order No. 1965. The Auditor General gave the reason for this, as presented to him and to the Public Accounts Committee, and stated at page 95:
From the evidence given, it is obvious that in determining whether or not a vehicle manufacturer has complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance follow criteria additional to those incorporated in the Tariff Order.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The officials of these departments, when testifying before the committee, appeared to place greater emphasis on criteria which are not included in the Tariff Order than on certain criteria which are included.
It seems to me that the criticism of the Auditor General is clear and specific. There is a Tariff Order under which rebates are made under the Canada-U.S. Auto Agreement to companies which are signatories to that agreement. The other auto companies have qualified under that Tariff Order. The Ford Motor Company for several years now has not complied with the Tariff Order and is not eligible for the rebates. However, on the basis of criteria which are not included in the Tariff Order the government has seen fit successively, year after year, to rebate to the Ford Motor Company the money to which it was not entitled under the Tariff Order. In this way $173 million has been paid out to the Ford Motor Company by Order in Council without any statutory authority. I say that because the company did not and could not comply with the Tariff Order.
I have read the evidence presented by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) before the Public Accounts Committee in which he points out that certain agreements took place in an exchange of letters between the government and the president of the Ford Motor Company. I point out that those letters are not law and that if there are criteria upon which the Ford Motor Company was to be paid the $173 million, those criteria should be placed in the Tariff Order.
The other day I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if the government's contention that the Auditor General was invading the field of policy was based on the Auditor General's criticism that the payment of $180 million was on the authority of an Order in Council instead of on the authority of the Tariff Order. The Prime Minister replied that this was the case. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General was not objecting to money being paid out under the Canada-U.S.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Auto Agreement. He was not questioning policy. He was questioning, as I do, the right of the government to pay out $180 million by Order in Council to companies which could not qualify under a Tariff Order and under statutory authority. In this case there has been a payment of public funds without proper legislative and statutory authority.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Shame!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have asked for an explanation of this matter and I will keep on asking for an explanation. The government has one of two responsibilities: either it must change the Tariff order so as to include any other criteria it may want to add, or it must say that those who do not qualify under the Tariff Order are not entitled to the rebate.
I raise this question because the answer I obtained from the Minister of Finance was both evasive and flippant. When I asked him about the criticisms of the Auditor General his reply was, "I would simply like to say that accountants make poor lawyers." I say that sometimes accountants make poor ministers, and if they continue to make these payments without the proper statutory authority they are not fulfilling their duties as ministers of the Crown.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, the criteria upon which the decision of the government was taken were based on Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, the more comprehensive agreements entered into with the individual motor vehicle companies in Canada and their over-all performance under the automotive program.
Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965 is an integral part of the Canada-United States Automotive Products Agreement which provides for the removal of tariffs and other impediments to trade between the two countries in automotive products. It does not anticipate collection of duties by either country, and none have been paid. The Auditor General has not observed that this is an international free trade agreement. However, both Canada and the United States established conditions which are contained in the text of the agreement as a means to control and to serve as a measure of protection to their separate industries.
The condition established by Canada, as set out in the order in question, pertains to the definition of a manufacturer. This condition was established to ensure that in the process 
DEBATES	April 16, 1970
of rationalization our industry would not become smaller than in 1964. However, this condition by itself does not give any assurance of expansion by the Canadian industry within the North American market created by the agreement. The government therefore entered into more comprehensive agreements with each of the motor vehicle companies in Canada which placed greater production obligations upon them than provided under the international agreement.
A review at the end of 1967 and again in 1968 revealed that the companies had fully satisfied the production requirements placed upon them by the government. In most instances the companies were producing in Canada at a level in excess of that required under the program. However, it was determined that while certain companies had not fully met all the particular terms of the original definition of manufacturers as set out in the original order, they had in fact met or exceeded the objectives set by the government for total production performance. Therefore, the government exercised the authority given it by Parliament under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act to pass an Order in Council confirming certain moneys were not in fact owing to it for customs duties. Payments have not been made to these companies by the government to refund moneys to them.
Having devoted his time and effort to the legalistic aspect of the question, I hope the hon. member will recognize the fact that this agreement has produced employment for thousands of Canadians.
POLLUTION-PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS______



