1973-06-07

CORRECTION IN VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR JUNE 6 RESPECTING BILL S-5

['Oh, oh!']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Page 379 of the Votes and Proceedings for yesterday reports that Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act
. . . was deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 100(2).
This is a public bill which was inadvertently treated as a private bill.
This entry will therefore be stricken from the Votes and Proceedings and Bill S-5 will appear on tomorrow's order paper under the heading "First Reading of Public Senate Bills".



Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given Your Honour notice. It relates to remarks made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) at the time of consideration of questions on the motion for adjournment on Tuesday night. As recorded on pages 4476 and 4477 of Hansard, there are two references by the hon. member to a vote which was taken in the transport committee. The first reference, as recorded on page 4476, was as follows:
... or would he prefer to treat the opinion of the NDP on this issue, in view of their switch in position in committee, as indicative of public opinion.
Further, as recorded on page 4477, he said:
... or will the government continue to push blindly ahead, bolstered by the votes in committee of NDP members who in a moment of utter hypocrisy voted on estimates to give the government the money to push ahead with this unnecessary project?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: My question of privilege is based on two points, Mr. Speaker. First, the hon. member's remarks are a reflection on a vote in a committee and as such are improper remarks to be made in the House. Second, the hon. member's remarks, particularly the second statement, involve an imputation of motives on the part of another member of the House.
The hon. member for St. Paul's can say anything he wishes outside the House about me, my colleagues or our votes in the House, but in this chamber he should respect the traditions of the House and neither reflect on a vote nor impute motives on the part of another member.
The substance of his imputation is that, although opposed to the building of the Pickering airport, I voted for the appropriation so that the government could go ahead and pay those people who wished to be expropriated. He is interested in supporting this as a change of position on my part that took place not only in terms of months but on the same day.
To end my point, I could very well in this House point out to the hon. member that he, in committee, in relation to his motion which he claims correctly I did not support, stated, as recorded on page 5:77 of Issue No. 5 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Mr. Chairman, the members should be perfectly clear that this motion does not kill the Pickering airport.
It was clearly stated by him that his motion was not in opposition to the Pickering airport.
On this matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for a withdrawal of the hon. member's remarks of the other night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Harney: I do not ask, Mr. Speaker, for an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member could bring his remarks to a close. I think he has indicated what his question of privilege is and he should give the Chair an opportunity to make a ruling.


John Paul Harney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, I ask for a withdrawal and not for an apology because an apology, just like an insult from the hon. member, is of no particular consequence to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has referred to statements which were made in the House two days ago. He suggests that it is against the traditions, rules and practices of the House to reflect on a vote. Of course I am in agreement with him, as I am sure all hon. members are, and also that we cannot impute motives. But I do not think the hon. member is entitled on this basis to ask either for an apology or for a withdrawal. He has brought to the attention of the hon. member for St. Paul's and all other hon. members that it is irregular to refer to proceedings in a committee, to reflect on a vote or to impute motives. We are all agreed on this. I am sure the hon.

June 7, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Harney
member for St. Paul's has noted the hon. member's reprimand.
Is the hon. member for St. Paul's rising? I would hope the hon. member would not pursue the matter. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I think there is a practice that an hon. member whose conduct is impugned or referred to in some way is given an opportunity to comment. I had not noticed that the hon. member wanted to rise. I think I owe it to him to let him say a few words, but I hope the matter will not be exacerbated and that we will not become involved in a long debate.


Mr. Atkey:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My only suggestion is that the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) is very thin-skinned and sensitive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, may I advise Your Honour that in the annual ball game last night between members of the House of Commons and the protective staff the House of Commons upheld its tradition by winning. May I recommend, Sir, that in the year ahead Your Honour consider hiring a pitcher, no matter what language he speaks, and pay him the 714 per cent bonus. They might do better next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will seek assistance from the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the arrangement by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission for a public hearing in Vancouver on June 18 into an application by Pacific Western Airlines to subcontract some of its routes to other air carriers and the fact that the Air Transport Committee gave insufficient notice to those who may want to make some preparation and appear at that hearing. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
This House calls upon the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission to postpone its scheduled hearing relating to the request by Pacific Western Airlines to subcontract some of its routes in B.C., which hearing is scheduled to be held in Vancouver on June 18, in order that interested parties may have adequate opportunity to prepare for the hearing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to ask leave of the House to move the following motion:
That in the opinion of this House, strikes should be banned from the public sector, that an industrial disputes commission be set up to deal with workers' grievances, that disputes in the public sector should be settled by arbitration, and that this matter be referred to the Committee on Lqbour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. The Chair will inquire whether the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There are "Noes", and the motion cannot be put.
June 7, 1973


