1970-01-22

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has to do with the order of business for this day's sitting. In view of the understanding, and I think it is common knowledge, that the hon. member for Athabasca will be proceeding with his motion under Routine Proceedings, I wonder if the Government House Leader would be willing to ascertain whether there is unanimous consent to the oral question period being called before we deal with that motion?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I have already done so, Mr. Speaker, and I think the general feeling is that we should get right on with the debate to be instituted by the hon. member for Athabasca.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion, which will be seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The urgency of my motion will be apparent to anyone who has watched television or read the newspapers in the last two days, and I will not elaborate on it. The motion is:
That this House requests the government to make immediate representations to the government of Nigeria urging that journalists representing news agencies, newspapers and television networks throughout the world be given full rights of access and full freedom to report facts and to file dispatches throughout the former secessionist territory of Biafra, and that in view of the appalling conditions of starvation revealed by journalists who have been in the area, calls on the government now to
make a last desperate effort to secure the consent of the Nigerian government to the acquisition by the Canadian government of the available stocks of food at Sao Tome, their transportation by air and their distribution within the area where this tragedy is taking place.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood. There can be a debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member only if there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous agreement; therefore I cannot put the hon. member's motion for consideration by the House at this time.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in order that plans may be made and programs developed for the fiscal year 1970-71, the government has now approved the capital budget of the Farm Credit Corporation. There are certain aspects of this budget that will be of considerable interest to members of this House and to farmers across Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Adjustment of production practices is taking place all across Canada. In the prairie provinces many farmers are currently shifting or planning to shift to the production of livestock as an alternative to producing grain for direct sale. In other parts of the country dairy farmers and others are facing decisions of the same nature. Such changes of enterprise must be carefully planned, with due regard for the long-term market prospects as well as other considerations such as the provision of buildings, machinery, and the alternative of farm rotation to meet the changing pattern. Such changes must also be properly financed on a long-term basis. I wish to confirm that the Farm Credit Corporation may provide long-term credit to farmers who wish to adjust their resource utilization to

January 22, 1970
Farm Credit Corporation better meet the market demands. The budget of the Farm Credit Corporation for the coming year has been adjusted to provide additional funds to meet the increase in demand which is expected for loans for this purpose in the coming fiscal year. The field officers of the Farm Credit Corporation can be a valuable source of information and assistance to farmers in these matters.
An additional feature of the new budget is that it will provide funds to permit farmers who find it necessary and desirable to refinance current liabilities. These loans will be made available to cereal grain producers operating viable farm businesses who under ordinary circumstances would be able to operate satisfactorily but whose ability to do so has been impaired by inability to market their grain and who thus may need to refinance short and intermediate-term liabilities over a longer term. Applications for such loans, of course, will be subject to the usual other criteria for loans from the corporation.
The corporation will take steps to inform farmers that this assistance is available to them.


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenf-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the capital budget of the Farm Credit Corporation will certainly be studied with a great deal of interest by the agricultural industry across Canada.
His statement is very modest in tone when it says that "adjustment of production practices is taking place all across Canada." In essence what he is alluding to is the fact that the agricultural industry is staggering because of the lowest return it has experienced in its history.
Although the minister states that money will be made available for long-term loans for the provision of buildings, machinery and the alternative of farm rotation to assist in shifting production from grain to livestock, I think this program is weak. There are two apparent weaknesses which will be evident to the farmers immediately. First-and this concerns the west particularly-it is stated that loans will be made to cereal grain producers operating viable farm businesses who under ordinary circumstances would be able to operate satisfactorily but who may need to refinance short and intermediate-term liabilities over a longer term. This point will need some clarification on the part of the department because what the farmers need especially is not money to refinance short and inter-

mediate-term loans but immediate operating capital. I hope this will be taken into consideration.
The other weakness, Mr. Speaker, which I think is more apparent and is a major one, is the fact that the government is proceeding now to lend the farmers of this nation additional capital for the purpose of refinancing, which will put them further in debt. The weakness lies in the fact that the farmers of this nation are not aware of the long-term policy of the government regarding agriculture. It is of no value to refinance farmers with respect to a particular field of endeavour if it is long-term government policy to curtail the production of the essential products in which they are involved. It is a fact that many farmers have undertaken a tremendous amount of debt only to find there is no longer an economic market for the supplies produced and they are therefore unable to finance the debt.
Until the government is able to spell out its program in its entirety and say whether it is going to enter the field of supply management and under such a program curtail production to meet domestic requirements only, the Farm Credit Corporation will not be able to solve many of the problems farmers face today merely by granting long-term loans.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this program is, of course, another ad hoc approach to the problem that exists in Canada as a whole and in western Canada in particular. If the Farm Credit Corporation makes additional moneys available to the farmers, undoubtedly some of them will borrow.
One bad feature of the announcement is that nothing has been mentioned about adjusting interest rates to meet the probable ability of the farmer to pay. Apparently he is expected to borrow money at high interest rates for a long term.
The second weakness I wish to point out lies in the fact that we know changes are taking place in production patterns in western Canada. Indeed, some provinces are already assisting these changes; Manitoba and Saskatchewan are two examples. If money is now made available these changes probably will be accelerated. What is needed is an assessment of the market situation and the demand for various farm products. Some people may have to go out of grain production on a long-term basis. The question is, how much land should they take out of production? In a recent news-
January 22, 1970

letter the Department of Agriculture made an estimate of 20 million acres.
We have seen in the past crop year that a change in pricing and marketing practices has increased substantially the marketings of barley, a feed grain. What we need is an accurate assessment of the potential market for grain, feed grains and oilseeds in the years immediately ahead, and the probable absorption by the market of livestock production. Only on forecasts of this kind can the farmer make a rational judgment. That, of course, is the real basis of his problem. He must be able to make a rational judgment.
The government of Canada through the Department of Agriculture is making increased amounts of money available. If this money is utilized for types of production that will be in trouble in a few years, we shall not have solved the difficulty. Therefore I plead with the government and the Minister of Agriculture to get some people working on a long-range as well as an immediate-range program along the lines I have outlined so that the farmer may, hopefully, make intelligent decisions.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement seems interesting in many regards. However, one should also refer to a statement he made in Quebec on January 29, 1969, and I quote:
In many sectors ot agriculture, scientific progress is just beginning to be felt and to promise for the first time revolutionary innovations. The history of mankind teaches us that technology-
"Technology" is a very big word, and already we have begun to suffer from it. The statement goes on:
-is an international commodity. Gunpowder, a Chinese discovery, reached Europe like a train of powder, so to speak, and revolutionized the art of war.
Improvements in the field of agriculture may be due to experiments in genetics carried out in Mexico, in a laboratory in the United States, in Europe or elsewhere. Whatever their origin, their effects will finally be felt in Canadian agriculture. It is precisely the high-geared pace of technological developments that makes it so complicated to devise an agricultural policy.
We are given another proof today that we are living in an extremely complex world, when we read the following part of the minister's statement:
Adjustment of production practices is taking place all across Canada. In the Prairie provinces many farmers are currently shifting-
National Film Board
on the advice of experts I would imagine,
-or planning to shift to the production of livestock as an alternative to producing grain for direct sale.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In the eastern provinces, learned economists, those who come up with solutions when we are in a complete state of stagnation, have advised our processed milk producers to take the same course of action. They said: "There are milk surpluses. Produce alternate goods. Take up cattle ranching." Then, in western and eastern Canada, farmers are encouraged to raise cattle. And when there is a meat surplus on the market, farmers will be blamed and told: You are the most stupid, because you are all producing the same goods. You alone are responsible. You produce too much beef, prices fall, bear your rate patiently.
In advocating this policy, the minister necessarily wanted to create new debts. Indeed, to undertake a new kind of production, the equipment must be changed. The new production will have to bear the burden of debts accumulated during a deficit period. This change of program will be called debt conversion in order to prolong the martyrdom which is the fate of farmers already burdened with terrible debts, while an appeal is made to them to have patience in these words: Wait, exercise patience, the situation will improve.
The minister is well aware that to make sure that eastern and western farmers can live reasonably and enjoy a fair share of the national revenue, prices must correspond to production. The minister knows it very well because he said it often and I congratulate him. I hope however that his memory is good. He said that the problem in 1966 was one of "cost-price", and the problem is still the same. We are in a squeeze, we are choking and we are trying to get out of that.
In my opinion, if we really want to improve the condition of eastern and western farmers, interest rates will have to go down so as to reduce the production cost and leave the producers with a small profit. It is thus that, in my opinion, we will be able to give to farmers a fair share of the national revenue.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, on December 18 last, at the

January 22, 1970
National Film Board
request of the Government Film Commissioner and Chairman of the National Film Board, I entrusted Mr. Andre Saumier with the task of making an analysis of the staff reductions planned by the management of the National Film Board as a result of the budgetary restrictions imposed by the government's austerity program. This appointment of a person outside the NFB seemed at the time to be the best way of studying the difficulties between the board's top management and its production staff arising from the reductions announced for December 15, 1969. The report was submitted to the commissioner on January 15 and I am tabling it today, together with the commissioner's comments.
The primary finding of the report is that the board is not threatened with imminent paralysis, as certain persons have given to understand during the past few weeks. It is true that its over-all production level for the 1970-71 fiscal year is to be reduced to what it was in 1964-65; nevertheless, this represents a net budget of $10 million, which is far from negligible.

In order to gain a proper perspective, the National Film Board's activities must be viewed within the broader and more realistic context of the government's activities as a whole in the field of cinematography; here I should like to emphasize the continuous growth in this sector and the unremitting attention given to it by the Secretary of State. The Board's present difficulties should not hide the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. In 1964, the CBC spent the sum of $9,500,000 on the production of films for television; in 1970-71, this sum will be $13,000,000.
In 1964, there was no such thing as the Film Development Corporation; during its first year of existence (1968-69) it invested $366,639 in the production of 20 feature films and made awards amounting to $100,000. In 1970-71 it plans to invest a total of 2.5 million in Canada's film industry.
In addition to this, the government is negotiating co-production agreements with a number of countries with a view to helping Canadian films gain admission to the international market. Thus it is obvious that the government is taking an ever-increasing interest in the film industry as a whole, and that NFB activities must from now on be considered in this global context.

The question that must be confronted is this: what should be the role of each of the institutions involved in this over-all activity and what relations should they have with one another? This question has been under consideration for several months now and we hope to offer an answer before the present session comes to an end.
Furthermore, the difficulties the NFB is now experiencing are forcing it to take a hard look at its structures and policy, having regard both to present-day realities in the realm of cinematography and budget restrictions. I feel certain that the Board will have no trouble finding its place in this new expanded context and that its contribution therein will continue to be essential. Obviously, the transition must take place with minimum delay while respecting the fundamental integrity of the organization itself.

It is also essential that following the present difficulties the number of inevitable layoffs among the production staff be kept to a minimum. This objective has been given particular attention. I have been assured today by the management of the board that the number of lay-offs on the English production side, which was to have been 37, will be reduced to 32 and that 12 of those affected will receive a one-year termination notice instead of the usual three months. Following these lay-offs there will be 146 employees in the English production unit and 70 in the French production unit. It is therefore obvious that the National Film Board's vital creative staff will be maintained. Its development will be assured by a dynamic new definition of its role, and the unique contribution it has to make to the cultural life of Canada will also be assured.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, there are two initial comments I should like to make in connection with the Saumier report. The report came into my hands only just before the opening of the sitting this afternoon, so I have only been able to peruse it briefly.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
On the basis of that perusal, I can say that it is an excellent report and one which goes far beyond the original terms of reference, which were to inquire into the dismissals at the National Film Board. Mr. Saumier has gone far beyond an examination of that immediate problem and in the process has
January 22, 1970

given us a very excellent outline of the problems that beseige and beset not only the National Film Board operations but also the whole cinematography industry in Canada. Actually most of these difficulties were known prior to the tabling of the report because the problems were discussed as recently as a year ago by the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, which came to the same conclusions.
In addition to Mr. Saumier's outline of the broad problems in his report, he pointed out the immediate crisis which precipitated the demonstration on Parliament Hill by employees of the NFB, and which eventually forced the government to look into the matter, arose from the implementation of the current austerity program in a rather crude and blunt fashion. I am sure this same criticism can be made of the application of the austerity program in other departments and government activities.
Those of us who took the trouble to meet with the employees of the National Film Board when they were on Parliament Hill just before Christmas heard them outline the main difficulties that are again enumerated in the report. Mr. Norman McLaren, one of the most creative individuals not only in the industry in Canada but throughout the world, was one of the spokesmen on that occasion. The substance of the points made was that creative talents were going to suffer from the blunt application of government austerity. It was said that the English division of the National Film Board was going to be starved under the application of the austerity program. It was also said that there was an emphasis on management at the expense of production and creative talent in the National Film Board.
The report, as the Secretary of State has indicated, has reaffirmed these comments and criticisms made by representatives of the National Film Board early in December, and already some corrective action is to be taken to deal with this difficulty. With reference to management problems it is worth while to note that on page two Mr. Saumier emphasized that difficulty in these words:
It should be emphasized here that the senior management of the board, located moreover far from the capital, had scant knowledge of the mysterious workings of government in Ottawa.
He is not the only one who has that difficulty, Mr. Speaker, because even those of us in this House could make the same observation. This statement indicates that the highly
National Film Board
controversial move of the NFB in the 1950's from the capital to Montreal was a mistake, as many said at that time, and is perhaps one of the major reasons for the worsening position of that branch of government service.
The main difficulty, which should be emphasized in respect of the broad perspective, that is, other than the immediate crisis caused by austerity, has been pointed out in Mr. Saumier's report in these words:
There does not exist at the present a comprehensive federal government policy with regard to information or cultural affairs.
He enlarges on that general criticism by saying that the major difficulty in the whole field of cinematography and audio-visual communications is that there is no comprehensive federal government policy regarding information on cultural affairs. This not only affects the operations of the National Film Board but also deeply involves the private sector of the industry. I remind hon. members that during a series of meetings of the committee last year it was pointed out to us that the whole audio-visual industry in Canada, the motion picture industry and the cinematography industry are in a state of crisis at the present time and as a result are forming a Canadian motion picture academy in an attempt to come to grips with the problem. Much more expeditious and vigorous action on the part of the government is required to find a solution than such palliatives as the establishment of the Canadian Film Development Corporation and some of the other measures the Secretary of State has referred to in his brief statement this afternoon. In particular we will have to deal with the invasion of the motion picture industry by that great republic to the south of us. This represents one of the main areas of difficulty.
Finally, Mr. Saumier also dealt with another aspect which I think is of primary importance. If the objective outlined by the Secretary of State is to be realized, namely, to make the National Film Board more visible, we must remember that one result of the present austerity program has been to cut out free distribution of National Film Board productions to community film councils. The NFB has been one of the main sources of adult education in the more outlying parts of the country. I urge the Secretary of State, as does the Saumier report, to review this matter carefully. It is quite possible that in this regard the government is being penny wise and pound foolish.

January 22, 1970
National Film Board


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the National Film Board, as members of this House know, has over the years built up an international reputation. It has won awards at film festivals throughout the world. It has built up a devoted following in Canada. Co-operatives, labour unions, home and school associations and community groups of all types have used National Film Board productions extensively. It is little comfort to the Film Board and its employees to be told by the Secretary of State that there has been an expansion in the production of films financed by the government through the CBC and the new corporation which finances film-making by private companies.
The Film Board is faced with a reduction in staff, despite the slight modifications announced by the minister, by 100 people in the next couple of months. Of these a very substantial number, in fact the largest percentage, will come from the English production division. In addition, the user fees which the Film Board has instituted as a result of the austerity forced upon it by the government will have a bad result. I know that hon. members and the minister have received representations from various groups in all parts of Canada that they cannot afford the user fees and will be forced to curtail sharply or discontinue completely the use of films they have been procuring from the Film Board. So we are faced with a further reduction in staff of possibly another 50 people who work in the distribution field if the use of films produced by the board is cut substantially.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Let me tell the minister that in spite of his kind words today there is panic in the National Film Board and morale has dropped to an all-time low with the result that people are going to leave just as quickly as they can find something else to do. It is an interesting commentary on this government that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who came into public life with a reputation for being intellectuals and persons of culture, are in charge of a government which is going to preside over the virtual demise of the National Film Board and a very sharp reduction in the creative facilities of the CBC. That is something which ought to be noted very carefully.
There is one other point I must put on the record and I hope the minister will take note of it. In his report Mr. Saumier points out that as a result of the planned cutbacks in

English language production the staff will be reduced to a level of 90 per cent of what it was in 1964-65 and that on the French language production side the staff will be 142 per cent of what it was in 1964-65. All of us in this group come from constituencies whose people are largely English-speaking. We have tried very hard to explain to our constituents and the people of Canada why the proposals of the government to increase the use of the French language and to make it easier for people whose mother tongue is French to work for the government and live in all parts of Canada are necessary in order to maintain this country as one nation. But I say to the minister that such an unfair cutback on the English production side will make it very difficult for us to explain that kind of policy to our constituents.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement to the House about Mr. Andre Saumier's report on the analysis of the staff reductions planned by the management of the National Film Board, the minister said:
-The Board's present difficulties should not hide the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or of the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
The minister states clearly that three agencies financed by the government are concerned with the distribution of films produced in Canada and abroad. The minister added:
In 1964, the C.B.C. spent the sum of $9,500,000 on the production of films for television; in 1970-71, this sum will be $13,000,000.
That means an increase of $3,500,000 in appropriations for production of films to be shown on television.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who looks at the television films produced by the C.B.C. and compares them to those produced by the N.F.B. can readily see how superior the latter are to the educational films made by the C.B.C. for the people of Canada. As a matter of fact, the N.F.B. seeks to educate Canadians, instead of brainwashing them as the C.B.C. does. Why, then, should appropriations for the C.B.C. be considerably increased while those of the N.F.B. are being reduced.
Each time I have had occasion to view a television film produced by the N.F.B., I was aware that it was of a highly educational nature. For instance, we are informed about the North-West Territories and various other areas of Canada.
January 22, 1970

And the C.B.C., what kind of film does it make in Canada? I will recall in that respect that, during the Christmas season, it showed a one-hour telecast produced in an Old People's Home in Montreal and during which Robert Charlebois swore like blazes for an hour, the whole program being sponsored by the C.B.C.
If one considers the type of films made by the C.B.C. about our own area, Abitibi, when we are shown uninhabited shanties to illustrate the poverty which is rampant over there, one concludes that there is no need for the C.B.C. to go to Abitibi in order to produce such feats. After all, it would be enough to cross the Ottawa River to see the rats over in Hull, and the poverty which is prevalent there. And how about the slums of Montreal! But, on the contrary, efforts have been made for too many years to show despicable films to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, the government should not reduce appropriations to the N.F.B. but rather help this organization more generously than it does now the C.B.C. which does not fulfill its mission, which is to further the general welfare of the people.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the conflicting reports coming out of Nigeria, whether it is his intention to make at least a brief statement to the House with regard to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members we are still on motions.



INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented on December 16, 1969 be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I propose that the House concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It will be evident that any member of the House who has the honour to represent a northern territory such as mine has a special interest in the north. Our interest arises not simply because we who stand
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic on Canada's last important frontier are aware of its vast potential but because we are aware of what can be lost through failure to act properly and prudently in the interest of all Canadians. By asserting Canadian sovereignty over the land and water of the north which traditionally has been considered as belonging to Canada we stand to benefit our own people as well as reassure them that we are firm in protecting their rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: This is not a time for national timidity. The government's reluctance or tardiness in asserting Canadian sovereignty is doing great harm to our nation. Its pussyfooting can be construed by some nations as an indication that the government has some doubt whether that water and those islands are actually Canadian territory-


Mr. Nesbitt:: Well put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Paul Yewchuk: -and the longer we wait before asserting ourselves the greater this doubt will grow.
The claim for Canadian sovereignty is a matter which should be above partisan considerations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: This, I think is the case, as is evidenced strongly by the committee's recommendations which were unanimously agreed upon by members representing all parties in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: Canada owns the waters of the Arctic Archipelago and should be prepared to exercise complete sovereignty over them. We could rest our case on the principle of long-established claims without challenge by other states, and upon our long-established exercise of effective sovereignty in that area. However, there are many other points to be considered.
Members of all parties have expressed concern about this issue. Some Liberal members opposite have indicated that they are concerned. Indeed, it is of interest to read in the Vancouver Sun of September 16, 1969, an article by the hon. member for Coast Chilco-tin (Mr. St. Pierre). I would like to quote a few paragraphs from this article since he is a member of the Standing Committee on Indian
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic Affairs and Northern Development and a former vice-chairman of that committee:
There is a pattern of ship loss in Arctic waters. The losses occur usually when a ship becomes wedged and immovable in the ice. Pressure builds, either by tide or by winds. The ship is crushed and, when released, sinks.
The ecological disaster of a 250,000-ton supertanker spilling crude oil into waters of 27 to 30 degrees fahrenheit strains the imagination. It certainly exceeds our knowledge. The Canadian government, to its discredit, has not even yet undertaken tests of Prudhoe Bay crude oil action under these circumstances. Only during the recent visit of the parliamentary committee to the north did the Fisheries Research Board send its first researcher to those waters to make preliminary investigations.
The suggestions are that crude oil at temperatures below the freshwater freezing mark will form a gelatinous mass which, when deposited on shorelines, may remain for decades and possibly for a century. The lethal effects upon marine life (another subject on which our government remains ignorant and apparently indifferent) are beyond calculation. However, it is recognized that many crude oils contain substances as lethal as DDT. A quarter-million ton tanker could contain killing chemical substances of a scope never inflicted before on any ecology of the world. The Arctic skein of life is probably the least suited to withstand pollution on this gargantuan scale.
I pause here in the quotation to express concern for the people who depend on the land and the waters of the north for their very livelihood, to express concern for the native people, the Indians and the Eskimos who stand the risk of being exploited by commercial plunderers before they can be said to have even lived. Their living conditions are still wretched. They have the highest mortal.ty rate among Canada's native people. Infant mortality in the north is four times the Canadian average, and the death rate of Eskimo children up to the age of four is 13 times the national average. The figures I have at hand show that even in 1964 the average age at death of the Eskimo was 32.2 years.
Are we considering these people? Are they to be part of a give-away? Are we bringing them into discussions regarding their own destiny? Is the Northwest Territories Council involved in discussions, or do we just intend to bulldoze over these people and leave them with the scars of commercial exploitation that already disfigure the permafrost and threaten to cut off survival of the wildlife of the north?
Let me read more of the comments by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin-


An hon. Member:: Who is making the speech?