DOOR-TO-DOOR DISTRIBUTION OF ARCTIC POWER

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I drew to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) the protest of a number of women in Edmonton. They were annoyed because they found unsolicited samples of a household detergent at their doors. Not only that, the detergent in question was Arctic Power, a detergent which a pollution analysis showed to contain 36.5 per cent phosphate-a very high percentage of a pollution.
The women complained on two counts. First, they wanted a stop put to the nuisance of finding unasked for samples of merchandise dumped on their doorsteps and their right to privacy on their property being invaded. Second, they resented the advertis-
April 16. 1970	COMMONS
ing of a product which adds to the pollution of our waterways. One of them, at least, mistakenly believed this product had already been banned by the government. The natural reaction of the women was to collect as many of the unwanted samples as possible and send them to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the hope that he would do something to stop the nuisance. Evidently they were not aware that this matter falls within the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Equally evident, the minister is not yet prepared to take this particular responsibility seriously.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Admittedly my question provoked amusement, dealing as it did with Arctic Power detergent in the midst of heated exchanges about Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic and the United States' reaction to the Canadian declaration. But equally admittedly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs took advantage of the lighthearted moment to slither away quickly from my question about what he proposed to do to protect consumers from the practice of unsolicited door-to-door dumping of samples. In his reply to my question he said:
I will examine the situation to see whether it is within the terms of reference of the Arctic pollution bill.
Fair enough. But, fun and games aside, it is the job of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to provide legislation to protect the consumer from a number of advertising and merchandising practices which constitute a constant source of irritation and added expense to the consumer. There is the business of unsolicited samples, some of which are dangerous to children. There is unsolicited advertising-letters, circulars and brochures which fill the garbage cans and wastebaskets of householders everywhere. There is the deceptive and mysterious practice of "cents off" advertising. Someone sent me a bottle of coffee marked "cents off" the other day. Cents off what? There is the two-package "deal" in razor blades which someone sent to my office a few days ago. They had four different prices marked on them, along with the encouraging admonition to "save 39 cents".
These things may seem amusing and scarcely worth the attention of members of this august chamber, but I can assure them that to the housewife who is struggling with 50 kinds of frustration they are unwarranted nuisances. Then there is the advertising of

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fruit drinks which have never had any fruit near them, and jelly desserts so fresh with fruit that one would swear they had just fallen from the tree. Yet they contain no fruit, even though many a mother congratulates herself on building up her children's health with such concentrated goodness from orchard and garden.
I realize that the minister has made a start on consumer protection in a number of directions. There is the hazardous products legislation, the provisions respecting the sizing of children's clothing and a number of other measures. But there is need of vigorous action along the lines I have mentioned tonight- action to ban house-to-house distribution of unsolicited samples, action to prohibit deceptive and fraudulent advertising and the peddling of products which are not what they seem to be. I would ask the minister to make a real start in this direction and earn the gratitude of all long-suffering consumers.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady has once again taken up the cudgels on behalf of the housewives of Canada. Together with many other people she is attempting to control the use of phosphates in our society. She is a member of the Standing Committee on National Resources which is presently studying the Canada Water Bill, and I must say she is one of our strongest supporters with respect to, hopefully, the abolition of phosphates from detergents throughout Canada.
Listening to the hon. lady I felt, as a male who works in the House of Commons and who has to look after a constituency, a sense of regret that I do not have more opportunities to go shopping and price the coffee and other commodities which we find on the shelves of the stores. I only wish more of us had the relationship with the housewives of Canada the hon. lady has, so that we might learn more about the things which affect consumers. I am not being facetious when I say that. We as parliamentarians face this problem of trying to determine somehow or other what is right for the people who live in this country, not least of whom are the housewives who have to live within the family budget during the course of any given two-week or one-month period.
I think that the Minister of Consumer Affairs, in the job he is trying to do of bringing consumer items closer to the people of Canada so they will understand better what
April 18, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion they are purchasing when they go into grocery or other stores, is doing the kind of job Canadians are asking him to do. I know the hon. lady will continue to pressure him in terms of finding those areas where there are problems, but I would assure the House that the minister, through his department, is taking on as many things as he can at any one time.
In conclusion, as far as free samples are concerned I cannot help but wonder whether we should turn off our television sets when advertising appears, because in effect this is the same as a free sample coming through the mails or through door-to-door distribution. But to the hon. lady I again say that I am sure the minister will bear her words in mind and do what he can to straighten out the sort of things that bother us all.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES

Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that justice and the just society are synonymous. The components of a just society must be economic, political and legal justice. By "legal justice" I mean justice according to the law, which includes legal procedure, jurisdiction of the courts and the appointment of judges. I really want to draw attention to the need to encourage men of character and ability to dedicate themselves to a judicial career.
I do not propose to cast stones at the procedures adopted by the United States, but I submit that the well-springs of justice have become tainted by the odious controversy in the Senate over the confirmation of the men nominated by the President to the Supreme Court of the United States. Here there is a lesson to be learned. In at least one instance the nominee was rejected because the Senate thought his judicial record was open to question on the matter of civil rights. But it is important to notice that there is no suggestion that a person without judicial experience be appointed.
The present nominee is a judge from the northern state of Minnesota. To put the matter simply, the President is not going outside the judiciary for an appointment to the highest court in the land. It is common sense that it is an advantage to be able to examine a man's judical record before appointing him to a higher court.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is well aware that the three greatest names in 
American legal history, namely, Holmes, Hughes and Cardoza, all served in lower courts. Lord Denning, who is probably the most widely-respected judge in the common law countries today, also proved his worth in a lower court before ascending to his present position as Master of the Rolls.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I direct the minister's attention to our Supreme Courts. This principle of elevating men of judicial experience is one that, I submit, ought to be implemented throughout the judical system. I am aware that the Minister of Justice has given partial effect to this principle, particularly in the province of British Columbia. I bear in mind that most of the appointments to the Supreme Court in that province during the past several years have been men who served in the county courts of that province. In the result, the reputation of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is unsurpassed in judical quality in this country.
The point I wish to make is that the principle ought to be applied on every possible occasion. I have in mind appointments from the county court to the Supreme Court trial division and from the Supreme Court trial division to the Supreme Court appellate division. The time has come when the wearing of the judical robe should be regarded as a career. There is a maxim in law that, no matter how illustrious he may have been as a lawyer, you never know what kind of judge you have until he puts on the robe. The Minister of Justice does not have to run that hazard in the higher courts. All that he needs do is turn a critical eye upon the records of the dedicated men who are already serving in the courts and have proved their fitness and their mettle.
If appointments are consistently made to the higher courts from ranks outside the incumbents on the bench, it cannot fail but produce at least two very adverse results. Firstly, it stifles the laudable hopes of men who have shown in the discharge of their duties that they are worthy of elevation. Ambition in a noble cause is a worthy spur; why remove it? Secondly, it will make the minister's task of finding men of ability for the lower courts even more difficult. I believe that it is an open secret that the majority of successful lawyers would hesitate before undertaking the wearisome and confining duties of judical office. In the result, it will eventually denude the trial division and the lower courts of the calibre of men who are sorely needed.
April 1G, 1970	COMMONS
Let me put my argument another way and point out the benefits that will flow from the adherence of elevating proven judges of the lower courts. This method of selection would indicate to a practitioner who is prepared to make the sacrifice necessary to the acceptance of an appointment to the lower court that he may well be considered, in the light of his performance, to a higher tribunal.
It is scarcely necessary to point out that this system has a three-fold benefit. Firstly, it will attract the better lawyer to accept an appointment to the lower court. Secondly, it will provide a reservoir of men of experience and proven work upon which to draw for appointments to higher tribunals. Thirdly, it will add to the prestige of the lower court as it clearly follows that every appointment from the lower court to the higher court is a compliment, not only to the individual concerned but to every member of the lower court. It is scarcely necessary to add that a good judge will be a better judge for having served in the trial division.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Let me support my contention with another point. Every member of the provincial Supreme Court is ex-officio a member of the Appeal Court, and if the words "ex-officio members of the Appellate Court" are to have any real meaning the minister should have no hesitation in appointing men who have already proven their worth as judges of the Supreme Court in the trial division.
Let me give a few illustrations of judges, who have now retired, who began their careers as trial court judges in the Supreme Court and later strengthened the Appellate Court when they were appointed to the higher division. I pick these names at random from my own province for the reason that I am less knowledgeable about circumstances in other provinces, although I have no doubt my argument could be applied with equal force all across the country. These men, by unanimous approval of the profession and aided by their trial court experience brought strength and lustre to the higher court-the
DEBATES	5981
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Honourable Mr. Justice Wilfred Roach, the Honourable Mr. Justice Keillor MacKay and the Honourable Mr. Justice James McRuer. I could add many more names to the list.
My submission is that it is vital in this changing age that the administration of justice be closer to the people and command the confidence of the people. I can think of no more effective way of promoting that objective than appointing to the higher courts men who have travelled the width and breadth of the province and mediated the differences between the people, face to face.
To overlook these dedicated men serving in the lower courts certainly does not add to the prestige and the morale of the Bench. There may be exceptions, but in my submission these principles should be generally adhered to. Perhaps I can put my argument in no better way than by drawing an analogy. The Minister of Justice and, yes, even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once sat in the back benches of this House. It is to the benefit of Parliament that the principle I now espouse for the judiciary was adopted in their case so they can now bring their back-bench experience and their ability to higher office. There is nothing so unique about the administration of justice that the same principle should not apply to judicial appointments.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my hon. friend, who also is a very competent and well-known lawyer, that extreme care must be taken to appoint as judges of the courts, especially the superior courts, people of the highest calibre, competence and integrity. I must say to him, however, that it has been and is the practice of the minister to consider all qualified persons for judicial appointments. This certainly includes members of the lower courts. I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will take note of the hon. member's remarks.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned a 10.25 p.m.

Friday April 17, 1970