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The subject matter has to do with the declared intention of the government to bring in a new policy to govern the marketing of feed grain in the domestic market and the intention of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to discuss this cabinet policy publicly before it has been presented to the House.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture meet forthwith and that the Minister of Agriculture place the proposed changes in feed grain marketing before the committee in order that such changes can be examined and discussed by the members of that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, and the motion cannot be put.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That a committee of the House made up of representatives of all political parties be established to clear up the matter of standards used to decide whether local initiatives projects should be extended: of persistent reports concerning political and partisan interventions with regard to the acceptance of such projects which reports bring discredit to the Local Initiatives Program and procedures used to review unilateral and arbitrary decisions of officials over which the responsible minister has effectively no control.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Consent is not unanimous; therefore, the motion cannot be put.
Oral Questions


INCLUSION OF LEISURE TIME IN LOCAL INITIATIVES PROJECT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent to rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the criteria allowing the extension of the local initiatives projects have been established on an unsound basis and that some very important ones, including that of the Sainte-Therese de Drummondville recreational activities, have been cancelled, I move, supported by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House examine the possibility of accepting recreational activities as a criterion for extending Local Initiatives Projects in communities where the unemployment rate exceeds 6.8 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that contract talks between Air Canada and the machinists union have been broken off, is the minister able to inform the House that the government is now prepared to intervene in this dispute?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I cannot report to the House or to the hon. member on what further action will be taken as of the moment, simply because-


An hon. Member:: You do not know!


John Carr Munro: -the talks broke off only a few hours ago. I am endeavouring to get full details as to the precise issues upon which the negotiations broke down and those issues on which there was agreement before deciding on what further efforts should be made toward mediation to bring the parties together.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had sat in on the talks perhaps he would be better informed. In view of the fact four or five more cities have been struck today and the president of Air Canada has announced that if rotating strikes continue they will have to close down

June 7, 1973
Oral Questions
operations, and in view of the fact Air Canada has shown a substantial profit in the past year, the highest in its history, is the minister now prepared to recommend a settlement of this dispute, and is the government prepared to take a stand on what seems to be the very justified and reasonable wage demands of the Air Canada machinists?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is saying for himself and the Official Opposition that they have already taken a stand on the rights and privileges of the people involved in terms of what they feel they should be awarded, I must say that the government has not. We believe this is part of the free collective bargaining process. It is still going on. We believe in that process, and as long as we continue to believe in it we also believe in the right to strike for the employees affected.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the free collective bargaining process has broken down, by the minister's own admission, and in view of the fact Air Canada is a publicly owned corporation owned by the people of Canada, is the minister, as the representative of the people of Canada, prepared to intervene in this dispute?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if it is felt, either by myself or by the government, that personal intervention on my part would resolve the dispute, then of course that would be seriously considered.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered consulting with the Prime Minister to obtain permission to get the advice of the hon. member for Verdun, who had a reasonable amount of success in solving industrial disputes?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I am constantly getting advice, and it is always welcome, from the hon. member for Verdun.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Since Air Canada is a Crown corporation and our friends of the New Democratic Party are strongly in favour of nationalization, would the minister consider the possibility of "re-nationalizing" Air Canada to end that conflict?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings for a last supplementary on this matter, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour regarding the possibility of his taking an active part in these negotiations. As his predecessor, the hon. member for Verdun, described himself as the Babe Ruth of the bargaining table, does the minister

intend to step up to the plate or to remain sitting in the club house?