Paul Yewchuk: These remarks are very pertinent to the subject, and I said that we
[Mr. Yewchuk.1
wanted to point out that members on the government side, in spite of the fact that the ministers do not favour it, have indicated that they are in favour of our sovereignty over the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I do not apologize for quoting so much of the hon. member's article, which I thought was a pretty good one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't get too sensitive, boys.


Paul Yewchuk: I continue the quotation:
In her national interest-the prime concern of any nation's government-Canada must control any oil shipments through the Northwest Passage.
We could not deny the rights of innocent passage from one ocean to another if technology has made this possible. But the determination of what constitutes innocent passage must be ours. We are the nation vitally concerned. The determination of which ships are safe and which are dangerously unfit cannot be left to Humble Oil or any of the international companies. It cannot be left to a foreign power. It cannot be left to the United Nations. The Canadian Arctic is the concern of Canadians, unless we choose to abrogate that responsibility.
If enough Canadians know the facts, I don't think they'll choose to ignore this challenge.
We have ample right to claim the waters within the Arctic Archipelago as our own. We have rights of discovery, of continuous occupation, and we have rights by reason that this is a continuous archipelago of the Hinterland doctrine. Ours is not an ocean archipelago, comparable with Indonesia where international shipping has passed for millennia, beginning with Chinese explorers. The Arctic islands are an extension of the Canadian continental land mass and our internationally recognized control of the Labrador coast and of Hudson Bay extends logically and naturally into the High Arctic Islands.
We have further rights. The Arctic and Antarctic seas are not like all others. They are frozen for much of the year. The definition between land and water is sometimes detectable only by instruments. At least one authority has stated that a ship frozen in Arctic seas, far from land and communicating with land only by surface vehicle, is more effectively a part of the Canadian land mass than is a ship at anchor in one of our southern harbours.
For these and other reasons, I am convinced that the waters within the archipelago have been Canadian, are now Canadian and must remain exclusively Canadian.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, I am not the author of those words. They are the thoughts of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, expressed in an article.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I am amazed at the attitude of the Government House Leader in his efforts to obstruct this motion and prevent
January 22, 1970

a debate on such a vital issue. He has intimated that the committee did not wish the report to be considered by the House. That is absurd. The report was agreed upon unanimously and individually by every member of the committee. The report was written after hearing evidence by many experts, including Dr. Maxwell Cohen, and after study of an extensive research paper on the subject as well as a trip to the Arctic last summer.
I would like to read a paragraph from the first report of the committee:
Members of the committee, during their visit, also had an opportunity for discussion with experts in the oil transportation industry and talked with some of Canada's most expert icebreaker marine officers, as well as the transportation officers responsible for Panarctic's shipping operations in the Melville Island area where the loss of two Panarctic barges occurred in August. Members also had discussions with a leading Canadian marine biologist and ecologist investigating the effects of the Panarctic barge accident.
After the visit to the Arctic members of the committee met four times before producing this report. I would like to draw attention to a couple of other paragraphs on page six of the report:
c (3:00 p.m.)
Your committee rejects the suggestion that an international waterway exists through the Canadian Archipelago.
At page 7 the report reads:
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.
I should like also to quote from the testimony of Dr. Maxwell Cohen appearing on page 624 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 18, of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, dated April 18, 1969, where he states:
But if you add together the archipelago theory and the sector theory, I think that the Canadian case for total control over the water system between the islands is not unpersuasive.
He goes on to say:
But when you add to the sector theory the notion that the whole of the Arctic island system is a common archipelago, and as a common archipelago it is within the sovereign jurisdiction of Canada for all the reasons I have given, and you take the Norwegian Fisheries judgment as a further wrapping up of the doctrinal issue, I think you treat this as the Norwegian Fisheries case treated the Norwegian coast where all the waters between the fiords are now treated as inland Norwegian waters and not high seas. Therefore, subject to innocent passage, of course, subject to rights of

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic passage through straits, one could make, I think, a reasonable case for the inland waters character of the waters of the archipelago.
I make reference, Mr. Speaker, to a research report made available to us. I should like to read two paragraphs from that to establish that Canada has made its presence known and has exercised sovereignty in that region for quite some time. The report reads:
In 1903, the Neptune patrolled the waters of Hudson Bay and the eastern Arctic islands to aid in the establishment of permanent stations for the collection of customs, the administration of justice, and the enforcement of Canadian law.
In 1906-1907, Captain Bernier in command of the C.G.S. Arctic, carried out similar operations. He proceeded to Albert harbour, North Baffin island, where he informed the whalers that they must take out licences under Canadian Whaling regulations; he landed at no less than 15 places, on different islands, and took formal possession of them in the name of Canada, usually by raising the flag, reading a formal document, erecting a cairn and depositing in it the document of possession.
The Government House Leader's dictatorial attitude simply reflects his disdain for Parliament and for the usefulness of committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: In his efforts to undermine Parliament by means of the rule changes, he considered that he should occupy the minds of members by scattering them off into a corner somewhere to sit at a committee meeting and then forget about their work and forget about their committee reports.


Mr. Bell:: Where is he now?


An hon. Member:: Time you had a new House Leader.
Another hon. Member: Where is your House Leader?


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, your ruling to allow the motion was a major victory for Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: It has given to committees a new sense of vitality and vigour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the line of thought of the hon. member, but I think all hon. members will recognize that it is not in order to comment on a ruling of the Chair.


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was pertinent to the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic


Paul Yewchuk: I expect the Government House Leader might start juggling the rules again and I just wanted to indicate that we would not stand lor it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Participatory autocracy!


Paul Yewchuk: Much of our concern lor the Arctic involves the question of pollution. We now believe that Canada should be responsible for effective control in this area. It cannot be left to other powers or the United Nations. What do we know about the effects of pollution in the north? We may know something of its effects on the Ottawa River, though I really wonder, but even so, we do not seem to know how to provide the leadership to prevent this man-made mutilation of our environment which is happening on our doorstep.
But concern there is on pollution, and we need to know more. The Committee on Northern Development has made such a recommendation. I refer you to the sinking in Viscount Melville Sound on August 21, 1969 of the Panarctic barges, "Learmouth" and "John A. Norberg". The latter was loaded at the time with 470,000 gallons of bulk oil, mostly Arctic diesel. The Department of Transport reported a week after the sinking that:
The diesel oil spilled into the sea is a relatively light distillate and as a result, long lasting pollution will not occur.
I quote now from the circular published by The Arctic Circle, Ottawa, dated November, 1969, which reads:
Crude oil certainly makes a more obvious and unsightly mess than diesel oil. Reports indicate, however, that diesel oil is much more toxic than crude oil. For example, the Smithsonian Institution Centre for Short-lived Phenomena records (in Marine Pollution Bulletin, No. 16, October, 1969) that an estimated leakage of only 10,000 gallons of No. 2 diesel oil from the barge "Florida" off the coast of Massachusetts, on 17 and 18 September caused "extensive mortality to marine life-At least 24 species of fin-fish are dying in large numbers- scallops are hardest hit. Even in West Falmouth Harbour where there is no visual or olfactory evidence of oil, they are dying by the thousand."
It must be made clear that these Arctic waters and straits are Canadian and will remain Canadian. The Northwest Passage is not an international strait because there have been virtually no passages of the sort required in the past centuries to establish it as anything other than Canadian waters. It has been said before, and bears repeating, that the passage is not an international one because it is not customarily and cannot customarily be used as an international strait.

Without Canadian sovereignty we cannot control pollution, and we cannot guard against wicked exploitation of the north and its people.
At this stage I do not know what antipollution measures the government envisages for the north or how these will be controlled. It may be they have huge reserves of straw from the prairies just waiting to be used to sop up spilled oil. Perhaps a contract has already been signed for a ten-year supply of detergent. I just hope that if the Arctic waters are to be open to every Tom, Dick or Harry, the planned measures to combat pollution will be adequate.
The risk of a Torrey Canyon disaster hangs over all of our heads today and the best insurance policy in the world would not and could not possibly compensate for the damage to our environment if a disaster of the Torrey Canyon magnitude happened in the north. A disaster of that proportion would upset the delicate balance of nature in the north and may lead to complete ecological breakdown in the Arctic. It could reach out to every man, woman and child on this earth.
Sovereign control of the Arctic does not imply interference with innocent and peaceful passage. I want to make this clear, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I am concerned I welcome marine traffic through the straits as I think it will encourage development in that area. However, Canada must ultimately decide what constitutes innocent passage and must have the right to make and enforce regulations which protect our national interest.
e (3:10 p.m.)
Because of your positive and progressive ruling, Mr. Speaker, the committees of this House have been given an important role. Their reports are that much more important because of the close attention that these committees can pay to detail. These are committees of the House, and not instruments of government. We have before us the recommendations of one such committee which, I believe, expresses the concern of all thinking Canadians. To vote against this motion or to further stall its consideration by this House is a vote against Canada, a vote against claims of Canadian sovereignty in northern lands and waters rightfully ours, and a vote against humanity itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I noted that the hon. member subscribed to the views of Professor Cohen with
January 22, 1970

regard to the right of innocent passage. I wonder if he could let us know whether he subscribes to the initiatives of the Prime Minister namely, that any passage through the northwest passage shall be subject to Canadian rules and regulations with respect to the protection of the area's ecology and with respect to antipollution measures in the north?


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, that was a very nice speech by the hon. minister.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member
answer the question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member either cannot or will not answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Why not discuss it at ten o'clock.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion.
In both this report and this committee's ninth report presented during the last session of Parliament, the unanimous view was expressed by all political parties represented on that committee and by members of all parties that the Canadian government should move promptly and positively to make it clear to the world that the waters within the Arctic archipelago are Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul St. Pierre: Although I was much heartened by the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made on leader's day in the throne speech debate, I am, as I was last year, still impatient because further action has not followed these words.
Mr. Speaker, I should like in these remarks to make some argument for the Canadian position which I hope hon. members of the House will find persuasive, because it is my hope that this motion will carry unanimously in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul St. Pierre: Before I do so, I should like to take a few minutes in order to expand on remarks I made briefly in the House the other day.
I am not convinced that the action being taken here is a wise one; I am not convinced that it will strengthen the position of commit-21611-31

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic tees, because I fear that it may have another result.
This is not in any sense a criticism or comment upon Mr. Speaker's ruling, and is not intended as such. I know that all hon. member's of the House hold Mr. Speaker in the very highest regard. We know that his decisions are made judicially and with nothing except the best interests of the House of Commons at heart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul St. Pierre: But, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the possible results of a decision.
It should be realized that this committee report, as well as the one brought down last year, contains more than a statement on Arctic sovereignty or what might be called a statement of principle; these reports were very detailed and committed the cabinet and the government to, among other things, the expenditure of money. I doubt very much the propriety of this course.
I do not oppose a movement towards a congressional system of government.
I do not oppose the adoption of a congressional system which would give greater powers to committees and which would bring many changes to Parliament. Nevertheless, neither I nor the Canadian people are prepared yet to abandon the idea of cabinet responsibility.
The committee may recommend the expenditure of money but is not charged with providing it. Only this House has the power to provide money and, according to my understanding, it is the cabinet that initiates such expenditures before the House.
Hon. members who have read this report carefully will no doubt note that it was not written in the usual style of committee reports, in which it is usually stated that "the government should consider the advisability" of doing this and that or, that the committee recommends such and such a general course of action. This report does not recommend that the government should study the advisability of do ng such and such a thing merely because the members of the committee believe it should be done in that way.
Let us see what the cabinet would be committed to by way of the expenditure of money if there were concurrence in this committee report. On page 210 of Votes and Proceedings of December 16, we find the following:
The Committee recommends that appropriate agencies of the Government move immediately to
2686	COMMONS
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
conduct research in the Arctic to gather information on the following:
(A)	Physical properties of crude oils and other hydrocarbons in cold waters, the dynamics of their dispersion, and their persistence in water and on and under ice;
(B)	The toxicity of various hydrocarbons to plant and animal life;
(C)	Methods for control of oil spills, removal or neutralization of pollutants and destruction of pollutant cargoes in cases of marine disaster-
Your Committee recommends-
(A)	An operational research study to determine polution safeguards to be required of oil tankers and pollutant-carrying maritime traffic in Arctic and North Atlantic waters;
(B)	A research project into the effect of oil and other chemical pollutants on the marine biology and ecology of the cold waters of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans;
(C)	A supporting programme aimed at developing improved methods combatting pollution in low temperature waters.
In last year's report, the committee also urged the government to take prompt action to establish our Arctic sovereignty. There was no motion for concurrence in that report which also contained recommendations, I believe, with respect to increased government spending.
Although I do not have last year's report before me, I can recall that it urged the government to spend more money on certain matters. One was that it spend more money on Indian Centres.
May I say that I am not retreating from my previous position. I still think it was wise for this committee to recommend what it recommended. My mind has not been changed. Nevertheless, I urge members of this House to consider carefully what will happen if they give to committees the power, apparently, to put the Canadian cabinet in a straitjacket.


Mr. McGrath:: Why do we bother with committees?


Paul St. Pierre: To answer the hon. member, may I say that this committee report shows the necessity of our having committees. Perhaps I will be able to suggest a better answer later.
At present the committees have the power to amend legislation, which is important; the power to investigate, which is important; the power to recommend, which is important and the power to pass or, for that matter, stall legislation. This, too, is important.
May I consider for a moment the attitudes of our opposition parties on this national issue. Of course, I am not speaking of mem-

DEBATES	January 22, 1970
bers of the opposition on the committee. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the relations between members of the Committee have been excellent.
I feel that we have worked as a team.
I hope we have worked effectively.
While, of course, one ought not to single out any one hon. member in particular, I should like to mention two hon. members especially. One of these is the committee chairman, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) who has been absolutely indefatigable in working on this and associated projects. I think it is appropriate, in a more narrow sense, to mention the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson).
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Following the trip of the subcommittee to the Arctic, my feeling was that we had accomplished all that we could. I was not particularly enthused about writing another report on the matter which would, in effect, be a repetition of the report we submitted last June.
In case the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is concerned about this matter, I am not repeating conversations from the steering committee which were private. I am referring to the record of an open committee meeting.
The hon. member for Churchill felt very strongly that a report should be written.
I now wish to say that he was right and I was wrong. I think it should have been written.
I wish I could speak with as high praise of the actions of the opposition parties as I can of the actions of the opposition members on that committee.
This problem has been looming in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and growing by the week for a considerable time ever since the Prudhoe Bay oil discoveries.
Later in these remarks I intend to point out why I feel the Canadian government has not reacted to this situation as vigorously as it should have. I say the same of the opposition parties.
The opposition parties, Mr. Speaker, have a highly unusual opportunity of bringing matters of national importance before this House.
I am referring to opposition days, in which the choice of subjects is entirely theirs.
I do not know how many opposition days there have been since this Parliament com-
January 22, 1970

menced, Mr. Speaker, but on not one of them was this matter worthy of their attention.
What did they talk about?
Biafra!


Mr. Nystrom:: Wasn't that important?


Paul St. Pierre: That is what they considered to be of national importance to Canada, Biafra.
During the question period of the first sitting day of this Parliament I was astounded when the first question asked of the government of Canada concerned Biafra.
I thought I had been elected to a Canadian Parliament. I wondered if I had blundered by chance into some meeting of an organization of African states which would more properly be seized of that matter than the Canadian government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Paul St. Pierre: I do not know why we should look abroad to find trouble, when we have government work here at home. Is that responsible opposition?
I just wish to put on the record, in connection with this subject, a statement made by an hon. member of the opposition who is now visiting that country, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). The hon. member has cabled this message:
Reports of starving millions have been victory for skilful propagandists.
I now wish to turn to the north.


An hon. Member:: Yes, turn to the north.


Paul St. Pierre: Yes, like a compass needle.
I wish to open my remarks with a statement that was made in 1963 to the Canadian Political Science Conference in Quebec. The quotation is from a speech by Gordon W. Smith and reads as follows:
Canadians might be a little less complacent about the vast northern areas shown in bright red on Mercator's familiar projection if they appreciated fully the tribulations that accompanied the acquisition of it-
I want to underline these words as best I can:
-and if they understood that with little more ineptitude, or a little less luck on our part, or a little more aggressive competition from some other statutes, they might not have become ours.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, he was referring to our land areas of the High Arctic, the Territories and the Yukon.
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
Until very recent years, these areas were our only real concern in the north. I do not think many of us were concerned about water.
We are by no means a xenophobic nation. I do not think anyone has ever wanted to seal those waters against the legitimate commerce of the world.
I feel we have not studied the fish resources adequately, but we have s.udied them to some degree. This study has not been extensive since the whalers moved out from their operations early in the century.
There did not appear to be such urgency in the declaration of sovereignty over the waters, providing we had full and untrammelled sovereignty over the land areas which, according to any authority I have been able to find, we have, and providing we had full access to the resources of the seabed which again according to any authority I could find, we do have.
Then, whether we liked it or not, technology overtook us and oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay.
Another big pool has been discovered by Imperial Oil at the mouth of the Mackenzie and in the High Arctic there is the Panarctic consortium partially supported by the government and partly by private money. There can be little doubt that that consortium has a handful of kings and aces in its search for another pool of oil in the High Arctic.
This oil, as well as oil that will be found, must somehow be moved to market.
In the search for efficient transportation methods the Humble Oil Company, in association with some other companies, undertook a daring and welcome experiment.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can shrug off or evade the challenge of modern technology. We have to meet it head on.
I congratulate that company for its initia' ive in testing whether an ice-strengthened ship could operate regularly through the ice of the northwest passage.
This experiment has proven to be less than a complete success, although it has undoubtedly added a great deal to our knowledge of ice and Arctic conditions.
Perhaps I do not need to belabour this point because I think it is generally recognized by all hon. members-the perils associated with transportation of crude oil or any hydrocarbon through ice filled waters of the north verges on the intolerable. I do not suggest they are completely intolerable, because
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic the problems technology presents to us in one form it can meet us with solutions for in another form. However, as yet it has not provided a solution to this problem.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) quoted from an article which I wrote recently. The common peril of ships in the Arctic has always been to be besieged by the ice, to be crushed by the ice and to sink.
The S.S. Manhattan returned with a hole in her side large enough to drive a truck through, even though the ice conditions in that area were the easiest in many years. In connection with tankers moving through the archipelago, on the surface or under the sea, I might point out that there is a study under way and plans are being drawn which may or may not come to fruition for 40,000 or 50,000 ton submarine tankers operating under the ice.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The peril under the ice does not differ entirely from the peril to which surface vessels are exposed.
Someone must control this movement through the passage.
We must be satisfied that the ships are safe and that they are not designed in such a way as would permit them to be crushed, losing their cargoes.
Alternatively, we must he confident that technology has provided a means for the total neutralization of oil cargoes or their total destruction in the event of shipwreck. To the best of my knowledge, technology has not yet provided us with these means.
The important point-one which was well made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and I expect to hear it made again in the House today-is who will be responsible for doing this?
Logically, the responsibility not only on behalf of Canada but on behalf of the whole world community falls directly upon this nation and upon this government.
If we are not sufficiently concerned about the danger of the greatest ecological disaster in human history befalling the Arctic it is idle to expect that other nations will assume this concern for us. Their attitude will to a large degree be determined by our attitude, because these are our waters and our islands.
May I ask you how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry, but I have lost track of the hand of the clock.


An hon. Member:: Take all the time you need.
IMr. St. Pierre.]