REASONS FOR DECISION TO INCREASE EXPORTS OF PROPANE TO UNITED STATES-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN CONSUMERS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the government's decision to allow three companies to double their exports of propane to the United States. In view of the fact this is merely another form of exporting natural gas, of which we do not have unlimited supplies for our own needs, I want to ask the minister what reasons motivated the government in reaching this decision?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the report of the National Energy Board on this question they drew a distinction between propane which, for pipeline reasons, has to be extracted from the natural gas flow, and ethane, which does not. The decision of the board was that ethane should be treated differently from propane, that propane is a distinct commodity by itself, that there is a very substantial surplus of propane in Canada which, were it not for the order the board made, would be difficult to accommodate within Canadian domestic requirements at the present time, and because of the very substantial surplus of propane and the necessity of removing it from the gas stream it was felt by the board that the application should be allowed, as it was.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the companies in question sought to reduce to less than half their shipments of propane to Canadian consumers while seeking to more than double their exports to the United States because of more attractive prices there, I want to ask the minister what steps he is taking to protect Canadian consumers of propane both with respect to price and guarantee of supplies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret I do not have the board's decision with me which points out that the application made was somewhat different from its disposition by the board, but the indication was that there was a very substantial surplus of propane which the board distinguished from natural gas, and for this reason export-import would be permitted. With regard to price, I do not have the details, but the hon. member will recall that the order was for five years only as opposed to the 20-year contract sought.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that all the board did was license the three companies to supply eastern consumers with propane, which is no assurance they will receive supplies or that they will not have the price raised because of higher prices in the United States, I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to take some steps to protect the consumers who, if the
June 7, 1973

original request had been acceded to, would have had their supplies in eastern Canada cut to less than half?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do not have the board's report in front of me, but I think the hon. member might do well to read the section on price, as I will again, and I will be glad to discuss that with him further.


POSSIBILITY OF PRICE CONTROLS IN LIGHT OF PRESENT OR FUTURE SUPPLY CRISIS OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If necessary, will the government resort to energy price controls to ensure that domestic prices of energy resources are not inflated by any crisis that may exist or may arise in the future in respect of energy supplies outside of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that was the subject of a debate in the House a week ago Monday, and my reasons still stand.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has the minister received lately representations or telegrams of protest from municipalities or community organizations concerning the refusal to extend local initiatives projects, one of which is in the field of recreational activities?
[ English]


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, such representations have not reached me personally, but I would not be surprised if some were in the mail somewhere and on the way now.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Since the minister does not seem to be too well informed and extensions were to be authorized according to the unemployment rate in each region, and since the Saguenay-North Shore area unemployment rates at 20 per cent, can the minister assure us that he will take those applications into consideration and reverse the decisions of officials concerning recreational activities projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe the premise of the hon. member's statement is somewhat incorrect. In addition to unemployment, as a factor, all the manpower cen-
Oral Questions
tres have been instructed, in the further extension of the criteria, to give consideration to all projects in manpower centres where unemployment is below the national average, but these would be judged on their merits. In that regard, consideration is going on now; the final decisions are in the process of being made and I think should be completed by June 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere for one or two supplementaries, then I will recognize the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-ALLEGED DIRECTIVES FROM DEPARTMENT RESPECTING EXTENSION OF PROJECTS
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has formally requested manpower centres to convey their recommendations concerning the renewal of certain projects and, if so, what are those recommendations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regret, I think the suggestion is so general I would have to know more precisely from what particular person, sponsor, group of sponsors or community the application came, but if the hon. member would give me more specific details I would be very happy to enlighten him.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, you have realized as I did that the minister did not get my question straight.
I would like to ask him whether an official memo has been forwarded by the department to manpower centres requesting their comments on the renewal of certain local initiatives projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, not in those precise terms. There are, of course, instructions to the manpower officers, or at least those particularly associated with the local initiatives program, based on the extension criteria, dollar amounts and other conditions about which I have informed hon. members in the House and in communication by letter.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question about the increase in the tonnage rates at the port of Vancouver on oceangoing vessels involving a switch from a charge based upon net tonnage to gross tonnage, resulting in an increase of about 60 per cent in the rates. Can the minister give in a very simple way the

June 7, 1973
Oral Questions
justification for this increase as there cannot be a necessity for revenue in view of the profitability of the port of Vancouver.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the 60 per cent figure is rather exaggerated, but even if it is, it represents a substantial increase. This increase was decreed so that the rates in Vancouver and Prince Rupert might be the same as in all other national harbours. This will provide a total additional income of $300,000 a year, and within the next two years we will be spending over $40 million in the port of Vancouver.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the port of Vancouver is in intense competition with the port of Seattle, is the minister satisfied that this increase in the rate at the port of Vancouver will not put that port at a disadvantage with the port of Seattle which I understand is very actively competing for business now going to Vancouver?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter we considered very seriously, and since the amount is not very high, that is about $300,000 a year, for the port of Vancouver, this amount should not affect it very much compared with the cost of the port of Seattle or other ports on the west coast of the United States.