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Paul St. Pierre: Thank you. Of course, we are not alone in our concern about the danger of pollution.
I am not suggesting that the United States or any other of our neighbouring nations are indifferent to it. In fact, it is my understanding that on the day following the address given by the Prime Minister on leader's day, the United States government communicated with our embassy in Washington expressing support for his views about the need for measures to control possible pollution in the north.
But again-and this cannot be said too often-the need for concern is primarily ours.
It may be suggested in some quarters that there is a reasonable basis for the statement by the Canadian government that no further pronouncements are necessary because, after all, these are our waters, and they are accepted as being ours by the world community as a matter of course. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily accepted by the world community as a matter of course, and in this connection I wish to deal for a few moments with an article which appeared in the White Horse Star and was reprinted in the Edmonton Journal.
The writer is Mr. Peter Calamai of the Southam News Service and the article is important because it reflects the attitude of at least one group of Americans who are concerned about this matter and the repercussions do not bode good for us. I shall read a few paragraphs.
Boston. The controversial use of the Northwest Passage to ship oil from Alaska was discussed here Friday-without beneflt of any Canadian participation and with only fleeting reference to the fears of a disastrous oil spill.
U.S. and Humble Oil officials in the discussion panel at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here also carefully skirted the question of Arctic sovereignty.
Russell Venn, Humble vice-president who was aboard the tanker Manhattan for part of its historic September crossing of the passage, said he was sure Canada would not try to impose fees on U.S. oil companies making use of Arctic waters.
In response to a question about ownership of the waters around Banks Island-a key piece of land in any Northwest Passage-Mr. Venn said the Canadian government was leary of publicly renouncing any claims on the waters because then the ownership of seabed mineral wealth would be calculated from the Canadian continental coastline rather than from the islands.
Because Canada wanted to be able to export natural gas and other products to the United States without paying tariffs it was unlikely that the Canadian government would attempt to impose any economic restraints-
January 22, 1970

The article continued:
Mr. Venn told his audience that the Manhattan was visited by "a bunch of MPs."
"They were very worried about sovereignty; I figure that must have been among the more liberal ones in the bunch," he said.
Members of the Commons Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development greeted the Manhattan at Resolute Bay on Cornwallis Island.
There was no mention from any of the three speakers of the environmental threat of an oil spill in the Arctic. When an audience member raised the problem at the end of the three-hour session, Mr. Venn said Humble had done research on the techniques of cleaning up such a spill. "I think we can avoid them."
I have already praised Humble Oil for their initiative in making this scientific experiment and I do not retract those words. But what took place at that conference does not reflect the concern which should be felt for the preservation and safety of the Canadian Arctic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul St. Pierre: Officials of the Humble Oil Company do not speak United States government policy, I recognize this. But their approach is one more reason for the Canadian government to make an early statement on the matter in order that the attitude of any foreign companies may not stand up.
This casual, I might even say cavalier, attitude to the near-intolerable threat posed by tankers going through the passage calls out for a response from this country.
I should like to deal briefly with the position of the United States government on this matter.
It is not entirely clear to me.
I find that the statements made on the subject are sometimes a trifle conflicting.
Let me say this: I think the Americans might well ask themselves which nation in the world has been America's best friend for the longest time.
I suggest it is not in the best interest of the United States that the waters of the Northwest Passage should be regarded as high seas any more than such a declaration about the Panama Canal would be in their interest.
Do they want these waters supervised by their main trading partner, their military ally and faithful friend, or do they want them to become an international no man's land with all the security risks which might be entailed?
I hope that any American who might speak impulsively about the freedom of the seas in connection with this matter will first pause and consider the repercussions.
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
As to the Canadian legal position, I have more references here than time will allow me to read, but there is one to which I should like to draw attention because hon. members may not be familiar with it.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, urged that we should make a clear and direct claim to the Arctic, including the icy portions, not only because of the risk of foreign control but because he was concerned about the possibility of the establishment of IBM's on the ice to the detriment of Canada's position.
I intend to quote another speaker, one who can, I think, be considered an expert on this subject-Dean George Curtis of UBC. Dean Curtis is one of those who has represented Canada at international conferences on these matters.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Dean George Curtis was an adviser to the Canadian government in the early 1950's regarding the DEW line construction and matters concerning Canadian sovereignty.
He spoke briefly to the Canadian Bar convention here in Ottawa last summer.
He was not reported and what I give you is a paraphrase of his remarks. I can assure you that this is correct as I have checked it with him by telephone.
He made three points:
First, he thought the Norwegian decision as confirmed by the Geneva conference made it feasible for Canada to lay claim to the waters within a system of headland to headland straight base lines.
Second, he felt it was extremely important to do this in order to protect the ecology of the High Arctic and that this was a responsibility that Canada had in her own interest and in the interest of the world at large.
Finally, he said, and again I am paraphrasing him, that if this area were left in the realm of the high seas there would be no protection.
As to the extension of a state's power beyond its shores to control pollution or the threat of pollution, I refer to one current and one recent incident in the United States which indicate that the United States fully understands the necessity for this.
The United States has set one or two precedents.
One precedent, and this is a small matter, but significant, concerned the salvage of a
2690	COMMONS
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic Liberian oil tanker in January 1968 about 400 miles off the coast of Washington.
The Vancouver Island Salvage Company sent two tugs out to pick up an oil tanker which was on fire. The fire burned out but there was still some oil in her holds.
The Sudbury II and the Island Monarch were the two tugs.
As they brought her in, heading for Vancouver Island and nearing the United States coastline, the officers were informed by the United States through its coast guard that they could not bring that ship within 50 miles of the United States coastline.
I do not blame the United States in the least for making such a decision. I think that was quite wise. But it certainly indicates United States acquiescence to the principle that a coastal state has the right to such controls beyond what are normally considered to be territorial waters.
Let me refer hon. members to two bills, one before the United States House of Representatives and the other before the United States Senate. They are roughly of the same intent although there are some differences between them.
A joint committee of those two houses is now attempting to meld them into a single bill for presentation and presumably for passage.
If adopted they will give the United States the right to fine companies for pollution of sea water and to control the activities of vessels which might pollute these waters. This is quite a comprehensive piece of legislation.
The point which I draw to the attention of hon. members is that the United States by this legislation, if it is passed, does not adopt this right in terms of the 3-mile limit to which they adhere today in international discussions.
The United States legislation would apply to the 3-mile limit and the contiguous area; that extra nine miles, bringing it to an effective 12-mile limit.
If nothing else, I hope the Canadian government can move quickly to establish the 12-mile limit for Canada instead of the present 3 plus 9 mile limit. But it is possible, probable perhaps, that the 3 plus 9 miles is sufficient for our purposes after drawing the base lines.
I regret I do not have time to pursue that matter.
There are one or two other matters which I may have time to bring to the attention of the House.
DEBATES	January 22, 1970
I should like to touch very briefly on the attitude of the Soviet government and quote from Mr. Lakhtine who wrote some time ago in the American Journal of International Law. He summarized his points as follows:
(1)	Polar states wield sovereignty over sea regions covered with ice, according to their sectors of attraction.
(2)	Littoral states wield sovereignty over land locked seas free from ice, and over gulfs and bays.
(3)	Littoral states are entitled to a somewhat limited sovereignty over all remaining sea regions free from ice, as well as over territorial waters, maritime belts and waters between islands according to their sectors of attraction.
If action by the Canadian government should lead to a dispute in any international court I do not think the mighty Soviet Union would be in a very good position to oppose the Canadian government's position in establishing our sovereign control over the waters of the passage.
In closing, and for the sake of clarity, let me say I hope that nothing I have said here has conveyed the impression that I should like to see Canada seal the Northwest Passage.
Nothing could be further from my thoughts.
We, as Canadians, should look forward hopefully to a day when technology provides ships which will move much of the commerce of the world across the north of Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, we must take the authority to control that shipping which we consider dangerous.
At the Geneva conference of 1958 there was adopted a definition of innocent passage, and innocent passage is certainly what we should offer to the world, together with our declaration of sovereignty over those waters.
Innocent passage may generally apply not only to territorial waters or to internal waters but may apply also to waters recently enclosed by base lines, such as in the Norwegian decision.
Generally, innocent passage provides that ships may pass through waters providing three things; they are not a threat to the security of the nation involved; that they are not a threat to the peace of the nation involved and, quite adequate for our purposes in the north, that they are not a threat to the good order of the nation involved.
There is no national court or body of the United Nations, in my opinion, that could possibly accept the notion that the spillage of a quarter of a million tons of crude oil in Canada's north would not be a threat to the good order of our country.

January 22, 1970

I maintain that our legal opinion, based on a number of references for recognizing authority, is sound and that our view should now be heard internationally.
I thank all hon. members for their courteous attention.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to congratulate the mover of this motion for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I think he has rendered a genuine service to the House by insisting through his motion that this report from an important committee of the House be discussed. Reports of committees should be discussed and a decision should be taken on them by the House. I have long thought that there should be some change in our standing orders to the effect that all committee reports would have to be called within a certain period of time. The length of time that such reports might be discussed could be limited by allowing one speaker from each party, or by some other limitation. When they could be called might be established by the house leaders.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I might point out that if we allow, as we have been doing, the reports of committees merely to die on the Order Paper the work of these committees will become meaningless. The members who do not belong to those committees will have no opportunity to express their opinions regarding the matters which are contained in committee reports. The Prime Minister has talked a great deal about participatory democracy. If there is to be adequate participation in the democratic process by members of Parliament they must not only have an opportunity to discuss important public questions in depth, but must also be assured that the recommendations they make will be discussed by the House- not necessarily adopted by the House but at least discussed by the House and either amended, sent back to the committee or endorsed.
If I may, I should like to congratulate the members of the committee whose report we are now discussing for their ringing and forthright declaration regarding Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago. What they have said needed to be said. I am glad it has been said in such forthright language. The whole kernel of our case is summed up
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic in three paragraphs. I think I should read them. At page 6 the report reads as follows:
Your Committee considers that the waters lying between the islands of the Arctic Archipelago have been, and are, subject to Canadian Sovereignty historically, geographically and geologically.
The imminent prospect of maritime oil tanker traffic through the Arctic Archipelago and the potential threat such traffic poses to Canada's Arctic environment makes it imperative to Canada's national interest that the Government of Canada take whatever steps are necessary, consistent with international law, to assure recognition of Canadian Sovereignty by all vessels, surface and submarine, passing through the Arctic Archipelago.
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.
A few moments ago while the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) was speaking a cabinet minister said "What is the debate for". The answer is simple. The debate is to give the members of this House an opportunity to endorse unanimously and enthusiastically this declaration of Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must confess, sir, it is difficult for me to understand the government's reluctance to have the report of this committee discussed and approved in the House of Commons. The problem of Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic will not go away merely by being ignored. Quiet diplomacy is not likely to bring a solution. As a matter of fact, it is more likely to raise a doubt in the minds of Canadians and to encourage those governments which are desirous of claiming some vested interest in the far north.
Canadians do not want another Alaskan panhandle and they do not want Parliament to refrain from making a forthright declaration of Canada's legitimate rights to the Arctic Archipelago. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), in statements made outside the House, seeks to excuse his delaying action by the statement that the matter is under discussion by the government and that debate at this time would be premature. This government has been in office since April, 1963. Surely, by this time it has formulated a policy in respect of Canada's position vis-a-vis the Arctic regions. Previous administrations have been much more forthright. I will discuss later on the statement made by Canada in 1946 through Mr. Pear-
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic son, when he was ambassador to Washington. There was also a statement by Prime Minister St. Laurent which is found in Hansard for December 8, 1953 at page 700. He said:
We must leave no doubt about our active occupation and exercise of our sovereignty in these northern lands right up to the pole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Sharp:: Did he say "lands"?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what he said-"lands". I shall deal with waters as well. The minister points out that Mr. St. Laurent said "lands right up the the pole". Mr. Pearson, in 1946, talked about more than lands. I shall come to that in a moment. I think, in the new developing field of international law, Canada must assert its position and justify its claims. In an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of September 18, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who just interjected, was quoted as saying:
-if it were (possible to obtain anything at all by unilateral declaration of intention) there would, of course, be international anarchy.
That is exactly the situation in the world today. With regard to territorial waters, only some 20 per cent of the nations of the world have established a 12-mile limit. More than 25 per cent still are on the 3-mile limit. Others have various figures. Three countries, Peru, Chile and Ecuador, have established a 200-mile limit for fishing purposes. What has happened in this new field of law of the sea has been that coastal states have made unilateral declarations. Those declarations, if objected to, have gone to the courts. As a result of the decisions in the courts, and as a result of conferences on the law of the sea, treaties and conventions have been established. The responsibility for making the assertion of sovereignty lies with the government of this country.
I should like to point out that Canada has good precedents in international law for its claim of sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago. So far, no nation has ever questioned Canada's sovereignty over the islands between the mainland and the North Pole. The question at issue is whether the waters between these islands come exclusively under Canadian jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer, but through reading articles by lawyers in this field it becomes increasingly clear what happens is that out of precedents doctrines are built up and finally conventions are arrived at. There are three doctrines which to me as

a layman make very clear the justification for Canada making a declaration of sovereignty. The first is what is commonly called the sector claim doctrine. In 1946, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who at that time was the Canadian ambassador to Washington, reasserted the sector claim which Canada had made as far back as 1908, which claim included all land, water and ice up to the pole. The Soviet Union still maintains this extensive sector claim which it first propounded back in 1926 and which it interprets as including not only lands within the sector but also ice, water and air space.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The other doctrine which has come to be recognized is the base line system, whereby a nation draws straight lines from headland to headland and claims all the waters within those lines. This system was first adopted by Norway, and was upheld in the well known fisheries case by the International Court of Justice in 1951. At the Geneva Conference on the law of the sea, this system was approved and incorporated in the convention of 1958, and has now become accepted as part of international law.
The third doctrine is that of the continental shelf, which was propounded by President Truman of the United States, who proclaimed that the resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf adjacent to a country's shores belonged to that nation. This principle was accepted and incorporated into an international convention at the United Nations Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958. This convention specifies that a coastal state has the sovereign right to exploit the resources of its continental shelf lying adjacent to its coasts at a depth of 200 metres or less, and to a greater depth if exploitation proves feasible.
Some reference has already been made to the statements made by Professor Maxwell Cohen, the Dean of Law at McGill University. I noticed in an article which he wrote some time ago that he dealt with this matter, and I would like to quote just a paragraph from it:
And recent marine geology and cartography in the Arctic confirm that almost the entire archipelago and its waters are part of a shelf system within such average water depths except for one or two trenches and in deeper Lancaster Sound. There is therefore no doubt of exclusive Canadian control of the seabed beneath the entire waters area within the archipelago except for some limited geological aberrations where the depths exceed continental shelf standards. And even here there is a growing concept of claims to the continental slope to justify exclusive exploitation at greater depths.
January 22, 1970	COMMONS
I was glad to note that the committee, after examining the representations and the evidence given by Professor Cohen, had this to say in its report:
Your committee rejects the suggestion that an international waterway exists through the Canadian Arctic archipelago.
And later on in its report the committee said:
The waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago 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.
So, it seems to me on the basis of any one of the three doctrines, whether it is that of the sector claim, that of drawing the base lines from headland to headland, or on the basis of the continental shelf doctrine there seems to be an irrefutable case for Canada to claim complete sovereignty over the entire northern area from our mainland to the North Pole.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are compelling reasons for Canada to assert its sovereignty, and for it to do so without any further delay.
First of all we must establish Canada's right to develop any petroleum or any other resources lying offshore from the Arctic islands. I think it is significant that the United States has never questioned Canadian sovereignty over these waters until recently. The only reason that our claims to sovereignty are being queried at this time is the oil discoveries in Prudhoe Bay, and from our point of view these discoveries have been followed by an even more important discovery of an oil well by the Imperial Oil Company in the Northwest Territories. These discoveries, along with other geological data which have been collected, give credence to the claim by many prominent geologists that the Arctic may well contain some of the largest oil reserves in the world.
Our failure to assert our jurisdiction at this time could mean that we might lose by default the right to develop vast resources which are so essential to the future development of Canada. The New Democratic party takes the position that Canada should clearly assert its right to its share of the Arctic continental shelf, and that we should get on with the task of discovering and developing the resources which are to be found there.
The second reason we ought to move, and move quickly on this matter, is that Canada must have jurisdiction over the northern 21611-32
DEBATES	2693
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic waters in order to prevent disastrous and lingering pollution. As the committee pointed out, the sinking of two barges owned by Panarctic Oil Ltd. points up the danger of pollution in this area.
The Humble Oil Company of Texas, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil, has announced that it is studying the feasibility of constructing six 250,000 ton tankers, each of which would be twice the size of the Manhattan. Any mishap to a tanker of this size would have disastrous effects on the marine life of the Arctic. It will be noted in this morning's newspapers that over the past number of months some five super oil tankers have sunk in various parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, I contend that since Canada would be the main victim of any pollution which might occur from such a mishap, surely we ought to have the authority to exercise the necessary control to prevent such pollution from taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly, if we do not exercise it, nobody else is going to exercise control. There have been suggestions by prominent figures in the United States that Canada, instead of exercising pollution control on its own, should be prepared to delegate this responsibility to some international body, or through some international agreement. I think this would be disastrous, and I agree with the committee when it says, as printed at page 5 of its report:
Your committee is unimpressed with arguments that adequate pollution safeguards could be effected by international agreement.
Since it is Canadian terrain which would suffer the consequences of pollution I maintain that Canada has an inalienable right to exercise the necessary controls and to set the necessary standards which would hold pollution to a minimum.
The third reason I think we must move quickly is that only by the exercise of our sovereignty would Canada be able to facilitate and direct navigation in Arctic waters. These waters have never been part of the high seas and open to navigation. They are ice-locked for the major part of the year, and if they are used this can only be done with the navigational aids and the icebreaking services provided by the people of Canada. Needless to say this does not mean that we are suggesting that Canada should deny to any nation the right of innocent passage. On
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic the contrary, we feel that the Canadian government should proceed with all haste to provide the navigational aids, pilot services, navigation standards and the icebreaker escorts which will make possible innocent passage through Arctic waters. But there must be no doubt about who controls the navigation of these waters. By drawing baselines between the islands Canada can make the Arctic waters subject to Canadian legislative control, and that should be done immediately.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that in my opinion this is the time for Canada to make a clear and forthright declaration of its sovereignty over this great northern area.
The government's admission of uncertainty has been interpreted as weakness by our American neighbours. The government's diplomatic pussyfooting has merely demonstrated to other nations our lack of courage and conviction concerning Canada's claims to exclusive jurisdiction over the Arctic Archipelago and the continental shelf.
The Americans like straight talk and I think they would respect Canada for asserting its legitimate and long recognized rights in the Arctic. There is an old saying "Silence gives consent". If the government continues to waffle on this question, no one can blame the United States or any other nation for assuming that we are prepared to accept some compromise which would negate our ability to effectively control an area which is vital to the future development of this country.
The matter which the committee has brought to the attention of the House through its report is only one facet of a much larger problem, namely, Canada's diminishing control of its own affairs. The accelerating rate of takeovers by American corporations is eroding our economic independence. Attempts are being made to entice us into a continental energy policy which could well condemn us to be a nation of extraction industries, supplying raw materials and energy for the American industrial complex.
It is rather significant that the reports which came out of the meetings between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and secretary Walter Hickel in Washington suggested that part of the total energy policy would be some type of guarantee of the

Northwest Passage. We have not had any definitive statement from the minister on this question. If we are talking about merely allowing American ships to use that passageway, of course everyone would agree. But if it means some surrender of our sovereignty, some agreement to a bi-national control of that waterway, then we are giving up something which legitimately belongs to the people of this country, not only the present generation but for generations to come.
In addition to economic takeovers and in addition to a continental policy on energy integration, we are being queried on whether we have sovereignty over the Arctic waters at the very time when this area gives promise of being a veritable treasure house of resources.
The Canadian people are becoming increasingly concerned about the steady erosion of our sovereignty and the diminution of our economic independence. They are bewildered by the government's timidity and its continual waffling on matters which affect Canada's future as an independent, viable nation. I believe the decade upon which we have just embarked is crucial for Canada. I believe that we will emerge from the seventies either as a strong, united Canada with a potential for greatness or we will find ourselves absorbed as a junior partner in an American hegemony.
At the turn of this century a great Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, talked about the 20th century belonging to Canada. That vision has not as yet materialized but there are still 30 years to go, Mr. Speaker, so we still have time if we have the will, the courage and the energy we can make that vision come true and help Canada attain the destiny of which it is capable.
I want to appeal to the government-