INCREASE IN TONNAGE RATE CHARGED OCEAN GOING VESSELS AT PORT OF VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE INTENTION OF FURTHER SUBSIDY FOR NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House whether he was aware that the port of Vancouver made a $1.2 million profit for the National Harbours Board last year and was one of the few profitable ports in the country? If so, would the minister tell the House whether the rate increase was consciously intended to subsidize further the National Harbours Board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have given the reason for that, namely that new rates at Vancouver and Prince Rupert will be exactly the same as in all other Canadian harbours.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the fact that as a result of severe ice conditions lobster fishermen in district 16 in Nova Scotia have suffered loss of income and fishing equipment, would the

hon. gentleman give consideration to an extension of the season for a two-week period beyond the proposed closing date?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, we will give serious consideration to an extension of the season, but my information varies with that of the hon. member. I am told that in that region the catch so far has been up to normal.


PRICES OF WHEAT SOLD TO RUSSIA AND CHINA IN FIRST QUARTER OF 1973
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Why is it that in the first quarter of 1973 Canadian wheat was sold to Russia at an average price of $1.73 a bushel and to China at an average price of $1.97 a bushel when the Wheat Board's own asking price at that time, basis Vancouver, was $2.97?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, while as the hon. member knows it is not customary to comment on specific prices-


Gerald William Baldwin: Not when it is embarrassing.


Otto Emil Lang: -because of the Wheat Board's wish that these be kept secret as a matter of commercial practice, I should like to say on this occasion to the hon. member quite flatly that no sales in those periods were made at those prices.


George Harris Hees: At what prices were they made then?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to inform-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to ask a question rather than provide information.


Jack Burnett Murta: In that case, Mr. Speaker, as I believe the information to be true because it was obtained from a book issued by Statistics Canada on exports by commodity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: -I should like to ask the minister whether since in the case of Russia and China there was a difference between the Wheat Board's Vancouver asking price and the actual selling price of approximately $1.25 a bushel to $1 a bushel respectively, the Wheat Board was not conscious of the fact of what was happening in respect of world markets at this period in time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might try to help the hon. member to understand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Just read Statistics Canada.
June 7, 1973


Otto Emil Lang: As hon. members will appreciate, there is a difference between the price at which a sale is made in a particular period and the total price on a product which may be delivered in that period but which is based on a contract entered into at some time long before. As the hon. member will appreciate we have, of course, been delivering grain to a variety of countries on the basis of agreements we had made in a number of different and earlier periods, at prices which were then prevailing, at prices which at that time reflected the judgment in the world of the competitive situation. I would say to hon. members that they would have been completely unforgiving of the Canadian Wheat Board if it had lost the sales to the U.S.S.R. or China to one of our competitors in that period because we were refusing to meet the competition. We had to meet the competition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can see that obviously a number of members want to enter the fray. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and see where we will go from there.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since this is such a very important matter and as in the first quarter of 1973 wheat was sold at an average loss of 79 cents per bushel-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Jack Burnett Murta: -I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian Wheat Board intends to continue committing itself to long-term forward sales and in effect playing with the western farmer's own money?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt at all that the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to enter into longterm agreements and those long-term agreements at this point in time are being based on wheat priced at over $3 out of Thunder Bay.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Order, please. The Chair has recognized for the moment the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a supplementary-


WHEAT-SUGGESTED GREATER PLANTING-POSSIBILITY OF BETTER PRICES
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. In view of his public statement just the other day asking farmers to sow extra acreage in wheat and to produce a great deal more than they had intended to plant this spring, does this indicate a confidence on his part that this grain will move readily at better prices than those discussed here in the last few minutes?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the news release indicated, there is every reason to be confident about both the price level and the
Oral Questions
level of volume to be sold. In the last three years we have sold in each year an increasing and new record volume of grain into export.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: At firesale prices.


Otto Emil Lang: For the last six months these record volumes have been moving at record prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It now appears, although there is no certainty in world prices, that this is likely to continue for a significant period. I am quite confident that, given the volume of production and the full operational capability of our handling system, we should be able to sell another record volume of grain in the coming year, and we are therefore inviting farmers to produce even more than they have ever produced before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Better put someone in charge there, Pierre, or the whole business will go bankrupt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. Perhaps he might be heard.


FEED GRAIN-PRICE TO FARMERS FOR DOMESTIC SALES UNDER NEW POLICY
Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact the minister is urging farmers to plant more feed grains, can he assure the House and the farmers that under the new feed grain pricing policy, about which we have been able to obtain no information up to this point, farmers in western Canada will be assured a maximum price for those grains as the minister has assured us they will receive on the export market?


Otto Emil Lang: The Speech from the Throne indicated the basic thrust of the feed grain policy. I am happy to re-emphasize that in my belief the feed grain policy as developed will be fair to farmers in Canada both in the east and the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I am completely confident, given the present world pricing situation, that prices will be very good indeed from the point of view of the producer of grain.


WHEAT-DELIVERIES BY FARMERS IN LIGHT OF EXPECTED HIGHER PRICE IN NEXT CROP YEAR
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. We all realize that sometimes hindsight proves better than foresight, but would the minister now lend some foresight to farmers and advise them not to deliver more wheat until the next

June 7, 1973
Oral Questions
crop year, in view of the low price in the 1972-73 crop year, because they will receive 50 cents a bushel more after August 1?


Otto Emil Lang: Some farmers are indeed arriving at the conclusion that they will not take advantage of the open delivery quotas at present because of the conclusion at which they have arrived with regard to the total price. I think the difference in the price will not be nearly as great as the hon. member suggests, but no one knows this at present because it will be about six months before we know the price on this year's pool, let alone the price on next year's pool.
However, I would like to say to farmers, as well as to hon. members, that the reason it is particularly desirable to deliver on these open quotas right now is that it looks as though there is a good possibility that farmers can in fact produce so much grain in the course of this year that they will want to make use of the available delivery opportunities to deliver new grain at the new high price and have the advantage of the present high price on the grain they can deliver now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. I see a number of hon. members who wish to ask supplementaries on this question. I will, of course, return to the hon. member for Edmonton East and others in a moment. We might try to give other hon. members an opportunity to ask their questions, and after these other subjects have been considered by the House we will return to the great wheat debate. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ROLE OF CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION IN DECISION ON SITE FOR OLYMPIC VILLAGE
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that more than 100 associations and 66,000 petitioners in Montreal have indicated their opposition to Mayor Drapeau's proposed site for the Olympic village, has CMHC been consulted on that specific location and has any decision been reached yet by CMHC regarding the location of the village site?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, CMHC has not been consulted to this point and therefore no decision has been made. I have had some informal consultations on the matter with Dr. Goldbloom of the province of Quebec who, as you may know from reports, has been actively involved in this matter.


Mark Willson Rose: Since the CMHC, I assume, would not wish to bear the responsibility of funding future urban ghettos, I should like to ask the minister whether CMHC is under
any obligation to fund projects in only those locations recommended by the city of Montreal, or is CMHC free to seek or propose alternative sites?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We would respond to an application by the Quebec Housing Authority not the City of Montreal and in looking at any application we would apply the rules that we normally do to our approvals.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell us whether he has been advised of the fact that some students hired by his department six weeks ago to head the temporary Manpower Centres for students have not yet received any salary? If so, can he tell us what steps he intends to take to pay them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the matter. I have not been so informed, but I am quite sure that if the department has taken on these people and given them jobs it will find a way of paying them.


WHEAT-SALES TO RUSSIA AND CHINA-ALLEGED FIRE SALE PRICES
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to the questions asked of the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the figures given by the hon. member for Lisgar have not in any way been challenged by the minister, and they could not be, coming as they do from Statistics Canada, does that fact not show what we have been endeavouring to prove for a long while, that while sales of wheat have been large they have been at fire sale prices and the western farmer has been taken for a ride?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what the price and return figures show is what has been known to everyone and is not a matter for vital proof by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, namely, that when world prices were too low, in his and my opinion far too low, the Wheat Board was competing in those markets at those prices. I have not yet seen the right hon. member or others have the gumption to say that the Wheat Board was completely wrong in staying in the market. Would you have liked to see us, would the right hon. gentleman have liked to see us lose the Chinese market?