Mr. Woolliams:: There are not many there to whom to appeal.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-TheIslands):	I appeal	to	them not to use devious
procedural manoeuvres to prevent the House of Commons from expressing itself on the report of this committee. I know, as does every member, that the government can talk out this motion. If no decision is taken by ten o'clock tonight, it will go into the hopper of government orders.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With	cobwebs on it.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): It will be smothered out of existence. The government can do that; it has the num-
January 22, 1970

bers, it has the muscle. But I ask them to think what this will do for Canadian prestige in the world, what it will do for the self-confidence of the Canadian people, what it will do in encouraging other nations, and particularly our friends to the south, to think that we are ambivalent and uncertain about our sovereign claims in the northern part of this continent.
I am asking the government to give the members of this House a chance to speak for Canada. Members of the committee in whose report we are now being asked to concur have spoken out with courage and have made an unequivocal and ringing declaration. That report was unanimous, endorsed by every party represented on the committee. I am asking the government to let the House endorse that report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking the government to give this House of Commons the opportunity of endorsing an all-party committee report, to tell the world that we are Canadians irrespective of our political, religious or ethnic differences, that we are determined to assert our sovereignty over the northern waters. If the government will allow Parliament to do that, I think the effects of it will be felt all over this country and all around the world. Give us an opportunity to make a ringing declaration for Canada. Only in this way, Mr. Speaker, can we let the world know that we Canadians have faith in our future and that we are determined to play our full part in world affairs as a free and independent nation.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I want first to congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for going ahead and putting the motion now before us.
Having not had the opportunity to go North with the committee on his study trip conducted at the time of the passage of the U.S. ship Manhattan, as I was sitting on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I was surprised by the government's reluctance to accept the report that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development submitted on his return and which was tabled on December 16 last.
I have perused this report and found nothing in it nor in its recommendations
21611-32^
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic which went against the present or future rights or needs of Canada in the Arctic Archipelago that we consider as being part of Canada. The members of this committee and apparently the opposition members and at least one Liberal member are all in agreement, which seems to indicate that the committee's recommendations are meeting with approval. In my view, the government should take it upon itself not only to accept these recommendations, but also to implement them.
Considering the recent developments that were preceded by the performance of the American ship Manhattan, we must make our position known today because it has become necessary to do so.
Several people are urging the Canadian government to take over the Arctic Islands, our northern shores and surrounding waters. The government should not however act in too great a hurry. Other countries, like Russia, have taken over neighbouring regions in a big rush. The development of Siberia had already begun by the time they realized they should have taken a closer look at it.
While the Canadian government should proclaim its sovereignty over the Arctic territories, however, it should not run the risk of committing some regrettable errors that would soon prove costly.
In my opinion, the Canadian government should assert its sovereignty on the Arctic for some reasons referred to in the committee report and also for others that are altogether worth studying.
In fact, we know that the Arctic islands are reproduction areas for some species of migratory birds which sometimes migrate as far as the United States. The American government as well as ours is keen on taking the necessary steps to prevent water pollution by ships inadequately fitted for Arctic navigation.
We also know that Arctic waters are breeding grounds for certain aquatic animals such as whales, seals, walruses, etc. This is why we must take certain preventive measures in order to avoid polluting Canadian waters. Scientists have reported that the icy waters of the Arctic are different from temperate waters or from the warmer waters of other oceans.
We know how difficult it was to fight the pollution caused by the oil tanker that went down near the coast of England, for instance, where waters are temperate. What would have happened if this incident had occurred
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic in the icy waters of the Arctic? We shall have to insist that people who will someday navigate these waters take all the necessary precautions.
The report of the committee, as can be seen in Votes and Proceedings, at page 209, include this recommendation, and I quote:
Your Committee recommends that:
A) Fanarctic Oils Limited should rely as much as possible on ice working cargo ships for supplies rather than entering the Arctic transportation business themselves, at least at this stage of its development. The discovery of oil in the Arctic Archipelago would call for a further reappraisal of Fanarctic's transportation role.
This committee recommendation must not apply to Panarctic Oils Limited only, but too any shipping company that would want to take to the Arctic materials required for the development of the natural wealth to be found there, or to carry back to the South the riches themselves.
There are still other reasons why Canada should claim sovereignty over the Arctic territories. As a matter of fact, those lands abound with natural wealth which we can develop and process ourselves.
I would now like to mention oil, iron and other natural resources even though up to the present time exploration has been rather limited considering the vast expanse of territory to develop. Nevertheless we And in those places considerable mineral deposits and oil fields.
For the above reasons we should proclaim our sovereignty over these territories by effective occupation. To this end, we must help the companies wishing to carry out prospec-tion in those areas. They must have all the necessary facilities for so doing.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To achieve this end, I think we should give our coast guard the necessary authority, because the inspections they have been submitted to showed their efficiency particularly in the Arctic. Of all the countries in the world, Canada is probably the one that has the longest coastline. From inspections of our coast guard, we have been pleased to find out how efficient they are.
The government should also establish research and development centres on the Arctic islands. Our university graduates, our technicians and our engineers would be happy to make use of their knowledge for the benefit of their country. When the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence conducted an investigation last summer within the Navy and the Army, it was suggested,

and quite rightly, to set up guard stations that could be manned by members of the Canadian armed forces, in order to facilitate the movements of individuals in those regions.
Responsibilities should also be given to companies developing the natural resources of the Arctic, because it has unlimited wealth which should be worked.
It was said a few months ago that a mining consortium was interested in a ferrous deposit on Baffin Island containing, according to a preliminary study, 22 billion tons of 69 per cent pure iron ore. Apparently, such natural resources are to be found all over the Arctic islands and even on the neighbouring mainland.
Considering the development and research being carried out in all fields, water transportation for instance, it is obvious that if the government does not let opportunity knock in vain, the prospects are very good for the Canadian economy. I believe that it was the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who mentioned a little while ago the developments that would probably take place in the transportation of oil and iron ore by cargo submarines.
An editorial in today's Le Devoir, a Montreal paper, reads as follows:
In a recent number of 1 'Actualite economique, there is an article by Mr. Michel Brochu about experiments carried out in Siberia. Placing a thin film of sand on the ice increases the action of the sun and makes the ice melt faster. Mr. Brochu believes that with the extended period of sunlight in northern regions during the summer, such a method, over several years, would permit the clearing of sea passages which could then be open to navigation each summer.
These experiments and research are being conducted now. It has not yet been possible to check whether they are conclusive, but we are continually being surprised by discoveries in all fields. I feel the government must immediately implement the recommendations of the committee whose report is before us today and take efficient though cautious steps in order to proclaim its sovereignty over the territories of northern Canada, and more specifically over the Arctic archipelago.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in the limited time I propose to take to deal with the subtleties and intricacies of international law with regard to the matter now before us, except to make some reference to the aspect which is of direct concern to me and for which I have some responsibility.
January 22, 1970

I refer to the conference on marine pollution held at Brussels in November of last year and which I attended as head of the Canadian delegation.
This matter is of considerable irrelevance to the subject we are discussing today because, in addition to the undoubted problems that have quite properly been raised during this debate with regard to pollution in the north, there is the fact that on a day to day basis, and on an almost immediate basis, we have a serious problem with regard to the waters around all of Canada.
It is my judgment, and I think I can support this by saying it is also the judgment of my department, that while we should not for a moment lose sight of the extremely important aspects of northern pollution, at the same time in terms of immediacy it is not as vitally important as what we do now with regard to all of the waters that surround Canada. I, therefore, do not think it is a deviation for me to touch briefly on some other matters regarding pollution for which I have a direct responsibility.
As some hon. members know, during the past week I had discussions with the United States authorities on questions such as jet pollution, the poisoning of our air by these new technological advances. We have also been very deeply engaged in studies on the amount of pollution that results from the emissions of automobiles. I am simply pointing out that while understandably the developments which I suggest were really triggered by the voyage of the S.S. Manhattan through the north are of supreme importance, nevertheless we ought not to consider these in isolation or be sidetracked in a sense to a total involvement on this particular question and this particular issue to the detriment of the kind of serious obligation that we ought to have on the whole pollution question.
With regard to the question of pollution of all marine environment, plus the air pollution as a result of the new type jet aircraft and as a result of automobile emissions, we are only starting to scratch the surface of what has become in these early days of the seventies probably the single most publicized subject. It is one which I think publicity reflects as being a real sense of concern not only to Canadians, but to people in many different parts of the world.
The totality of the effects of pollution is almost indescribable and in fact almost unbelievable. I came across some figures today which, although perhaps not completely relevant to the subject under discussion, may
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic be of interest to hon. members. I ask Your Honour's indulgence for 60 seconds. These figures reveal that in terms of garbage, 250 indestructible bottles are abandoned every year by each person in the country, 135 tin cans, 10 gallons of sewage per day per person and 4 pounds of solid sewage wastes per day per person. A lot of this garbage is going into our modern environment. These items are direct contributors to pollution and I repeat the totality of these in some respects is a more serious and more immediate problem than the potentialities of pollution in our northern areas.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In effect, then, even given the greatest possible technological advances and even if the decision were made to employ ships for the transport of oil through northern waters it appears now it would be some time, perhaps years, before this could be accomplished.
We in Canada learnt a good deal from the so-called Manhattan experiment. Hon. members will, I am sure, agree with me that our coastguard demonstrated a world wide level of expertise in the work it did during that venture. I think it is safe to say that when it comes to any kind of navigation through ice and the like there is no country, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union, which could carry on such activities without Canada's assistance. I mention this, apart from the natural pride I have as the minister responsible for the coastguard, by way of reiterating my comment that while I do not minimize the gravity of this threat the more serious danger at the moment is, rather, that which might result from the huge tankers which are in operation right now. For example, Halifax in recent months has been visited by tankers having a capacity larger than that of the Torrey Canyon. At any moment of time, there are hundreds of tankers along our coasts, and it is because of this threat that we took the very hard line we did at the Brussels conference.
In this connection, in response to some of the comments which have been made about the wisdom and effectiveness of taking unilateral action, let me say there is no question that this is a strongly emotional and appealing approach. It is one which commends itself to people who wish merely to put something on record or to put something in the window. Having gone through the Brussels experience and seen, in terms of international affairs, the enormous number of conflicting viewpoints which are expressed on many of these issues,
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic I have had personal experience at least in learning how difficult it is to secure international agreement and also how futile it is in many ways to take a strong, unilateral stance in the face of overwhelming opposition from other countries.
At the Brussels conference it was our intention to move for an international agreement concerning responsibility for the prevention of oil pollution and the establishment of standard international rules with regard to carriers and the like. In the second place, we wished to define clearly where responsibility lay when one of these spills occurred on the high seas. Initially, back in June, I think, of last year, we introduced into the Canada Shipping Act a number of amendments, one of which was designed to pinpoint this responsibility more specifically than in the past. However, since the Brussels conference was opening at that time it was agreed, with the approval of opposition parties, that we would not press for the enactment of this particular amendment in the House because we wanted to wait to see what happened as a result of the international discussions. Since my return I have been awaiting a report from the delegates who represented Canada throughout the meetings in Brussels. I had undertaken to make a statement on motions in the House in connection with the outcome at that conference, but it seems to me that in view of the arrangements made for today's debate this might be an appropriate point to report on exactly what did transpire. In addition, I thought I might give some indication of what we propose to do.
The Canadian position at this conference was squarely grounded upon two aspects of our experience. For many years the Navigable Waters Protection Act has provided for the removal of wrecks interfering with navigation at the expense of the owner without limitation of liability or the requirement to prove fault. Responsibility for the removal of wrecks lay with the owners. Significant pollution incidents had occurred on our coasts even before the loss of the Torrey Canyon, and preventive measures were taken at the expense of the government in the absence of legislation providing for recovery. An amendment to the Canada Shipping Act proposed to Parliament early last year which would have gone some way to meeting this problem was, as I have explained, held over in the hope that the Brussels conference would provide adequately for such a contingency on an international basis.
IMr. Jamieson.]
Our stance at the conference, arising naturally from our own experience, had two principal policy objectives. The first was that the commercial movement of noxious cargoes, particularly oil, should in no way impose burdens upon innocent third parties or the states of which those parties are citizens. The second was that each form of transportation, should, so far as is feasible, bear its own costs-a principle laid down in the National Transportation Act. The government believes this principle to be necessary for the efficient use of our collective resources. In other words, what we asserted was that in the event of a spill on the high seas which affected the Canadian coastline in any way there should be no responsibility placed upon the aggrieved party, either the nation of Canada or some private person, as a result of something which was clearly no part of their responsibility.
Against this background, the conventions produced by the conference fell far short of what Canada considers to be satisfactory, particularly as to liability for pollution damage. We found it almost totally impossible to achieve any degree of unanimity among the countries concerned, and for a variety of reasons in which hon. members may be interested. For one thing, a great many of the oil producing countries possess very little coastline. Others have large shipping companies in which they are specially interested even though they may possess a certain amount of coastline. So there is no unanimity of concern, and, basically, most countries react subjectively in these matters.
However, the Canadian delegation gained the distinct impression that many of the delegations to this legal conference went there with the prime purpose merely of obtaining a determination of the legal and financial position of ship owners in the event of further incidents of the Torrey Canyon type. There is evidence that a nation which is a very important shipping nation has this as its primary concern, often because its coastline is decidedly limited, or, indeed-though this may at first appear somewhat curious-it may not have a coastline at all.
In these circumstances the Canadian delegation seems to have made some impact. I do not wish to exaggerate, but I feel we have made an impact which improves our situation and which may well do so in fuller measure in the future. This is because, as a coastal state with a limited merchant fleet, our attention was focussed on the substantive conse-
January 22, 1970

quences of a major oil spill rather than on the legal rights of one of the parties. We were able to make the case strongly that in any such incident which might occur along our coastline we would likely be the sufferer, without any continuing advantages, because we are neither a large merchant marine owning country nor are we an exporting country to any large extent in terms of the use of tankers.
Among other things, the conventions declare the right of a coastal state to intervene on the high seas, place a requirement for proof of absence of fault upon the shipowner, nearly double the traditional amount of the limitation of liability for the shipowner and provide for compulsory insurance so that bankruptcy cannot be used to avoid payment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Many of these points were included as a result of the urging of Canadian delegates, both at the prior committee work and at the conference itself. Since this is a rather complex subject I do not wish to labour it before the House but I will be pleased to provide a copy of this statement to interested members.
Even more important, the Canadian attitude at this conference encouraged the Belgian government to put forward a proposal and the conference to endorse a study of the establishment of an international fund, financed by a levy on oil cargos moved by sea, which would compensate victims of pollution before not covered by ship owner's strict liability. A conference is to be held in 1971 to consider the results of this study with a view to a further convention, which the House will note relates to liability to be placed on the cargo owner as advocated by Canada in addition to the limited liability of the ship owner. At the present time almost universally it is the ship owner who bears the brunt of the responsibility, such as it is, and the owner of the cargo being transported in that vessel, unless it happens to be one and the same organization, is more or less absolved of any responsibility. We think this is an improper situation primarily. In addition, it is not always possible for the ship owner to get the kind of insurance or related protection we feel is necessary if these massive spills and their effects are to be avoided.
We understand that some other governments are now contemplating national funds of this sort. Others are considering alternative means of achieving similar ends. I may say in terms of the Canadian position that we are

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic now looking at the possibility of levying some form of assessment against vessels moving within Canadian waters to establish this type of fund against possible future spills because we think this will help in part to resolve the situation. I think we may expect increasing support from such countries which may now be considering the broader implications of this question.
Against this background, the government of Canada is now giving active consideration to interim measures in light of the Brussels conference. Clearly, we did not achieve what we had set out to achieve. It may be that we were too ambitious in the first instance or perhaps especially conscious and realistic enough to realize in advance that we were looking for more than we would achieve. In any event, we made the position very strongly as I have outlined to you here today. As a result, I believe there was more in the way of endorsation of our position than there might have been had we not taken this firm, and what some regard as extreme, stand. In any event, we are now examining possible interim measures.
This is, of course, part of the larger and more general question of pollution, including that from noxious substances other than oil and, pollution of coastal waters from sources other than ships. This, too, has become an increasing problem within the context of the outline at the beginning of my remarks concerning the totality of the pollution problem. There is the matter of oil drilling with rigs, and there are all manner of other sources which are now pumping potential pollution into our coastal waters. So, again it is not just a simple matter of saying if we cut off these sources of pollution at one particular point we can breathe easily. If I could mix a metaphor a little bit, perhaps we will not be able to breathe at all, unless we approach the whole subject and try to deal with it in some decisive manner. This is part of the over-all picture.
The proposals now being developed in respect of pollution from ships have as their objective the attainment of our goals at the conference to the extent that this is possible by one country acting alone. In other words, what we have said is, since we have not been able to achieve international agreement at this time on the question of how to control this type of pollution, we will take the same goals and set them as our objectives, then ask ourselves the question; acting unilaterally what can we do? Once we have arrived at
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic those answers, then my intention is to introduce further amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. I am sure they will receive rapid response and endorsement by members on all sides.
At the same time, we will continue by seeking to ensure that our actions in respect of the various aspects of this total problem will conform to a consistent pattern. Interdepartmental discussions are now going forward with this objective in mind. As soon as these discussions and considerations can be concluded, I will be bringing forward proposed amendments and appropriate legislation.
I know this is a rather frustrating kind of position because what it really admits is that spilling can take place and there is always the danger that, in spite of everything we do, we will have a disaster of the magnitude of the Torrey Canyon incident or one even worse. We have to think about this when members are referring to the north and the potential problem there, and I put that word in quotation marks because we do have a particular reason in some areas to anticipate some of these things.
A potential problem in the north, however far removed it might be, taken against the real problem for example within the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence seaway or at some point in our inland waters, is important. So, in addition to thinking about pollution and how to correct it to the best of our ability after it happens, equally as important-one might be prepared to agree that it is more important-is to put in the most stringent regulations possible so that these spills will not take place. This will involve standards for vessels that carry oil and our ability to ensure that vessels that do not meet these standards do not enter these waters over which we have control.
This again is a rather difficult problem but one with which we are coping through design standards and specifications. There is an international question here as to just how far, even with the new conventions to which I referred as agreed to in Brussels, we can go in terms of moving out into the high seas. Certainly, we would not be entitled in terms of inspecting a hull to determine whether it was adequate to meet our standards. There is also the question of navigable waters and a lot of other things to which carriers do not agree.
Perhaps the most pressing of all in many respects, because this is the insidious part of the problem, are the relatively small spills

that take place either as the result of carelessness or "I don't give a damn" attitude on the part of certain carriers. In the last year we have stepped up our inspection activities considerably throughout those areas of our waters where it is possible for us to do so.
What I have touched upon is only a small part of the story, but I thought it might be helpful in light of this present discussion for hon. members to know something about what has transpired; first of all the position that Canada took, which is still our stand in this regard, and secondly how extremely difficult it is because of the variety of things involved to achieve international agreement on a question of this kind. In addition, to repeat what I said earlier, it is difficult when one takes unilateral action to be in a position to impose regulations in any meaningful way.
I do not believe in repeating something I said at the beginning, but simply having something in the window is not of very much consequence unless you have the means, the authority and the power, if you like, to enforce any regulations you might decide to impose unilaterally. But I believe many of these things are within our competence, and whenever it is, members of this House can be assured we will move ahead with the measures I have outlined today which I hope will take legislative form before too long. This will move us ahead significantly in what is a most crucial battle against this present day threat of pollution.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a brief question? In view of the remarks he has just made, does he not think that if this House unanimously agreed to the report it would back up his and the government's position at the Brussels conference?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, I do not. I do not think it would be of any real significance in terms of the matters discussed at Brussels.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit another question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have reached the private members' hour. I understand there has been some discussion in this regard and perhaps we could hear about that first and then continue, if I anticipate correctly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you seem to have anticipated what I wanted to say at this point. There have been
January 22, 1970

some discussions, and on behalf of those who took part I should like to ask that by unanimous consent the House give up its private members' hour for today in order that the discussion on this important issue might continue. I believe there is such consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) 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 Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)

Consumer Affairs-alleged misleading advertising by Imperial Tobacco Company; the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle)-Sports- Financial support for Olympic games bids; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)- National Film Board-Request for statement on role.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Yewchuk) that the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented on December 16, 1969 be concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) would like to ask a question of the minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact this is the first opportunity we have had to hear a statement on government policy in respect of the Brussels conference, I should like to ask a question of the minister. What position did Canada take at this conference respecting the rather serious and continuing problem of tankers dumping oil ballast at sea?

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is not a matter that was discussed at the Brussels conference, which was a conference concerned wholly with liability in terms of the Torrey Canyon type incident. Nevertheless, there are other international meetings held under the auspices of IMCO. I hope the hon. member will not ask me to tell him what "IMCO" stands for. I am not certain.
There is a degree of consultation going on. My hon. friend will appreciate that with the oceans as vast as they are, policing is very difficult. The basic problem is incompetence, plus a devil-may-care atti.ude on the part of some crews. Where this brings about a detrimental situation we have the right to take action, but as I say it is a very difficult problem.


Mr. Hogarlh:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit another question? Can he tell us whether Canada took any position at the Brussels conference, or at any other conference, in respect of preventing or impeding a declaration by the Canadian government that Canada has full sovereignty over the islands of the Arctic Archipelago, the waters lying between them and the waters adjacent to them to the east and west.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. There was no reference to any of the questions the hon. member has raised. We were dealing with international matters in terms of the global picture and there was no regional consideration at all.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member I am trying to be as lenient as possible in accepting questions, but at this point I would prefer to recognize the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the last remark made by the minister to the effect that this conference did not have any connection to the subject under debate, why was this minister allowed to make a statement which he knew was out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will applaud my persistent effort to get the floor. This is a rather unusual debate. After listening to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) one would be afraid it might
2702	COMMONS
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic oe known as the debate of the red herring if ministers of the Crown persist in participating in this debate by discussing matters which have nothing to do with the issue before the House. I would not be surprised to hear a minister stand in his place and tell us about his heroic battle against inflation.
Seriously, this is rather an historic occasion, it seems to me because this discussion arises from an assertion by a member of this House in respect of the basic right of a member of this House to move such a motion against the wishes of the government on a matter of very vital importance to the people of Canada. This is perhaps an historic debate in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Stanfield:: It seems to me there is a serious reluctance to concur in the report of the committee which is the substance of this motion. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for having moved the motion. I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who, although he criticized me somewhat in the process, had the courage to take a strong position on the side of what he considered to be the right position, the concurrence in this report and the adoption by the government of the position taken by the committee in this report. I congratulate the hon. gentlemen.
The board chairman of the Humble Oil Company, a company frequently referred to in the course of this debate, in briefing the news media on the Arctic voyage of the Manhattan welcomed the gentlemen of the press to the world's largest and most expensive edition of the Ice Follies. He may stand to be corrected as to whether it will prove to be the largest and most expensive edition of the Ice Follies. He may stand to be corrected if this government does not 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.
This, of course, is the view so eloquently expressed by the committee in its report. The committee made this recommendation after considering the potential threat of maritime oil tanker traffic through the waters of the Archipelago and the threat to Canada's environment in the north. Members of the committee had an opportunity for discussion with experts in the oil industry, with our own icebreaker marine officials, and with leading

DEBATES	January 22, 1970
Canadian marine biologists and ecologists investigating the sinking last August of the two Panarctic barges off Melville Island. The committee states:
However, your Committee shares the concern of most Canadians and of conservationists throughout the world of the dangers of pollution inherent in any future oil tanker maritime traffic through Canada's Arctic waters. Your Committee is convinced that the safeguards and pollution controls necessary to protect Canada's Arctic environment and ecology will neither be possible nor enforceable without an effective exercise of Canadian control over the waters and the ships using the waters of Canada's Arctic Archipelago.
That quotation is the heart of the recommendation of the committee and goes to the very core of the debate we are having here today. Following that, the committee further states:
Your Committee is unimpressed with arguments that adequate pollution safeguards could be effected by international agreement.
Of course, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) certainly said nothing here today which would lead us to believe there is any immediate prospect of international accords to prevent the disaster happening which we are afraid might happen. It may very well be, and I assume it is, that the Minister of Transport had business to which he must attend following the termination of his speech, but even if I had nothing to do after making a speech in such an irrelevant way I, too, would have left the House very quickly.


An hon. Member:: He is back.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Will you please correct the record, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He just left his seat.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, he just left his seat, Mr. Speaker. I think we all recognize that in this area, the opening of the north, the development of oil resources there and the movement of oil and other substances, we are moving in the unknown. We have been reminded here today that even a vessel as strongly constructed as the S. S. Manhattan was five times caught in the ice on her trip. We have heard about the gaping holes in her side. We can visualize very clearly what this might mean in the event that such a vessel were loaded with oil. And yet again, as we have been reminded today, big though she is the Manhattan may well be dwarfed by specially built 250,000 ton tankers contemplated for the future Northwest Passage service.
January 22, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In the December issue of the Imperial Oil Review it is stated:
Humble Oil speculates that various companies will have 25 or 30 huge icebreaking tankers in the Passage by 1975.
It is all very well for the Minister of Transport to engage in international discussions, and we can encourage him in this, but surely in the light of this prospect Canada must be prepared to move to discharge her responsibilities to her own people?
Some kon. Members: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether by 1975 we will have the answers to the ecological problems raised by these probes into the north. Certainly, there will be a real threat to our environment. Surely, in these circumstances we must assert our sovereignty. Of course, we must ourselves pioneer this area to see how best it can be used for the benefit of the Canadian people, more particularly of the native people who stand to lose all by an unfettered outside exploitation of their homeland.
Secondly, we must maintain firm control over the environment, not just for ourselves but in a very real sense for the whole world. I do not wish to exaggerate, but it may very well be that here our whole future lies in the balance, and that a wrong movement by the government, or the failure to make the right move merely to satisfy the economic interests of our neighbours to the south, or some timidity on the subject, may well contribute to the environmental breakdown of the world. Certainly, this is what many fear.
I say, Sir, that we have the political power to assert sovereignty, but what the government needs is the will to assert sovereignty. What we need today is a little bit of the guts that went into the making of Canada in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government talks about pollution control. I think control of pollution in the north is practical, although I have not got very much confidence that the government would exercise the necessary controls even if it declared sovereignty. Certainly, if we are to judge by the Canada water act, we have not very much upon which to build confidence. Then, too, we have the mention in the committee's report of the failure of the interdepartmental committee to do anything
DEBATES	2703
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic effective with regard to the barge sinkings in connection with the Panarctic operations. It is time we acted. It is time we acted effectively, and if we don't we may be welcoming what will be, in fact, the world's largest and most expensive edition of the Ice Follies, and the chairman of Humble Oil may prove to have been wrong.
I welcome, in a sense, the information given us by the Minister of Transport with regard to international discussions and the tentative steps taken toward the achievement of some international agreement respecting pollution in international waters. That is a sort of side-effect to this debate. We have been trying to get a statement from the minister about what went on at that conference ever since it was held, but it took a motion such as this one and an effort to try to distract the attention of the House and of the country from the essential point in this discussion get this statement from the minister. Anyway, we are happy to have it and I think we still have plenty of time to discuss the relevant matters.
I repeat that that statement has nothing to do with the case at all.
May I just draw the attention of the House to the fact that, even if there were any prospect that such an international agreement could be achieved in the immediate future, it would not be sufficient. The minister spoke about the sanctions. He spoke about firms and perhaps countries being required to make deposits so that those who suffered financially would be reimbursed. But, Mr. Speaker, financial reimbursement is not going to meet this problem in the north. This problem is not something you can fix up with money, short of enormous expenditures which would only go part way.
What we are so concerned about is the possibility of irreparable injury being done that cannot be compensated by money. So, Mr. Speaker, what the minister was talking about was completely irrelevant; first of all because it applies to international waters; secondly, because it shows no prospect of coming about in the near future; and, thirdly, because in any event it would be inadequate even if it came into effect in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On October 24 last the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada told this House:
First of all, we will never sacrifice, in the name of progress, a clean and healthy environment to industrial or commercial development.
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
The only way that the government of Canada can prevent the sacrifice of the north, can prevent the sacrifice of this clean and healthy environment, is by claiming the power to exercise, and by exercising, effective control. Nobody else is going to exercise that control.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are various recommendations in the committee's report. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) referred to them. He suggested that the adoption of the report might force the government to take measures involving the expenditure of public money. But surely, Sir, that is not so. Surely, that is another red herring. I say quite frankly that that has nothing to do with the case.
If the House adopts this motion, as I hope it will, the government is not committed to the expenditure of a cent, but it does express to the government the unanimous views of the members of the House. I do not imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the government will pay very much more attention to the views of the House as a whole than it does to the views of the Opposition as a whole. But in any event, it is not right to suggest that it is a poor pract ce to move this kind of a motion because it may involve the government in the expenditure of money. That is not so. It is perfectly proper for the House to adopt this motion expressing its view on the desirability of the government doing something, the desirability of it adopting some policies. That is what is being done here. The House is being asked to recommend to the government of Canada the adoption of certain policies.
What possible reason could there be for the government refusing to declare Canada's sovereignty over the north? What possible reason is there for the government refusing to carry out the basic recommendation of this committee? Any adequate reason has certainly not been disclosed. Certainly, I have not heard it. Evidently the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin has not heard it. None of us heard it.
There are obvious reasons why it is important that the government should move. Every day of silence on the part of the government increases the conviction of other countries about the doubts Canada may have of the validity of her claims. I think there can be no doubt about that. Secondly, every day that goes by increases the possibility that dangers and difficulties may arise for which we are not prepared, so it is urgent, sir, that we move. This resolution is not going to put the

cabinet in a straitjacket, but it will indicate very clearly to the government of this country what members of this House feel on a matter that is essential to the future of our country. There is real urgency in view of the possibility of pollution, but there are longer term factors indicating the importance of Canada's claiming sovereignty over the waters between the Archipelago and the mainland of Canada. This is surely essential to the development of the north; it is not a matter of making this claim through any sense of imperialism. It is necessary to make it for ensuring the development of the nation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The report refers to fishing. We cannot see at this time what the resources in the northern waters may be; we cannot see at this time who may wish to exploit these with the techniques that may be available in the future. It is essential for the protection of Canadian interests and the realization of Canada's destiny in the north, that the government stop fooling around and take the necessary position.
There has been a fair amount of discussion about precedents and a fair amount of discussion about innocent passage. I could go into all that, but I think the position is pretty clear and I will not worry the House with too many legal discussions. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, first of all, given that Canada has undisputed claims both to the Arctic Archipelago and the continental shelf extending from its northern shores, and that Canada has by exploration and other activities shown a concern for the polar area to the north, that we should declare our interests in that whole polar sector. This would not be done through any sense of imperialism or aggression but because Canada believed that its national interest must be protected from the devastating results that unrestricted activities in the area may produce.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we must be alert to the dangers that may arise outside our territorial waters to the north. We must be alert to the colossal calamities that may take place within that polar sector and we must be prepared to take action. This is not only necessary in our own interests but I believe we have a duty to take such action if we are to discharge our duties to Canada today and in the future and, indeed, to the world. At the present time nobody else is going to worry very much about disasters that may take place in these waters.
January 22, 1970

In addition to this, the least we should do in accordance with existing legislative policy is draw base lines around the whole of the Arctic Archipelago, reducing the intervening waters to the status of internal waters. I take this to be the substance of the recommendation of the committee, notwithstanding the fact that some of the straits are twice the width of the Canadian territorial waters.
I suggest without hesitation that this is justifiable under international law on the grounds which have been referred to today and expounded in the Norwegian Fisheries question and the Convention on the Territorial Seas, and also having regard to the special nature of the waters concerned. In doing so, Canada does not deny that there might be a right of innocent passage through the Northwest Passage but we must, and again not for the purpose of asserting our rights but in order to discharge our responsibilities, assert that any claims to innocent passage or right to innocent passage is contingent upon the approval of Canadian authorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is justifiable and legal for the following reasons. First of all, there is no customary international trade route through the Northwest Passage, unless there is a customary right of innocent passage, which certainly does not apply.
Secondly, it is in the interest of Canadian security to protect the resources of the area and to restrict certain categories of vessel, particularly tankers, from using it unless they can meet the standards set by Canada.
Thirdly, in view of the large investment, it will be necessary to provide navigational and meteorological aids, icebreakers, charting services, safety and rescue equipment. It may very well be necessary to levy charges for these services on vessels using the Northwest Passage.
Fourthly, in view of all this, the Northwest Passage possesses many of the features of an internal waterway, a fact which imposes severe limitations on the right of innocent passage.
I think members in all parts of the House must be very puzzled as to what is wrong with the government. What is really standing in the way of the government taking action which I think we are all convinced is necessary for the welfare of our country? Certainly, it is dangerous for the government not to do so, confusion thus being created and risks run.

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic Certainly, if there are valid reasons, the government is keeping them very secret.
The member for Coast Chilcotin was rather critical of me. He did not mention me by name, but I think I asked the first question in this Parliament and it did relate to Biafra. The member felt there were more important things to discuss and rather suggested that this was not a matter that ought to concern this House. Mr. Speaker, I am going to make it very clear that I shall never apologize, either for asking that question or for my subsequent interest in what is going on in Nigeria.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This, unfortunately, has been one of the great tragedies of our time, with millions dying and being permanently maimed by malnutrition. Surely, sir, no one need ever be apologetic for urging upon our country and our government a decent humanitarian role, which in this instance I would say ought to have been a role uninhibited by a concept of sovereignty. This should be irrelevant to the suffering and the dying. I am not speaking of interfering improperly in the affairs of another country, but surely the concept of sovereignty ought not to have been allowed by this government to interfere with the succour it offered to the maimed and dying. Surely, it is a proper interest for the government and Parliament of Canada.
In that instance, as I have said many times, I felt the attitude of the government was legalistic. 1 believe the government itself finally came to the conclusion that it was wrong, but only on the eve of the termination of the war.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport spoke about pollution control in the international area. A growing number of Canadians are concerned about pollution within our own country but here the government seems to have a hang-up in connection with the constitution. In Biafra, it was the concept of sovereignty; in connection with pollution, it seems to be the concept of our constitution. Surely, in the light of this it is a little ironic, if it were not so serious, that a government which has used the concept of sovereignty to prevent it from doing something in connection with Nigeria, namely, rendering help and succour in an adequate way to the dying, uses the constitution in connection with pollution. It is rather ironic that in this
January 22. 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic connection it is so reluctant to make a declaration of sovereignty which is essential if we are to protect the north and protect our country. I am a lawyer by training.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Apparently the hon. member agrees with General Gowon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I invited the minister to make a statement on Nigeria this afternoon. I should be very happy to discuss this matter with him this afternoon, tomorrow or at any time. I am making the point that the government seems to become embroiled in legalistic considerations. It seems to become hung up on legalistic considerations, no matter whether they relate to the concept of sovereignty in one connection or with some view of the constitution in another. Here, again, the government seems to be hung up on some legal fears relating to the interpretation of the law.
These are legalistic concerns. Surely the government is wrong in its interpretation of the law in this case. There is no real reason for the government to have the slightest concern about international law with regard to this claim. Surely, even if there are a few doubts, which I do not admit, it is the duty of this government to state the only position that can protect the north, the only position that can preserve the environment of the north.
The Minister of Transport told us what went on in Brussels, but all he did was reinforce the idea that if anyone is to protect the north, it must be Canada. Canada can do that only by asserting control. In order to assert control, Canada must claim sovereignty. I therefore hope that the House will endorse this resolution and, after that has been done, that the government will somehow or other summon enough fortitude to do what must so obviously be done in the interests of Canada and, indeed, of the world.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been suggested that questions should not be encouraged because there is a long list of hon. members anxious to take part in the debate. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed one question.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member stated that the government pays no attention to his views and, also, that base lines should be drawn.


An hon. Member:: That is not correct.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: May I point out that in late October or early November during the question period there was an exchange in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked the hon. member specifically if he would put forward his views as to where the base lines ought to be drawn. My question is: Did the hon. member at any time give to the government his views or those of his party as to where the base lines should be drawn in the Arctic Archipelago?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, the poor government: it depends on suggestions from the opposition. Of course, it does not take any notice of them. If the Prime Minister wants to consult me on any matter, I will be very happy to give him the benefit of my advice and I hope he will follow it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, for more than seven years I have been present here on opposition days, budget days and leaders' days, but this is the first time I have ever been present on a backbencher's day. I say that because when today's debate began it might have been called a backbencher's debate. I suggest that when the problem of the far north has been forgotten, Your Honour's ruling will be well remembered because it has set a new precedent for this House, this government and, indeed, the parliamentary system. That, really, is the significance of this debate. We have in Your Honour's ruling a check which must weigh in the balance against the more powerful rules that have given the government perhaps too much power without the sanction of the whole House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: I submit that to some extent the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) has been browbeaten, because he said he did not wish to take part in the debate but continued arguing along lines begun by the government House leader who said that in a responsible system of government we cannot afford the luxury of giving some responsibility to the backbenchers. I have taken issue with the House leader on this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then why does the hon. member vote with the government all the time?


Steven Otto: The institution of Parliament is undergoing change and the House leader
January 22, 1970

must realize that the government is not abdicating its responsibilities when it allows reports of committees which are dominated largely by Liberal members to be considered by the House. I think he and others are far behind the times when they say, "If we allow backbenchers to initiate government policies, how can the cabinet, when it goes to the people, explain its actions?"
The fact is that the cabinet does not go to the people. It is the party that goes to the people, and the backbenchers of this party also have a sense of responsibility. We are no longer here merely for two or three months of the year; we are full-time members. The fact that this debate has taken place will not hinder future government planning but will make ministers realize it is high time a backbencher's position meant something, and that they and officials of their departments must consult with members of committees and advise them of government plans and policies. Before action is taken, hon. members of this House at least should be listened to. I do not for a moment agree with the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin when he says this is a bad day. I think this is a good day for the government.


An hon. Member:: It will shake up the mandarins.


Steven Otto: Much as I hate to do so, Mr. Speaker, I must side with the government as to the contents of the report.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Feet of clay!


Steven Otto: I think hon. members will realize that this is most unusual for me.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member once said he was fair-minded.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He always votes with the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: He has just ruined his speech.


Steven Otto: I cannot understand the government's reluctance to concur in this report, because notwithstanding what has been said, the report says that the government should immediately consider certain recommendations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member has been his own heckler.


Steven Otto: It does not say that the government should adopt any measures; it merely says that the government should consider giving immediate consideration to certain

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic recommendations. There is nothing wrong with that. Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have said they are giving consideration to the matter. What, therefore, is the great objection to adopting this report? We have had debates on the question of the continental shelf, inland waters, the right of innocent passage, and so on. When we get to the essence of the report, what is dealt with? It is pollution-plain, ordinary, simple pollution.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We are not concerned with any matter other than this brand new danger which has never in the past been discussed with other nations. Indeed, many other nations are not even concerned with the subject matter. Therefore, why does Canada have to declare sovereignty? If it declares sovereignty, how will it express it? Will it do so by using an icebreaker? Against whom will it express sovereignty? Who is challenging the sovereignty?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why deny it?


Steven Otto: Nobody denies it. The government does not deny sovereignty. The government says there is no necessity as yet to put our foot down and say we are the king of this little castle. As hon. members opposite have said, it is recognized that the archipelago, the islands in the north, are Canadian territory. Who is questioning this? Why do we have to say at this time that we are the sovereign rulers of this land and of this channel? What we are really concerned about is the danger of pollution.
Why do hon. gentlemen think the United States are less concerned about this matter than we are? Surely no one would suggest that the United States would be glad to have this channel recognized as international water. They certainly would not want to see Russian or Chinese ships in this channel. We have explained our position. We have received consideration from the United States government and the corporations that are developing the oil reserves. I am sure we can come to some agreement.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) pointed out, it does not have to be an international agreement, because other nations are not concerned; they do not care. The Minister of Transport admitted at the Brussels conference there was not much likelihood of an international agreement. But
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic why do we need an international agreement? Why can we not have a dialogue with the other country concerned, the United States? Surely we can come to a rational agreement whereby the United States will recognize our problems and our apprehensions, and will come to an agreement if necessary whereby a fee can be charged and we will have some insurance against pollution caused by oil spillage.
I have no doubt that the United States would also agree that Canada should have a much stronger voice, and possibly the majority voice, in the administration of regulations and the surveillance of the construction of ships to ensure that there is less likelihood of danger. It seems hon. members opposite are not expressing their apprehension as to the danger involved but want to make absolutely sure there will never be any spillage. This is impossible.
If Canadians want the north to be opened, we cannot say that we want the passage to be opened at absolutely no risk to ourselves. We have to take some risk. We have to ensure that if ships, are allowed to go through, we have the final say as to their construction, not necessarily unilaterally but we should have a strong voice in indicating the type of ships we will approve and the type of navigation we will accept to at least protect ourselves from the possible dangers of pollution.
Until now we have been speaking entirely of oil pollution, but there is nothing to guarantee that at a later time nations which have a problem in disposing of nuclear garbage will have to transport it great distances. That in itself would create a problem. All these problems are unforeseen now, but we cannot say we will not allow anyone to go through this passage unless we are absolutely sure there is no danger. This is nonsense. We cannot do it. We must say that we want the north to be opened up and that we want development there.
The Canadian government has a great interest in the Panarctic and we expect to have more. United States businessmen have put over $800 million into part of their territory in order to explore it and obtain oil. They also have responsibility as well as rights. Why do we have to concern them and the world by saying, "This is our territory. We are the sovereign power and you cannot do anything unless you ask us and abide by our terms"?


An hon. Member:: It is time to tell them.


Steven Otto: My good friend to the left says it is time to tell them. Let us suppose we did that, and that a tanker went through, anyway: what would we do with the coastguard cutter or icebreaker? Would we sink it and pollute our own waters? What is the hon. member talking about? Who are we to say we control this whole territory? As long as there was no confrontation, we would look foolish. We would look like Peruvians if we said we were going to declare a 15-mile or 20-mile limit. We agreed internationally that there would be certain limits for fishing, defence and commercial purposes. This is the first time we have encountered the pollution problem. If we act unilaterally, we will get nowhere.


An hon. Member:: We did that on the west coast.


Steven Otto: Yes, one Russian trawler was brought in. Korea took advantage of the very crucial international situation and brought in a United States ship from a dis'ance of 28 miles. Unilateral action would not make us mature. Maturity depends upon recognizing the fact that we have a problem, and that throughout history the United States has never tried to hurt us. The United States government would not suffer embarrassment merely because of the action of some oil companies. That country has oil galore. I think this problem can and should be solved, but to do so unilaterally would be wrong.
I am not going to deal with the continental shelf argument except to say the report also suggests that the government of Canada should take whatever steps are necessary consistent with international law. The report contains many items which certainly will not be recognized under international law. I agree with the hon. member who this afternoon said that international law is quite confused. Indeed, there is very little international law today in the terms in which we once knew it.
The Minister of Transport commented on some of the problems in dealing with other nations. It was pointed out that other nations are not concerned with pollution, which is a new problem. They are not concerned with the pollution of Arctic waters when there is no possibility of cleaning the water or disposing of the pollution.
The Canadian government failed to obtain international agreement at the Brussels conference I think they should get together with the only other nation concerned and reach agreement as quickly as possible to control
January 22, 1970

this pollution and to And ways and means of obtaining money, whether by fees, tolls or otherwise, to research the problem and lay down the law. If the United States proves that it does not want to do this, that would be the time for our own government to lay down the law specifically as to pollution control.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Nothing else should be done, because nothing else is bothering us at the moment. We should also recognize that the Manhattan project was a failure. I think it is generally admitted it was not a success. This should make us even more apprehensive and careful about the type of regulations we should put into effect.
I shall end my remarks soon because I want other hon. members to have the greatest possible opportunity of taking part in the debate. May I summarize my views as follows: I am glad this report was brought down, and I think it is good that a motion was made to concur in it. I congratulate the committee on a report which was prepared entirely by its members. Far too many reports appear mysteriously from nowhere, completely typed and printed, approved by the steering committee and so on, yet no one knows where they originated and there is a great suspicion they come from the department concerned.
I am happy that the report with which we are now dealing is not one of those. It is vital to a successful committee system that reports should reflect the views of the steering committee and of the committee generally. Although I disagree with parts of this report, I admire the calibre of the men who sat on the committee which was responsible for it-the chairman, and especially the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin who led this fight from the beginning, almost from the day he arrived in the House. He assumed to some extent today the role of minister without pay. He led the debate; he organized the speakers. I am glad his efforts have been recognized. I recognize him as a man who holds very strongly to his views. If more of us were like him, we would not have nearly as much trouble in obtaining recognition.
Having said this, I regret very much that I cannot agree with the body of the report. The Prime Minister made a clear statement when he said, in effect, that we ought not to become emotional about this issue, because being emotional would do no good; that we should be practical, and give attention to the problem while recognizing that it is futile to take
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic action unilaterally if that action is unlikely to be successful, or if it is not necessary. My right hon. friend also stated, and I agree, that we should realize there are others concerned who are not our enemies but, rather, friends who by and large face the same problem in Alaska and around their coasts. We are not alone in this dilemma.
Nevertheless, I shall vote for the report if it comes to vote. Of course, it will not come to a vote. That is not the way in which these things are done: Indeed, it would be hypocritical to suggest that this motion will ever come to a vote. In the circumstances, I believe the government should give careful and immediate attention to these recommendations. I believe the nation desires these suggestions to be considered-hon. members certainly do-and for my part I urge the government to do so.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) stated this afternoon that Parliament was living a historic day. I share his view entirely. The House has indeed, with the present debate, set a precedent, thanks to the awareness and courage of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) who moved concurrence in this report.
Parliament has won an important victory over the executive power. The principle recognized by the Chair reinforces the rights and privileges of hon. members to participate in major government decisions and to do so with all the objectivity which must preside over this debate.
Several government members agree with us on this important matter. This is clearly indicative of the fact that all Canadians are most interested in this question. They are tired of the government's shilly-shallying and the time has come for it to forget its reluctance and make the sovereignty statement which is called for.
We shall probably have tonight the occasion of hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I ask the minister to show his courage by telling the House what the government thinks of this matter and I hope that he will make, on behalf of the government, the sovereignty statement we have been expecting for so long.
If we refer to the report under study, Mr. Speaker, we realize that the committee is worried by the possibility that oil tankers will very soon be plying the waters of the Archipelago and by the inherent hazards.
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
I congratulate all the members of that committee for the enormous task they have accomplished in connection with this question and for the undeniable value of their report.
In the committee's view, the prospect of oil tanker traffic makes it imperative for the government to proclaim that surface ships and submarines sailing through the Archipelago will be subject to its control and to the regulations which it might adopt.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Faulkner):: As it is
six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned at six o'clock I was saying that the matter under discussion is extremely urgent if we want to ensure the security, welfare and future of the Canadian population.
But it seems that our ever so wise government wishes to ignore the report tabled in the House. It is rather strange that the government should disregard the report of one of its committees in view of the ever increasing importance of the functions of the committees since parliamentary reforms were enacted. This can only be explained by the fact that the conclusions of the committee are in direct conflict with the government policy in regard to Canadian Arctic waters.
And if, by chance, the government should, with the help of its majority or some contrivance, determine tonight to give this report a first class funeral, this would mean that it does not trust the work of the committees and that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about parliamentary reforms, it was simply a smoke screen.
Should the government decide tonight, owing to its majority, not to implement the recommendations of the committee, there would be only one thing left for the members of the committee to do, and this, in order to protect the rights and privileges of all hon. members who sit on committees of the House: all of them should, in one gesture of solidarity, resign from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Thus they would prove to the people that the

government disregards the committee reports which are submitted to its attention.
I was saying at the beginning of my remarks that we are living a historic moment, because the House, pursuant to the Chair's ruling, has set a precedent. The government rarely takes objection in the House to the presentation of a committee report. Should it persist in refusing the reports presented by committees, it will be severely judged when the time comes by public opinion.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
By refusing to assert Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic waters, the government shows clearly that he understands neither the importance of the interests at stake nor the seriousness of the situation.
The government believes that by negotiating an international agreement against pollution, it will assert our sovereignty. Far from asserting our sovereignty, such ac'.ion will not even succeed in protecting Canada from water pollution in this area. Such a position is particularly illogical and dangerous because how can we enforce an agreement concerning an area which we are not even sure to possess? Any protective measure against pollution is impossible and inapplicable if Canada does not exercise effective control over the waters of the Canadian archipelago and over the ships that will use them. The need for a declaration of sovereignty does not arise from the simple fact of a recommendation to this effect by the committee.
The immediate declaration by the government of the Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the continental shelf is called for the following reasons: first, in order to be effective, any international agreement aimed at removing the danger of pollution in the Arctic waters demands, first, a declaration of sovereignty. The simple fact that some countries are already studying the use of the Northwest Passage for commercial transportation and that large companies are carrying out their activities in these regions should encourage the government to state right now and unequivocally its sovereignty over this region.
Canada cannot afford to wait for universal consensus since two ships of the Panarctic Oils Limited, one of which was carrying oil, have already gone down in this area.
We must first of all realize that there is no danger of pollution in the Arctic waters. Much is at stake for Canada, for the Arctic waters are a hunting ground for Indians and Eskimos, 8,500 to 10,500 of them respectively.
January 22, 1970

Humanitarian and economic considerations are therefore involved.
Does the government refuse to proclaim our sovereignty in the Arctic for fear of certain legal consequences?
Obviously, if Canada allows other countries to move in-I now refer to the international aspect-it may be far more difficult in the future to prove our sovereignty before the competent tribunal. But if the government took concrete steps immediately, and moved into the field we already hold, it might be easier to refute the claims of other countries, including the United States and to refute legal arguments before the international Court.
I still wonder why the government is reluctant to make that statement; I suspect they may fear its legal consequences.
If they really want to test that sovereignty, let them do it now and let the countries that want to dispute it make out their case before the International Court of Justice.
One must realize first of all that much of the natural resources in the Arctic waters are only partially developed and that they are priceless. It is a must for Canada to establish effectively, for future generations, her sovereignty as well as navigation security in that area.
As desirable as international control of water pollution could be, it is but one of the consequences of a statement on sovereignty, as I said a while ago. The delicate ecological balance in the Arctic must be preserved, for the sake of its population and its animal life.
The Manhattan's journey through the Northwest Passage has opened a new era. The economic development of that area, the oil and ore resources of its maritime subsoil and their development depend first of all upon a vigorous statement of sovereignty if Canada wants to remain in the race. This country cannot afford to jeopardize the future of her citizens, her animal and plant life and her natural resources.
The Canadian people have a right to expect efficient measures from the government, for their future is at stake. A firm and clear statement of the Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic waters is the first step to take before formulating a policy on Arctic waters.
Such a statement on sovereignty should obviously be tied in with the passage of several pieces of legislation not only to uphold the occupation of Arctic territories but also to state precisely the legal question as to that very important problem.

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
The need for a statement on sovereignty, as I said a while ago, is also urgent. Indeed, the fragile ecological balance of the Arctic is already threatened. On Melville Island, where Panarctic Oils Limited is conducting explorations, there are thousands of empty oil drums scattered about the island. The delicate wildlife of the island has already fallen a victim to the machinery in use there.
This is only the first problem, for Canada will certainly very soon discover oil and other minerals. As we know, companies are busy exploring in this area.
The government should realize that pollution is only one of the problems that should induce it to solve, right away and for all the world to know, the problem of sovereignty.
In its eagerness to have the people take part in the administration of the country, the government is gradually leading us to believe that the country is run by rumours coming from everywhere.
Concerning this important question, there have been rumours abroad to the effect that Canada had established strict control in the area of the Arctic waters, but these were just pompous statements of policy; no positive steps were ever taken.
Canadians are beginning to wonder seriously about the failure of this government to assume its responsibilities when it comes to firmly asserting the sovereignty of our country over its national heritage.
We know there are, in this area, many resources which need to be protected-and here I am talking to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp)-even if we have to exchange with the United States some strong and straight forward arguments about what we believe to be our sovereignty over this area of the country.
I think that the Canadian government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are mature enough to formulate themselves the foreign and domestic policy of Canada without having them being dictated by Washington.
If this problem is set out in clear and specific terms, the Washington government will be able to understand our position and it will be the first to recognize that we have taken a concrete and strong action which will be respected not only by our neighbours to the South but also by all the other countries which get some benefit out of their presence in that area.
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
We know that the Canadian people are greatly concerned about this problem. I would also submit that Quebecers do not remain indifferent to the harmful effects that the pollution of the Ungava and New Quebec areas would have.
We are entitled to know the opinion of the government in that respect and I hope that tonight the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make it known to us. The only way to deal with the matter would be for a member of the government or the Prime Minister himself to make a clear and precise statement with regard to our sovereignty over the Arctic waters. Should the Prime Minister refuse to abide by the wish of the committee and of most hon. members in that respect, he would indicate by his action that he leads a monolithic government which has no consideration for the opinion of the majority of hon. members.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the committee on its excellent report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: It has brought to the attention of the government, of this Parliament and of Canadians generally the importance of taking timely action to preserve and protect the Arctic environment against the danger of oil pollution. Nor is there any particular objection on the part of the government to this debate, so far as substance is concerned. However, I think I should say that in view of the very heavy backlog of business before the House one must regret that we are taking a day now to debate this report when there will shortly be an opportunity for exactly the same subject to be debated when the government introduces its legislation on this subject, as forecast in the Speech from the Throne.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We have heard Throne
Speeches before.


Mitchell William Sharp: This was one of the reasons why, when the motion was made, the government expressed some misgivings. I hope that the Opposition, in understanding this, will hereafter assist us a little more than they have in the past to get through the great backlog of legislation that is facing us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
'Mr. Asselin.]


Mitchell William Sharp: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) also did some disservice to his own report by insisting upon this debate, although I must say that in terms of quality it has been an excellent debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Up until now.


Mitchell William Sharp: The report, as I said, is an excellent one. It is straightforward, clear, constructive, and most significant of all, it is unanimous.


Mr. Monteilh:: Then why were you ashamed of it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not ashamed of it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why don't you move concurrence in the report, if you like it so much?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will deal with this point presently. The hon. member has put his finger exactly on the point at issue here. The report is a very good example of the way in which committees can be used to contribute to public understanding and to the understanding of this House on matters of such difficulty and complexity. However, under our parliamentary system of responsible government it is not the function of committees to usurp the responsibilities of government.
While it is true that the report of the committee is only a recommendation to the government to take certain action, and concurrence of the House cannot change its essential nature, to ask the House to concur in a report which makes so many specific recommendations requires the members of the government who are members of the House, if they take their responsibilities seriously-as I hope we all do-to express the points upon which they may differ from the committee even if they find the general tenor of the report to be valuable and acceptable.
To vote against the report could, on the other hand, be interpreted as a vote against the principle of Canada's sovereignty over the waters lying between the islands of the Canadian Archipelago. While the government may be generally sympathetic to the views of the committee, it may in the exercise of its responsibilities believe that it is necessary to adopt a strategy different from that advocated by the committee in order to attain the agreed objectives. I think the House will agree that this is understandable.
The committee does not have the responsibility of government. It does not have to weigh one objective or one priority against
January 22, 1970

another. The committee cannot answer tor the consequences of its own recommendations. On the other hand, the government must answer for the consequences of all its policies and all its actions. It cannot blame a committee, even if it accepts its findings, for mistakes which may result from the acceptance of the committee's report. I can assure the House that the recommendations of the committee will be given the most careful consideration by the government in framing the legislation to be proposed to Parliament.
What the government has been doing goes further than the approach suggested in the committee's report. We have not hesitated or delayed in determining our basic objectives, or in announcing them to the House and indeed to the world. These objectives were stated in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's address in the Throne Speech debate. They are to encourage the development of Arctic navigation and to ensure the preservation of the Arctic environment. I am certain there is agreement on all sides with these objectives.
To translate them into practical terms, however, and to incorporate them into detailed legislation requires time and much study. We have taken our time and we have given the most careful thought to the process of implementing the basic policy which we have already stated, because the interests involved are of the greatest importance to the country. Mr. Speaker, the government has almost finished its work and we will be submitting the results to the House in the near future.
There is, I believe, no fundamental difference between the views of the government and of the committee as to the extent of Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic region. There is certainly no difference of view as to the necessity of taking action to control pollution. How best to reinforce Canadas' claims to sovereignty, and how best to use that authority to control pollution are problems of a different order. It is not sufficient, for this purpose, simply to make declarations and lay claims. I am sure those members of the House who are much more learned in the law than I will agree with this. This is a practice they follow in their own profession. These declarations may be challenged; these claims may be resisted. It becomes then of the utmost importance to proceed in such a way as to maximize the chances of acceptability and success. As in so many other fields, timing is of the essence.
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on October 24 of last year:
There is not now, nor is it conceivable that there will ever be from any source, challenges to Canadian sovereignty on the mainland, in the islands, in the minerals lying in the continental shelf below the Arctic waters, or in our territorial seas. This happy situation is the result of quiet, consistent policies on the part of all Canadian governments. The present government pledges to be equally consistent. Those policies will reflect Canada's proper interest not only in the preservation of the ecological balance . . . but as well in the economic development of the north, the security of Canada, and in our stature and reputation in the world community.
To judge from some articles in the press and from various statements and speeches one would almost be led to believe that the Manhattan discovered the New World with the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria, This, of course, is not the case.
Canada was present and active in the Arctic and the Arctic waters for a century and more before the voyage of the Manhattan. The Manhattan project would not have been possible without the preparatory work, the scientific research, the investments, and the pioneering activities which successive Canadian governments have encouraged or undertaken over a vast area of the north. I refer to the systematic mapping, the hydrographic charting, the geophysical exploration and the sea-ice studies carried out by this country. Canada is not a newcomer to Arctic navigation. Canadian skills go away back and were demonstrated in historic voyages of the St. Roch and the Labrador. They were demonstrated again last fall when the John A. Macdonald escorted the Manhattan through Canada's northern islands and repeatedly freed her from the ice.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We are not unprepared for developments such as the Prudhoe Bay oil discoveries, the exploitation of Canada's own offshore Arctic resources and the commercial navigation of the Northwest Passage which may follow. We are ready for the opening of the Canadian Arctic for development, and that development is one of our great national objectives. It is with this in mind that we have stressed the desirability of keeping the Arctic waters open for innocent passage. We will do what is necessary for this purpose.
At the same time, however, we have also recognized that the danger of pollution by ships in the Arctic is particularly grave. Ice is the chief obstacle in these waters, but other
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic Arctic features are also a great hindrance, such as the extreme cold, the almost continuous fog and overcast, the 24-hour darkness in winter, the magnetic disturbances and deviations, the absence of distinctive landmarks and the need for extensive aids to navigation. Not only is there a high risk of accident, but the pollution damage resulting from an accident involving a supertanker could have a catastrophic effect upon the fragile ecology of the Arctic because of the slow workings of the biological processes which in more temperate areas effect a natural cleansing and healing operation. We do not know enough about some of these problems, but we are keenly aware of the potential dangers and we are determined to do what is necessary to minimize and avoid them.
Much has been said in this debate about international law with reference to the Arctic waters. The Prime Minister and I have both had something to say on this question on a number of occasions and I will not repeat all our previous observations here. I only wish to reaffirm a few points. The law of the sea is indeed a complex subject involving political, economic and security interests which are both national and international in scope.
This body of law has changed a great deal over the centuries with the growth of technology and shifts in the relations between states. It has undergone particularly rapid change in recent years, and Canada has made some contribution to its development to our national advantage. The Arctic seas represent a spec al situation which has so far received insufficient attention. There are obvious differences between ordinary water and water in its frozen state. Men can walk on the ice. Some people I am told can walk on the water, but generally speaking they can walk on the ice; they can shoot polar bears on the ice; they can commit murder on the ice. We all know that the flag state has jurisdiction over a crime committed on board a ship 60 miles from shore. But who has jurisdiction over a crime committed on the ice 60 miles from shore? The Canadian courts have provided effective answers to this question without feeling a need to refer to some stirring manifesto.
With respect to the Northwest Passage, one thing seems clear. As I wrote last September in an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail:
Heretofore, no one, be he Arctic expert, international jurist or government spokesman, could allege that the Northwest Passage is already an international strait under international law. If that were the case, we would not require now the

massive effort which we are witnessing for the purpose of forcing one ship and two icebreakers through the passage. In other words, we are not talking about established sea lanes or straits. We are talking about an area covered by solid ice through most of the year in some places and all of the year in others.
One last and most important point with respect to international law is this: I have already emphasized the importance the government attaches to keeping the Arctic waters open for innocent passage. We do not believe that the passage of ships which threaten the destruction or deterioration of the coastal environment can be considered innocent under any interpretation of international law. We have made clear to the world that while Canada welcomes the use of the Arctic waters as a transportation route for the vessels of all flags, the Canadian government will ensure that these waters are used for peaceful purposes and by ships complying with required safety standards.
In his statement of October 24 on the Throne Speech debate, the Prime Minister declared that Canada would not permit the pollution or artificial deterioration of the Arctic environment, either in the name of freedom of the seas or in the interests of economic development. He emphasized that we were determined not to bow in the Arctic to pressures of any state. With respect to the course of action proposed by the government he said:
Canada will propose a policy of use of the Arctic waters which will be designed for environmental preservation. This will not be an intolerable interference with the activities of others, it will not be a restriction upon progress. This legislation we regard, as a contribution to the long term and sustained development of resources for economic and social progress.
The special objectives we intend to achieve are known. The concrete action we intend to take will be spelled out in the legislation soon to be submitted to the House. I can assure the House that our proposed legislation will afford the protection required for Canada's vital coastal interests in the Arctic. It will not be a sterile exercise in chauvinism, blindly disregarding Canada's real interests and international responsibilities. It will, however, represent an affirmation of our right and our duty to use and control our national heritage. And it will vest in Canada the maritime jurisdiction which is essential for this purpose.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian north is beginning to undergo a period of rapid and profound change. We are disturbing its eternal silence and challenging its forbidden empti-
January 22, 1970

ness. At the same time, we are creating new problems and seeking to resolve them in new ways, with new techniques, new attitudes and new laws. The future of the north is the future of this country. The government is dedicated to that future, to the development of the north and to its preservation from the ravages which man has inflicted upon his environment elsewhere.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with very close attention to the extraordinary and, I might say, soporific remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). For a few moments I could not help feeling that I was in the middle of one of the chapters of "Alice in Wonderland." If all of the members of cabinet are so much in agreement with the proposals expressed in this report, I fail to understand why we have had to take up a day of valuable government time in discussing the matter. It just does not make any sense.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what has been going on, never mind the red herrings and smoke-screens put up by government members. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development drew up a report. It was drawn up by government members on the committee-


Mr. Crouse:: A majority of government members.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A government majority, of course, and it was unanimously concurred in by all members. It did not seem in any way controversial, and it was placed before the House. When anything is tabled in this House, Mr. Speaker, it is the property of the House and not of the government. Why was a move not made to concur in this report in the ordinary, routine way? It is all very strange. Members on this side of the House took no steps in that direction because we thought the chairman of the committee, on behalf of the government, would probably move concurrence in the normal way. We waited, but nothing happened. Although one cannot pay attention to all one hears around Parliament hill, there is usually no smoke without some fire, and we did hear things. We began to realize that the government, for a reason which has never been explained in spite of all the fancy today, did not like this report.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What is it in this report that in any way ties the government's hands in regard to
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic details of legislation pertaining to domestic matters or international negotiations? Nothing. Parliament has had presented to it in a committee report certain general principles with which I am sure all Canadians, including members of the government, must agree. This whole performance is incredible.


Mr. Orange:: So is the hon. member's.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I hope the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) will support this report, because if he does not it will look very strange to his constituents. As I say, Mr. Speaker, our having to debate this matter seems incredible. The vice-chairman of the committee had to move concurrence in the report. Surely there can be no argument about this matter. The government is complaining that it cannot get its legislation through Parliament. It says it has so much to do, and then refuses to accept this report. I ask, what is all the argument about?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We are waiting for the hon. member to say something.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Northwest Territories will have his chance to speak in due course, and we shall be very interested to hear what he has to say. Shakespeare had a word for nearly every situation one can imagine, and in this case, having heard the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Secretary of State for External Affairs and one or two other government supporters, I am reminded of Lady Macbeth's words:
All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.
All the explanations that may be presented here-and believe me they are phony expla-nat ons-cannot rub out the knowledge that the government does not like the report and its principle. It contains a statement of principle, and nothing else. All the foolish and phony explanations do not hide the government's thinking. Let us take a good look at this whole business, Mr. Speaker. We have had so many red herrings drawn across the trail that the Grand Banks, where they fish them, must be pretty well depleted. We have seen a very good smoke-screen put up.
What is the bas'c problem here, Mr. Speaker. The matter of concurrence in this report brings to mind two very important principles which are before the House. That is why this matter has received so much attention from the public, the news miedia and others. The two principles are quite obvious. The first is the substance of this report, the principle
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic expressed in it for which concurrence is sought from members of the House. The second point has to do with the whole purpose of our parliamentary system as seen in theory by the government and as put into practice.
We know that when this government came into office, it came in on a wave of slogans like, "Participatory democracy" and, "We are going to give the backbenchers a leal chance to take part in the proceedings of Parliament and to help the government." We heard a lot of taik about that, Mr. Speaker.
What have we had since? As one government supporter said, and I agree with him, no government should be obliged to accept every recommendation of every parliamentary committee. Nobody who has had any experience around here would suggest otherwise. However, n view of all the trumpeting about how much democracy there was going to be around here, the government might on occasion-perhaps not very often, but on occasion-consider adopting some of the recommendations of some of the committees. Unfortunately, there has not been the slightest sign of that taking place.
Consider, for example, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It was sent to Europe, at great expense to the taxpayers, to look into matters pertain ng to NATO. I was a member of the committee at that time and I recall that members, regardless of party, worked extremely hard drawing up recommendations. Immediately upon our return we sat down to work on our report. What happened? Before we 1 ad a chance to present the report requested by the government, the government announced what it was going to do.
Why was there all this waste of the taxpayers' money and of members' time? Goodness knows, members of the House have enough duties to perform relating to constituencies, committee meetings, work in the House and elsewhere. Why should they waste their time, at the request of the government, only to have the government make its decision before the report could be presented or even drawn up? The same sort of thing happened in the Transport and Communications Committee and on the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The latter committee was discussing the question whether the voting age should be lowered to 18 years, and before it could complete its work a cabinet minister rose and said, "We have made up our minds." The same sort of thing happened with the Com-
LMr. Nesbitt.]
mittee on Agriculture. In fact, it has happened with almost every committee of the House.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Stay with it!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I know the hon. member for Northwest Territories does not like this, but I am afraid he will just have to listen. He can answer in due course.


An hon. Member:: He has not been able to be recognized.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought he said he would speak.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The hon. member can sit down any time he wants.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the committee system of this House is to work, some attention must be paid to Committees' reports. The government should have the good grace not to announce that it has made a decision before the matter the committee is investigating has been reported on. If this policy is continued, hon. members-I do not care in which part of the House they sit-will get damn well fed up and will not go to committees. Frankly I do not see why they should, if this policy is continued. It is useless for the Secretary of State or the minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to rise in the House, as happened this afternoon, and say that the committee was not apprised of all pertinent facts when it drew its report.
If the government had been paying attention to what was going on in committees, and if it knew that committees were not receiving all the information they should have had before them, all it had to do was use its good offices and request, perhaps through committee chairmen, that certain witnesses from departments of government and elsewhere present evidence. We can take the instance referred to this afternoon:	the evidence
sought might pertain to the Brussels conference, or it might pertain-the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to this tonight-to some of the problems we are facing in international situations. If the committees are not being properly informed, it is the government's fault. If the government has information that it wants to present to committees so that those committees may draw up reports, there is nothing stopping the government making that information available.
I think members on all sides of the House will agree that there has been remarkably little partisanship in committees. Most committee members, no matter where they sit in
January 22. 1970	COMMONS
the House, have tried to do useful work and to bring out useful and helpful reports. But whenever the mandarins in the government do not like something-although the term "mandarins" usually refers to senior civil servants, we must remember that some of them have graduated to the cabinet-they merely say, "We are not in favour of this and we will not have it." Apparently they like to use the system that was used some years ago by members of the Capet family and kings of France such as Louis XIV. If they did not like something, they just tossed it out.
Just consider the remark the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) reportedly made to the inhabitants of Banff Park and Jasper Park. Apparently he said that if they did not like things as they were, they could get out. This is just like ordering the peasants off the property. That is symbolic of the attitude of the government, although I am careful to say that this remark does not apply to a very large number of government backbenchers. The other matter that has come before the House is the substance of the committee report. This question has been dealt with at great length by a number of hon. members including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the Leader of the NDP and others.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I do not intend to take the time of the House to repeat what has already been said, particularly with respect to international law.
I would like to make on thing clear because it may be raised at a later date by members of the government, that is, that members of the opposition are not anti-American in some of the views we have taken. I will not take second place to any member of this House in being accused of being pro-American. I am not ashamed of it. I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for our great neighbour to the south. The Americans are hard bargainers when looking after their own interests, and I do not blame them one bit for that. That does not mean we should not express our interest and views.
A great many conclusions have been drawn from the strange attitude of the government. The government is adopting a sort of Uriah Heep posture toward the United States. Canada is so humble; the government is saying, "We do not want to interfere with you." I do not go along with the government when it says it is ever so humble. I do not think the United States has any respect for us in adopting that kind of attitude.
DEBATES	2717
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
I heard another strange argument from a government member this afternoon, the hon. member of the legal profession. He was inquiring why the government should assert its sovereignty over the Arctic at this time. Other members must have been as stunned and astounded as I, in view of the background and training of the hon. member. I am sure the member must know that the doctrine of laches applies. If you do not assert your authority over certain territories and rights, they will lapse. In the same way, if you own a piece of property and allow people to cross the corner of it without objecting, you lose that portion of your property. This law, of course, applies internationally as well as nationally.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) pointed out that in 1908 we asserted our right under the sector principle which extends to the North Pole over ice, water and land. This was again done in 1946. In view of the great interest in the Arctic at the present time because of oil and possible transportation outlets, we should once again reassert our authority. Approximately a year ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House that he was in favour of the assertion of our rights in the Arctic. This is why I find it so difficult to understand why the government is so bashful about now reasserting its rights over the Arctic. I understand this is also the feeling of many government members.
There have been many editorials, news items and remarks about this subject. There is only one conclusion any reasonable person could come to, that is, that the government has some doubts about whether we in fact have sovereignty over the Arctic areas and whether we should enforce this sovereignty. It seems that our sovereignty over the Arctic areas has become a negotiable matter. This has never happened with any previous government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert John (Bud) Orange: That's your view.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I only hope, Mr. Speaker-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Face up to it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wish the hon. member for Northwest Territories would control his temper. He might be frightening the people in the galleries. He is frightening me. I wish he would control himself.
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
The Secretary of State for External Affairs intimated this evening that he will in the near future give us concrete assurance in the form of legislation or perhaps an announcement of government policy. If we assert our sovereignty over the Arctic areas in unequivocal terms, I am sure the fears and misgivings of many of us will be removed. I hope the minister will do as he intimated this evening. I hope it does not mean what the government usually means when it says "in the near future", that is, next year or the year after. I hope the assurance will be given in the next couple of weeks.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope we will have some cooperation from the opposition.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have heard many amusing remarks this evening, Mr. Speaker, but the latest interjection by the Secretary of State for External Affairs really takes the cake.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You made a few, too.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because I know many members are waiting with bated breath to hear the words of the hon. member for Northwest Territories, who is just itching to speak. We would love to hear what he is going to say.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You have taken 20 minutes. Why don't you let me have a chance?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member is concerned there will not be time for him to speak. We are each allowed 40 minutes to speak in this debate. I am sure in the next hour the hon. member will be able to give us his views on the matter.
In conclusion I wish to pose some questions to the government. If in fact the government approves the general principle-and I say again that is all there is in this committee report-why is there all the fuss? Why has the report not been concurred in in the usual manner and allowed to go through? Why take the time of this House? What has the government to hide? What does it not like about this report? That is all we want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I hope other government members will reassure us there is nothing in fact to hide. We are waiting to be convinced of that.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the contents of this


report, which I hope at least in principle will have the support of every member of this House, I wish to place on record some of the background of the report.
The Arctic sovereignty question was raised and pursued in this House at the beginning of 1969 by the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). As a result of that hon. member's opportune action, the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Committee took up the subject and last April heard expert testimony from Dean Cohen of the McGill University faculty of law.
In August, 1969, when the timetable for the Manhattan became fixed, the committee indicated its wish to welcome the Manhattan to the Canadian north. This fact is significant, Mr. Speaker: the committee was in consequence furnished with a Canadian Armed Forces' aircraft for that purpose. The committee's primary concern was that our Arctic environment and ecology could be protected only by rules and regulations formulated and enforced by Canada.
The implementation of controls and regulations for the use of these waters is, of necessity, an exercise of sovereignty. The nature of the Manhattan's voyage, with no formal request for permission for its passage having been addressed to the Canadian government, at least in the minds of the committee members presented a challenge to Canadian sovereignty, a sovereignty which I regard as being solidly based historically, geographically and geologically.
We felt a strong gesture was essential to meet what seemed to be a deliberate attempt by the United States government to skate around the sovereignty issue. A subcommittee of 10 members of the Standing Committee went north on September 3, 1969, fully aware of the significance of the gesture they were about to make.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Soon after the committee arrived in Resolute on the evening of September 3, the ten members sat down together and in the course of the most completely non-partisan discussion I have ever witnessed between members of an all-party committee thrashed out not only the wording but the tone of the message of greeting we were to send to the Manhattan as she entered the waters of the archipelago. A condition of agreement on the wording of the message was that there would be unanimous support for the message after it had been delivered, and I am happy to say there was. The clearest possible language was used
January 22, 1970

to express the Canadian position: "Welcome to Canadian waters-Bienvenue dans ces eaux canadiennes".
Mr. Speaker, I am not an extreme nationalist, nor am I a flag-waver, nor do I believe in sovereignty for sovereignty's sake. However, 1 am totally convinced, as I know were the other nine members of the committee and as I believe are most hon. members of this House, that in order to regulate and control pollution dangers to our Arctic environment we must exercise the full sovereign powers of Canada.
Our report alludes to possible international control. We rejected a reliance on international regulations for protection because up to now, at least, their laxness has been such as to cause concern. Oil spillages, deliberate or accidental, have already reached an intolerable level in some of the temperate waters of the world, and these are the waters in which crude oil is dissipated most readily.
It is becoming increasingly clear to scientists that permissible levels of oil spillage under the present IMCO agreements may be much too high. The IMCO, as I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) found out during his voyage to Europe a short time ago, is dominated by countries whose shipping lobbies are very powerful. These shipping lobbies are in turn subservient to their most important clients, the international oil interests.
International agreement on stricter control of oil and chemical pollution by international marine traffic remains a highly desirable objective, and it is in the interest of Canada to use maximum diplomatic pressure to achieve these goals. But can we take a chance on the adequacy of international regulation when thousands of miles of Canadian Arctic coastline are menaced, and when an ecology and an environment which are probably the most delicately balanced on this planet may be irreparably damaged? The answer must, of course, be no.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already indicated that the government of Canada will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the Arctic environment in this regard. The committee has made clear what it feels these steps should be. It states that vessels, surface and submarine, passing through Canada's Archipelago are, and shall be, subject to the sovereign control and regulation of Canada.
The urgency which is stressed in the committee's report is not exaggerated. A few 21611-33)
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
days ago General Dynamics Corporation announced it had offered to build six 175,000-ton submarine tankers for oil companies with interests in the Prudhoe Bay area. The offer was made complete with prices and delivery dates. I asked in the House the day after it was announced, and I ask now, whether this company has consulted with anyone in the Canadian government on the subject. I suspect the answer is no. Canada, and Canada alone, must determine whether surface or submarine maritime traffic can be safely tolerated in the Arctic Archipelago. All of us hope it can, but it is Canada's sovereign prerogative to decide whether the answer shall be yes or no, to declare one design satisfactory and another unsatisfactory.
I should like to ask the minister responsible for the National Research Council just what assessment and evaluation capacity we possess in Canada which would enable us to decide independently which surface or submarine vessel design is acceptable or unacceptable. I can assure the minister responsible for the NRC that some time within the next few months our committee will want to hear from the NRC just how Canada is prepared to evaluate the safety of these proposed gigantic surface and submarine oil tankers.
Returning briefly to the report, I should like to comment on two points which apart from the sovereignty recommendations I deem to be the most important. The committee believes that innocent passage for ships of all nations should not be interfered with. It states clearly:
The committee believes that innocent passage for ships of ail nations through the waters of the Canadian Archipelago is compatible with the protection of fundamental and essential Canadian interests in her Arctic waters. However, the committee takes the position that any passage which poses a danger to Canada whether this danger takes the form of a threat of pollution or otherwise, is not innocent.
We have here simply taken the realistic position that any ship from any nation can use this passage as long as it does not threaten Canada. If an unsafe ship is using the passage, it is threatening Canada and Canada has an absolute right to control it.
The second point I want to stress is this: the committee urged the government to take whatever steps might be necessary, compatible with international law, to deal with this problem in the Arctic. It is significant that the committee used the phrase "compatible with international law", and I draw the attention of the House to this.
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic
I should also like to place on record my position with regard to the motion presently before us. I, of course, support the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Watson: Why then, Mr. Speaker, did I not move concurrence as chairman? The opposition knows, as does everyone else here, that I was not so instructed by the committee and that the practice, until the ruling of Mr. Speaker on Tuesday, was that a committee chairman did not move concurrence without an explicit direction from the committee.
I do not think I am breaking any rule if I say that during the three committee meetings which were held in camera, the members of all parties represented in the House and present at the meeting held to consider this question stressed again and again the delicacy of the sovereignty issue and the importance of avoiding phraseology which might lend itself to deliberate misinterpretation on the part of various interests opposed to the assertion and exercise of Canadian sovereignty over the water of our Arctic Archipelago.
Its objective was to put on record, not only for the government of Canada but for foreign governments, a unanimous, all-party expression of concern with regard to the imminent oil-pollution danger facing Canada's Arctic environment. There was an equally unanimous conviction and recommendation that the government of Canada should act urgently to indicate to the world-and I am repeating what the recommendation said-that shipping, surface and submarine, passing through these waters is subject to the sovereign control and regulation of Canada.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker's ruling of Tuesday last was a dramatic procedural development and one which I on balance support, although in this particular case it presents some very special difficulties for the government. Normally, if the government had any reservation about any part of a report it would vote against it. In this instance the government really does not have that opportunity, because a vote against this report would conceivably open the way for a foreign power to use this as proof that there exists some doubt in the government's mind as to whether we actually have sovereignty in that area. It is inconceivable that the government could vote against this report. In this particular case the government is more restricted than it otherwise would be.

I did not receive any instructions from the committee to move for concurrence and the question was not even raised in the committee by members of either the government or opposition parties. The progress which is implicit in the committees' system and which will be the result of the ruling on Tuesday augers well for the rights of backbenchers. We can only hope that the Committee on Procedure and Organization will heed the Speaker's recommendation that immediate consideration be given to developing-I do not think the Speaker used these precise words-guidelines for committee reports. From now on chairmen will move for concurrence in their reports as soon as they are presented; they will not wait around for opposition members to move concurrence. This is very obvious. However, we will be faced with new problems in respect of time allocation. I strongly urge the committee on Procedure and Organization to heed the Speaker's recommendation in this regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. I listened with great interest and approval to what he just said. Since this report has been moved and has been recommended to the government, particularly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), is it the government's intention that this matter come to a vote and be unanimously approved? No doubt the hon. member approves the terms of reference of the committee and the recommendations of the report.


Ian Watson: In response to that question, Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the motion, and if it does come to a vote I will vote in favour of it. That is my answer to the question.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of the northern affairs committee I considered we were asked to make recommendations affecting 40 per cent of Canada's land mass comprised of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Because many members of the committee had never been there, we decided to fly to Resolute and at least look at part of this area. This land is so vast that many rivers and lakes are nameless. It is a land of muskeg, permafrost and in some areas perpetual ice.
Along the fringes of the Arctic icecap marine life abounds. There is plankton, tiny Crustacea, fish, seals and polar bear. On land the caribou and muskox in their thousands
January 22, 1970

feed on the Arctic moss. Lemmings, the Arctic fox and hare are part of the scene. It is a land where winter holds sway for nine months of the year and where men fear the bone-snapping cold.
For centuries men have tried to force the Northwest Passage or otherwise explore the Arctic. It was necessary to await the technology of the 20th century to properly assess this vast area. With the advent of the aeroplane, helicopter, Bombardier and huge icebreakers, transportation in the north has become a reality. Even yet, however, it is fabulously expensive.
Geologists suggest that there is more of the sedimentary-type rock in the Arctic than there is in Alberta and Saskatchewan. This includes the tarsands discovery on Melville Island. Rich deposits of iron on Baffin Island await development. I saw with my own eyes samples of ore with free gold and silver showing in them. The key to this storehouse of natural resource is transportation.
The trip of the Manhattan is now history, but history will not stop here. There is more to come. I should like to read a short item from a newspaper quoting Yellowknife as the source. It states:
Prime Minister Trudeau should declare Canadian sovereignty over the waters surrounding the Arctic islands, the Northwest Territories council agreed yesterday.
The council also expressed concern over Arctic pollution, and requested Territorial Commission Stuart Hodgson to seek a means of having representation at any pollution talks between Canada and the United States.
"Occupancy is nine-tenths of the law," said Duncan Pryde, sponsor of the resolution asking the council to support a federal standing committee on Indian affairs and northern development recommendation for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
We have the approval of the commission in the Northwest Territories, or at least part of that group, in this regard. We have at least caught the eyes of some of the people responsible for government in that area. This is a voice to which we should listen. The article then states:
Mr. Pryde, elected member for the Western Arctic, said Canadian Eskimos have occupied sea ice between the Islands for centuries.
"These are Canadian Eskimos, not American Eskimos or international Eskimos," he said.
1 suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a political mistake when he did not speak out firmly on this issue when it first came up. Had he done so, the argument we have heard several times in the last few

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic months would not have been made. I think, too, that the Prime Minister made a political mistake in the sense that this is one issue in respect of which he might have the support of all Canadians. The fact that the members of the committee from all parts of Canada were unanimous in agreement on this subject indicates that there is unanimity among Canadians on this subject. The Prime Minister missed the boat on this matter.
It would appear that the United States is challenging us on this issue. Why does it not challenge the Russians about the Russian sector of the Arctic? Why does the United States not ask the Russians whether that sector of the Arctic waters is open to international transportation? I suggest the answer is that they know it is not, and dare not ask.
I do not want to belabour the point about the continental shelf because it has already been made today, but I have an item from which I would like to read briefly. This is to be found in The Canadian Forum in an article on Arctic sovereignty. It states in part:
The first principle is the concept of the continental shelf. The second is the utilization of straight "baselines" to designate the limits of the domestic or internal waters of a state. The continental shelf doctrine achieved prominence in 1945 when President Truman proclaimed that the resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf adjacent to a country's shore belong to that nation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This principle was incorporated in an international convention at the United Nations Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958.
I shall leave it at that. The reason I mention this matter is that it is one the United States authorities have promoted. They have promoted this idea, and that is one reason for claiming this area for Canada. I suggest it is not enough for the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Prime Minister to declare that these waters are ours. This should be demonstrated by a more visible Canadian presence in the area.
Duncan Pride of the Northwest Territories Commission suggested that occupancy is nine-tenths of the law. I suggest this is the way the United States authorities consider the issue. If we were to look at Oregon in an historical sense, one might argue that it should be part of British America. The Americans moved into this area and because of the right of occupancy it became part of the United States. A similar thing happened in respect of California and New Mexico.
If the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) believes the United States people are
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic always fair in dealing with their good neighbour to the north, he should read Bruce Hutchison's book "Struggle for the Border". In that book he would see what Mr. Hutchison has to say concerning the argument about the Alaska panhandle. I do not think the hon. member would then be so happy about this situation. I suggest the Canadian presence could take the form of Canadian icebreakers, merchant ships and naval ships using these waters. Accurate charts of water depths, currents and ice movements should be made. Navigational aids should be installed and kept operational. Bases should be enlarged and expanded. The larger ones should be converted to family-type communities with houses, schools, and so on. In this way we would in effect be saying: We are here now, to stay.
For the immediate present the armed forces might demonstrate a visible presence. Troops returning from NATO exercises could profitably learn how to navigate and manoeuvre in Canada's conditions of ice, tundra, muskeg, mosquitoes, mountains, and so on. The navy could learn how to navigate in Arctic ice and winter conditions.
I feel it is regrettable that the government with the northern vision in 1958 decided to stop naval patrol of the Arctic. I think that had we had continuous naval patrols in the Arctic we might now be more operational in respect of safeguards for the ships we have there. We might also have completed our study of the area, for which there is need. I think it is regrettable that we do not have a constant naval program there now.
I did not hear the interjection of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), but I would ask him what our navy is doing patrolling the Caribbean when it does not know how to manoeuvre in Canadian waters. I would suggest, in dealing with Arctic sovereignty, that perhaps our Air Force transport services should be updated. The army engineers might be used to build temporary wharf facilities, airports, and so on. I recall ships being unloaded at Resolute Point. They were 200 or 300 yards out in the harbour and barges were being used to transfer supplies to shore. I wonder whether the army might have provided a more reasonable type of wharf facility in this area. Perhaps it would be of a temporary type, but it would be more effective than the facilities there at the time of our visit.
These are our suggestions. Perhaps there is some argument about their effectiveness. At

any rate, they are my opinions. I believe the facilities would be useful and that the army would pick up some useful experience in northern conditions. Armed forces reserve units might spend some time in the Arctic on a rotating basis, perhaps taking the Arctic survival course as part of their training. These bases, communities, mines, oil companies, and so on, are in a particularly exposed position in respect of supplies in the event of international turmoil. Therefore, I believe these waters should be treated as inland waters and that freight should be restricted to Canadian shipping only.
Freighters for this service should be equipped for navigating and plowing through ice. They should also have rapid unloading facilities and equipment for cold weather. Much of the cold weather equipment is inadequate. Clothing, weapons, lubricating oil, engines, metals, ships, and so on, could be improved. Therefore, the Department of National Defence in co-operation with the Department of Northern Affairs, the National Research Council and industries concerned should be encouraged to continue research into improved services in these areas.
I should like to stress one point which I believe was made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) this evening. I refer to the fact that we do not need to hesitate standing up for ourselves regarding shipping in these waters, because ships of other countries cannot use them without our support services. The land around these waters is ours. If there should be any pollution there, our land would be polluted. For this reason, also, we should take firm action. If there are military ships in this area, whether of a friendly or less friendly nation, Canada either directly or indirectly should exert all its authority to make certain nothing untoward happens and then, whether we like it or not, we will be involved.
I realize there are other members who wish to speak. I do not wish to labour my points, and therefore I shall yield the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I hear from the other side of the House some voices in the wilderness saying "question". Two or three minutes ago the official critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition suggested that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories might have a word to say about this whole matter of Arctic sovereignty.
January 22, 1970

Now confusion is reigning supreme on the other side. In the beginning, as a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As it is now and ever shall be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: World without end, amen.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The prayer boys are at work. As a member of the committee and having visited Resolute Bay as well as having participated in the Manhattan expedition recently, and having had some considerate interest in the north in the past 15 years, I believe the committee report makes a great deal of sense. As a member of the government and the Liberal Party I support the committee report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: During the course of the debate this afternoon and evening I could not help being impressed, as a northerner living in the south at the moment, by the sincerity with which Canadians and Members of Parliament who represent many other people in this country expressed concern about northern Canada. Probably there is no issue today in the minds of the Canadian people that reflects more greatly the true feelings of nationhood in this country than the question of Arctic sovereignty.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I believe we have finally recognized that this is a nation which does not stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but from the Atlantic to the Arctic and on to the Pacific. Less than 20 years ago the islands of the Arctic Archipelago were a mysterious and forbidding land which concerned Canadians not at all and interested them even less.
Following the start of the Dew Line, the Distant Early Warning System, somewhere around 1953, and with the changes which governments have brought about since then, including the establishment of the Department of Northern Affairs, this massive land mass in the north and the people who live there are now truly a part of the Canadian conscience.
This year we in the north are celebrating our 100th year in the Canadian Confederation. In 1870 the government of Canada bought back Ruperts Land from Britain, an area which included the present provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and all of the Northwest Territories. For 80

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic years the northern part of that land continued to lie dormant. But in the last 20 years the people of Canada, through their government, have participated in the life of the north to make it truly part of our nation. In the north there is a feeling that the Canadian Confederation is the most important thing to us as Canadians. It is finally apparent to northerners that the people who live in southern Canada are concerned about the north.
This is demonstrated by the manner in which Members of Parliament talk about the north and ask that more emphasis be placed on northern development. This area north of the 60th parallel comprises more than 40 per cent of our land mass, but has a very small population. Hopefully, it holds those resources that will make this country truly Canadian in the years to come.
Today we are spending some time debating the question of Arctic sovereignty. What do we do about it? What do we do about the passage through Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, and the Prince of Wales Strait to make sure that we as Canadians have a right to say which ships can pass, and can control them so they will not destroy the tender but vital life of the Arctic?
As members of Parliament we face a dilemma. We could unilaterally say-emotionally I believe we should, although intellectually I am not too sure-that these are Canadian waters. We could display our jingoism and all the other things which make headlines. But how do we do it effectively? Do we suddenly stand up and say that all these waters belong to Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The people across there say yes, but how are we to stop other nations bringing their ships through? This is the dilemma.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You tell them that these waters belong to Canada.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We tell them?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: More jingoism from the other side. Can we go to the World Court and say these waters belong to us? We can. Maybe we will win, and maybe we won't. How can we enforce this? What gunboats do we have? The Bonaventure is now for sale. Can we break off diplomatic relations with the major nations which insist on pushing their vessels through there? We can stand up, shout and scream, but can we stop them? This is the
2724	COMMONS
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic dilemma we face. Somehow we as Canadians must take the necessary steps.


Mr. Lewis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: At the end of my speech.


David Lewis: It is related to what the hon. member has just said.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I think our coastguard, our Department of Transport and our science research facilities should start to look at ice dynamics, the processes of ice, and what happens to ships in ice waters. We know very little about this subject. We know very little about the effect of ice dynamics on a ship of 250,000 tons, or even on a ship of
10,000	tons. We do not know what happens to such ships caught in the Arctic ice during the long Arctic night, and during Arctic storms.


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with sovereignty?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I believe in the sovereignty of this country. We have established our sovereignty on the islands. We have established sovereignty on the polar shelf. We also control the only Northwest Passage there is, between Banks Island and Victoria Island through the Prince of Wales Strait because of the two islands known as the Princess Royal Islands, which he in this area and which are Canadian territory. To try and sail any other way is impossible. If a ship goes beyond Banks Island it hits the polar ice pack, and there is no way the Manhattan or even a bigger ship can get through the polar ice pack.
As Canadians we control the Northwest Passage. It is ours. We can say which ships can pass through it. We can set the standards. We can ask the Department of Transport, the Science Council and other groups to make recommendations whereby we can control possible pollution and preserve the ecology of the region, compatible with the principles we have set down.


Mr. Maclnnis:: You are going against your own principles now.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: One of the problems we face is with respect to our neighbour to the south. Like most Canadians, I have relatives and friends down there. I have started to wonder about some of the reactions coming from our powerful neighbour and I cannot help but be

DEBATES	January 22, 1970
concerned about their lack of recognition that there is a sovereign Canadian nation which has interest in the Arctic islands, and which has an interest in protecting those things which are part of this sovereign nation.
In recent months I have read editorials in American newspapers concerning the transportation of oil through these Arctic waters, waters which may be in dispute internationally so far as our sovereignty is concerned.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But does anybody dispute it? That is what I would like to ask.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record, in support of my concern about the United States approach to this whole matter, a document written by Mr. Howard W. Pollock, Congressman for the State of Alaska, to the chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Member of the House of Representatives. This document is a matter of public record and it is a report of Mr. Pollock's trip on the Manhattan. I think it is an indication of the lack of recognition on the part of our neighbours to the south of the use, control and ownership of these waters. I think it is a matter that should concern all Canadians. I shall not read the entire letter, which is rather long. The first paragraph deals with the trip into Alaskan waters and the second paragraph reads as follows:
Unquestionably the s.s. Manhattan is the largest, most powerful Icebreaker in the world, and it performed spectacularly under most rigorous ice conditions. It sliced through enormous ice pressure ridges up to an estimated forty to sixty feet in height with no roll, no sway, and no shudder. The powerful ship outperformed the escorting Canadian and United States Coast Guard icebreakers. The performance exceeded all expectations. First and second year ice proved to be no problem whatever to negotiate; however, the dense, hardpacked, older multiyear polar ice floes periodically created massive side pressures that would Impede forward motion and temporarily imprison the worthy vessel in the ever-changing ice pack.
Going to another paragraph, it continues:
In my considered opinion, Humble Oil will ultimately make the management decision to build a fleet of supertanker icebreakers in the 250,000 deadweight ton class, with a very substantial relative increase in horsepower-perhaps a magnitude of 85,000 to 100,000 horsepower. Today no shipyard in the U.S. is capable of doing this.
Then further on it reads:
Ultimately, 30 or so 250,000 ton supertanker icebreakers could be built by industry for the com-
January 22, 1970

mercial trade of the Arctic, with 35 day round trips programmed (including a 3-day buffer for delays due to ice conditions), with 48 hours programmed at each end for total turnaround time loading and unloading.
He then goes on to point out the limitation of the U.S. icebreaker Northwind. He acknowledges that a little old Canadian ship under Captain Fournier, the Sir John A. Macdonald did perform a very useful service for the Manhattan, and I believe this is the heart of the letter. He continues:
In light of our strategic, scientific and economic goals in the polar regions, it is obvious that we have insufficient icebreakers available to carry out our national requirements. The U.S. icebreakers in these polar regions have long outlived their usefulness. Icebreaking, with its repeated shocks, stresses and strains, causes metal fatigue and heavy engine wear, the combination of which aggravates deterioration and hastens breakdown.
With the immediate potential of increased commercial activity, it is necessary that serious consideration be given now to providing modern, powerful icebreakers to meet our polar objectives. With ship transportation feasible for exploitation of mineral resources, a national commitment must be made which will establish a very high priority for building and commissioning the finest icebreakers in the world.
Mr. Speaker, when I first read this letter I was a little shocked. When I looked at it the second time I was a little frightened that a Congressman of the United States-


An hon. Member:: Look at it again.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: -would produce this kind of letter without recognition that these waterways do not belong to United States of America. I have other quotes including some from the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce in an address delivered in Halifax last summer, when he virtually warned Canadians not to be concerned about the Northwest Passage. The whole import of the speech was, "You know, we can get along. We can be friends. We can work something out." I do not believe that this is good enough; it is not what Canadians want.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) announces the approach that this government will take, I hope it will be the type of approach that will make Canadians recognize that these waters, be they not Canadian at the moment-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are Canadian.


Mr. Burton:: Resign, if that is all you can say.
Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How can you say that and be the member for Northwest Territories?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the voice in the wilderness once again asks how can I say that and be the member for Northwest Territories.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Physician, heal thyself.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I would ask him to look at the map. Look where these waters run. We are talking about total control over all these waters. There is no way in international law, no international precedent by which we can say all these waters are ours. I am talking about the mouth of Lancaster Sound to the McClure Strait.


An hon. Member:: A sell-out.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Oh, a sell-out! Just look at the map.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You should see the face of the minister now.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: In the past few days the Council of the Northwest Territories, which is presently meeting in Yellowknife, has taken a very substantial look at the question of Arctic sovereignty. They have expressed concern on this matter and put together a resolution which was unanimously carried. The resolution reads:
Now therefore, moved that this Council add their support to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in their recommendation to the Prime Minister of Canada that the waters around and between the Arctic Islands be confirmed to be under Canadian sovereignty.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I should like to quote a statement that Mr. Michael Simonie made. He is an elected representative on the Northwest Territories Council and represents the eastern Arctic. I wish to read his words because they have a bearing on what we are talking about, and particularly on the Eskimo people. On that occasion a motion pertaining to Arctic sovereignty was before the Council. Mr. Simonie said:
Mr. Commissioner, I support this motion. I am the seconder of this motion. In the night-time you see in the Arctic the northern lights up in the sky. Also, you see phosphorous in the Arctic water in the night-time. I feel the Arctic water should stay right where it is in order to have the animals live in the water. I am the seconder of the motion because I like to hear what has been said on the motion so in particular we live in Canada as northerners and we should have the full right to all of northern Canada and therefore I support this motion, on behalf of my people living off the animals. We don't grow anything up
January 22, 1970

Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic there as people do down south in Canada. We tember; they looked down their noses at the only live on the animals year around. I support parliamentary committee which was flying
into the Arctic. Hon. members need only look


Some hon. Members:: Question.	at what has been printed.


Mr. Harding:: Sit down and let us vote unanimously in favour of the motion.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I believe that as we look at the question of Arctic sovereignty we must also consider, after the Northwest Passage has been thoroughly opened, matters pertaining to extraction of the resources of the area, be they oil from Prudhoe Bay or the Panarctic, iron ore from the Milne Inlet or copper deposits of Strathcona ND. Whatever we do, we must make sure that the Eskimo people who wish to do so can continue living off the animals of the area, and that ships plying the passage will obey rules and regulations designed to protect the ecology of the area. We do not want that ecology disturbed unnecessarily. If we do these things, I think we will be doing what is best for the north. It is not beyond the ability of science, aided by modern technology, to clean up any spillage that may occur, in a way that will not harm the ecology of the area. I believe that the people of the area must be able to retain, if they want to, their way of life.
Before I resume my seat I think it would be well for us to acknowledge our debt to the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). If it had not been for the work of that backbench Member of Parliament this issue may not have assumed the proportions it has. I am delighted that he has been instrumental in bringing it before us, as are hon. members on all sides of the House. Because of the hon. member's work we have been made aware of the meaning of Arctic sovereignty. Having an understanding of the matter-


An hon. Member:: Let us vote.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: -the hon. member took it upon himself to convince his colleagues in the House that we have a responsibility in determining the question of Arctic sovereignty. If it had not been for the chairman of the committee and the advice of some members of the opposition, in particular that of the former minister of northern affairs (Mr. Dins-dale) and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), the committee would not have gone north to meet the Manhattan.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Only a few minutes more.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Many editorial writers in this country sneered at us last August and Sep-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: However, the committee
believed in what it was doing and I believe we established our point.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member is talking the motion out.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We went north with a specific purpose. We as a parliamentary group were concerned about our Arctic sovereignty, and for that reason among others we went north to meet the Manhattan.


Randolph Harding: Why does the hon. member not permit the House to vote?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We as a committee accomplished something which has been seldom accomplished in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: One more minute.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Opposition members seem to be pretty anxious.


Randolph Harding: Let us vote for Canada. Sit down and let us vote.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to speak and, hopefully, I intend to finish my remarks. I think that when we went to Resolute Bay to visit the Manhattan, what we did was pretty important for Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) rising on a point of order?


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that since the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has almost completed his speech, we might continue the debate a little longer. We should be most agreeable to not seeing the clock for a few minutes, if thereby we might reach a decision.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been put.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, you have not asked the House to make its decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) is suggesting that I inquire
January 22, 1970

whether there is unanimous consent on the part of hon. members for the debate to continue. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Borrie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the matter comes to a vote I should like to have the opportunity of making some remarks. I was a member of the committee which brought down the report.


Mr. Speaker:: There must be unanimous consent for continuing and there does not appear to be such unanimity.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that an objection came from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp)?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is after ten o'clock-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What price Canadian
sovereignty!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is after ten o'clock and it is the duty of the Chair to inform hon. members that under the provisions of Standing Order 40, a motion for the adjournment of this House is deemed to have been put. According to the standing order, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) now has the floor.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) would be in his place this evening because I wish to bring before this House a matter of concern to all Canadians and of particular interest to the minister and his department. I hope his absence does not indicate a lack of concern, because I am sure the minister is well aware of the issue being debated this 21611-341
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion evening; I am certain that he was given notice of it.
The problem I wish to raise is posed by certain forms of advertising and sales promotion which tend to mislead consumers. The majority of these advertisements and promotional stunts may be so carefully phrased as to be within the limits of legality. However, regardless of how they are worded and presented to the public, the end result is to mislead the consumer in varying degrees.
I first raised this matter in the form of a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on January 15. The question was in reference to recent events which occurred in Alberta. These events evolved from the promotion of a new brand of cigarette, Casino, by the manufacturers, the Imperial Tobacco Company of Canada Limited. By means of advertising, consumers were invited to buy Casino cigarettes and thereby have a chance of winning cash prizes by playing a game called Casino, details of which were enclosed in each package.
It is not my intention this evening to go into detail about the rules and method of play. It will suffice to say that a number of consumers who bought the product and played the game according to company rules are still waiting for the promised prize payment. In some cases these claims for payment amount to as much at $20,000 or $30,000. It is not my intention to make a charge that the advertising was either false or misleading in its origin and early application. However, I do say that it becomes both false and misleading the moment the manufacturer-fails to honour claims for prizes won in accordance with the rules as advertised.
Furthermore, I submit that it becomes very questionable when an organization spends huge sums of money on advertising and promoting not only the cigarette but the game, through television, radio and newspaper and then finds itself in a position of having to withdraw from the game and does so simply by placing a small and insignificant advertisement on the back pages of the daily newspapers.
This may not constitute misleading advertising, but I strongly suggest that it constitutes a deprivation of information to the public and consumer, particularly to those who bought these cigarettes in good faith on the strength of the company's advertising and adhered to the rules and regulations that were stated on the package. The rules which
January 22, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion were quoted stated that prize claims must be postmarked no later than July 31, 1970, in one series and in another series indicated that the deadline for claiming a prize was December 31, 1971.
I submit that actions of this sort do very little to dispel the anxieties and apprehensions of caveat emptor. This is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
My understanding is that some time after the new brand was launched in the Alberta market, the company discovered a flaw in the game of Casino that made it possible for buyers to win more easily and to win greater amounts of money than had been anticipated.
I believe that on December 4 the product was withdrawn from the market and all promotion ceased. On December 13, Alberta newspapers carried advertisements announcing this and stating that the company would honour no applications for prize money if they were dated after December 12.
I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the fact that the company announced withdrawal of the product from the market, it was still available in retail outlets in Smoky Lake, Alberta, as late as January 9, 1970.
It is my understanding that one or more of these claims will shortly be contested in the courts. In any event, many consumers in Alberta believe they have just claims for prize money which have not been satisfied. I cite this as an example of the type of thing that is happening in many fields involving consumer affairs. It is my firm conviction that this aspect of consumer affairs should be of prime interest to the minister and to his department whose chief job, we have been told, it is the protection of the interests of the Canadian consumer.
Far be it from me to say that the company in this case is necessarily at fault. I do say, however, that the circumstances are such as to fully warrant a thorough and complete investigation by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If this department is not prepared to initiate an investigation, it might well be a matter for the Department of Justice to deal with. I understand from the questions and answers in the House yesterday that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the officials of his department are familiar with this matter.
Advertising is the chief method of promoting sales to consumers and moving consumer


goods. It is obvious, to me at least, that it should therefore be one of the main areas of interest to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe the question I raise tonight clearly falls within the department's jurisdiction, and I urge the minister to meet the challenge by examining this and similar matters at once.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Combines Investigation Act Administration are aware of the question raised by the hon. member and his remarks will be referred to them.



SPORTS-FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR OLYMPIC GAMES BIDS

Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: May I at the outset, Mr. Speaker, congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), and indeed his entire staff, on their positive and constructive approach to Canadian sports development and physical fitness.
Assigned these responsibilities a relatively short time ago, the minister and his staff have established an excellent record. My question relates to the amount of aid which has, in fact, been pledged by the federal government to the sponsors of Canada's Winter Olympic Games application and the amount of aid, if any, pledged by the government to the sponsors of the Montreal Summer Olympic Games application. I suggest that some urgency exists and we must have the facts. The picture is confused, and contradictory statements have been made which do nothing to assist either application.
As hon. members know, both in the Van-couver-Garibaldi winter games bid and the bid by Montreal for the summer games relate to events scheduled for 1976. However, right now, this very day, representatives of the International Olympics Commission are, I am advised, examining the bids within their national organizations in preparation for the critical vote which will take place in Amsterdam on May 13.
It is no secret that only extraordinary circumstances permit a country to bid successfully for both the winter and the summer Olympic Games. Canada has established an outstanding reputation for winter sports facilities. The mountains of western Canada
January 22, 1970

were built-to-order for the winter Olympics competition. The Vancouver-Garibaldi Olympics Commission has worked tirelessly since its establishment in 1960 to bring the winter games to the west.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
There have been keen disappointments along the way. Their 1961 bid was rejected because of lack of road facilities. In 1966 the provincial government opened a paved access road. The obstacles have been cleared away and Garibaldi is ready.
A remarkable amount of co-operation has been realized. Together with the enthusiastic support of the sports community there has been widespread citizen support as well as pledges of financial support from both federal and provincial governments. Until recently all indicators pointed to a successful Vancouver-Garibaldi bid. All Canada was convinced that this nation had a good chance to win the winter Olympic Games and that the games would be held at Whistler Mountain in the Garibaldi area.
However, Mayor Drapeau of Montreal elected to enlist the support of public opinion for the summer Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 by making statements to the public through the media-statements, Mr. Speaker, which I suggest may not represent the facts and indeed could be very damaging to Canada's bid for the winter games.
I respect the enthusiasm and energy of Mayor Drapeau, but the eyes of the sports world are on Canada and it is vitally important to Canada's prestige as a winter wonderland that the Vancouver-Garibaldi Olympic Committee receive the support of all Canada-the kind of overwhelming support that all Canada gave to Expo '67 in Montreal.
In the Montreal Gazette dated January 15, 1970, on the front page a full-column story appears, part of which reads as follows:
Mr. Drapeau appeared both confident Montreal will win the games and convinced the city is fully capable of hosting them.
The impression left with readers clearly was that he had the blessing and support of the federal government. I am advised that the same gentleman also spoke to members of the Olympic Games officials in terms which left little doubt he had been assured of federal government support. In competitions of this kind support usually means financial grants. It is therefore vital to Canada's success in its bid for the winter games that the record be put straight, without delay.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Because of the excellent facilities already available at the Whistler Mountain area, the Vancouver-Garibaldi competition will have a net cost of $25 million and I am advised that the federal government has graciously agreed to pay a portion of this cost. I am advised that the Olympic Summer Games in Montreal could cost a minimum of $200 million, and possibly up to $300 million. There may be a time in the future when an expenditure of this magnitude could be justified. If such is the case, I am confident that I can assure Mayor Drapeau he will receive the wholehearted support of Canadians. But, Mr. Speaker, there can surely be no justification for making a commitment at this time.
The Vancouver-Garibaldi Olympic Committee's bid for the Winter Olympic Games in 1976 is a "first" for Canada. It will provide a meeting place for young people from all over the world generally and from all over Canada in particular. People from the Canadian east will visit the west in droves, as those from the west visited the east in Montreal during Expo '67.
In closing, may I express to the federal government the sincere gratitude of Canadian winter sportsmen from coast to coast for its support in assuring a successful bid being made by the Vancouver-Garibaldi Olympic Committee.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) on January 15 concerning federal financial commitments for Montreal and Garibaldi in support of their bids for the 1976 Olympic Games, I would like to say that Montreal did not request direct financial assistance and therefore no commitment has been given to them. It is understood, however, that Montreal will be seeking indirect financial support under either existing legislation or legislation that might exist in the future concerning urban renewal and public housing. It is understood that any costsharing program applied for would have to be justified in its own right without consideration of its association with the Olympic Games.
In the case of the Vancouver-Garibaldi bid, the federal government was asked to participate financially and the federal government has agreed to a grant of $75,000 to help defray their promotional expenses in further-
January 22, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ing the bid. That represents one-third of the total promotional money. The other two-thirds have been supplied by the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver.
The federal government has further agreed to provide a fixed grant of $10 million toward the deficit of a non-profit corporation to be established for the staging and operation of the games. This grant is conditional upon the corporation obtaining from the government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver an undertaking in terms acceptable to the federal government that either or both the government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver will pay the balance of the deficit of the corporation, and that the federal government be satisfied that adequate provision has been made for the recognition of its role in the promotion and staging of the games and in the ceremonials and elements of publicity employed in connection with them.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the city of Montreal did not initially apply for and has not received from the federal government a grant for the purposes of staging the Olympic Games; nor has the city of Montreal to date applied for funds from any other government cost-sharing program in relationship to the Olympic Games. The city of Vancouver applied for assistance, and if the aforementioned conditions are met, will receive an outright grant of $10 million for the purposes of staging the 1976 Olympic Games.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-BEQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON HOLE

John Stratford Burton: the absence of a long-term policy respecting the board, the vagueness of the profitability requirements which some would like to apply to this sector, the inadequacies of procedures for assessing creative personnel, and the absence of an adequate financial information system.
In conclusion, Mr. Saumier said:
It therefore appears that the National Film Board management, confronted by a situation which they could not resolve objectively or subjectively, were led to make a series of decisions which, although inevitably arbitrary, are none the less convergent. It appears, once again, that an underlying policy is implied in any major body of decisions-
He goes on to discuss this subject and then says the solution must be found-
-in the co-ordinated and conscious definition of objectives and priorities from which the board, as a whole, will be able subsequently to derive a consistent and intentional, rather than accidental, set of decisional rules.
The Commissioner of the Film Board in his comments goes on to state that the very future of the board is at stake. Subsequently, user charges were announced. There was no word from the minister today regarding this particular feature. It is of much concern in my province of Saskatchewan where this program has been used extensively. These user charges will mean a reduction in the use of the films which the board produces.
I have received representations from the Catholic Family Services in the city of Regina
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in which they say that the films have been very important to their organization, and that the films on family life education had been particularly useful as resource material. I have also received a letter from the supervisor of a local church boys group which says they make extensive use of National Film Board films, but that if these user charges are instituted they will no longer be able to use the films.
The council of the city of Regina has protested. The Wheatland regional library, which serves central Saskatchewan, has protested. This library used 723 films in' its branches in the first 11 months of 1969, in spite of the difficulty if had in obtaining Film Board catalogues. Other agencies have also protested. I recommend to the government that it reconsider the imposition of these user charges.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) that due to unforeseen circumstances the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is unable to be here this evening. I will take it upon myself to make sure he receives the hon. member's representations and give them all the consideration they deserve.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Friday, January 23, 1970