June 7, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The degree of annoyance displayed by the minister indicates that the cat is out of the bag and he knows it. I now ask him, on the basis of those contracts with the U.S.S.R. and Communist China that were made two years ago, is it not a fact, as I have suggested to him over and over again, that wheat was being sold at prices below the cost of production?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member has never supplied me with the conclusion he agrees with as to the cost of production. I do not know whether he is using Palliser figures or National Farmers Union figures. What I have said is that, in my view, those prices were unreasonably low. We made that position clear to our competitors when we urged them throughout to revert to a reasonable International Grains Arrangement and sensible pricing provisions both at minimums and maximums.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now that we have smoked the minister out, I ask him: Did he not on March 10, 1971, have this notation in his diary concerning a meeting of farm organizations in Minneapolis: I wondered whether or not something could not be done so that we in the United States and Canada would not be selling our wheat below the cost of production?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe I still have a copy of my Minneapolis speech and I will send it to the right hon. gentleman again. In the meantime, I wonder if he would tell me, Mr. Speaker, what he would have said if for two years we had stayed out of the Chinese and Russian markets?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: No, no, the diary-


Some hon. Members:: Come on!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by these hon. members to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. I gather that the hon. minister's question was rhetorical and was not meant to elicit a reply from the right hon. gentleman. I think that our rules make it possible for members or right hon. members to ask questions of ministers but not for ministers to ask questions of right hon. members. The hon. member for Temiscamingue.


John George Diefenbaker: The farmers were taken for a ride and the minister is responsible.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: "Hindsight Otto", they call him. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Justice.
Oral Questions
The minister has simply failed to reply to the questions just put to him. We want to be told clearly whether our wheat is being sold to China and Russia for more or less than the cost price? That is all we want to know: there is no need for the minister to make a speech on that. Let him simply reply to that question.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that in 1972 Canadian National Railways showed an operating profit of $48.3 million and a substantial increase in revenues from rail passenger service of 3.9 per cent, the reason for which has been given by the president as good merchandising and improved services, is the minister now prepared to accept the fact that rail passenger service can make money and can be economic? If so, is he prepared to accept the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport that rail passenger service be reinstated in Newfoundland?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe that some branches are profitable and others are not.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to know what his response is to a petition from the settlement council and residents of Fort Wrigley in the Northwest Territories asking that work be stopped on the Mackenzie highway until such time as the native claims have been settled?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no record of having seen that petition but I shall look into my files and see if I can check it out.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

Oral Questions
In view of the importance for certain local initiatives projects to continue, could the minister, following serious recommendations, consider the possibility of granting additional funds in order that those projects might continue?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I see no possibility of additional credits other than those already announced. While I am on my feet, I might take the opportunity to reply to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North regarding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Ministers and hon. members know that it sometimes creates difficulties when we try to reply to a question that was put earlier unless we are sure we have completed the question before us at the moment. If there are no supplementaries, the minister might be allowed to reply to the question to which he has just alluded.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-NUMBER OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR EXTENSION
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, regarding my department's progress with LIP extensions, the situation as of this morning was that 1,585 projects have received an extension of time to complete their work with no additional funding; 1,800 projects were eligible for extension and funding under the criteria I announced. Of these 1,800, 1,594 applied for extensions of which 1,200 have been approved, 194 have been refused and 200 are still under discussion with the provinces and should be settled within the next several days, with all project sponsors hopefully notified by Monday, June 11.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have been trying for three and a half months to get an answer to this question. Can the minister now tell the House when he will report on the monitoring arrangements, as promised by him and by the Minister of Finance at the time of budget, with respect to the tariff and excise tax cuts?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been indicated to the House that this work is under way. The Minister of Finance and I will consider what further information we can provide when the work is completed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I remind the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that a report was promised and it was indicated that it would be made after the Easter recess. I now ask the minister whether he meant what he
said or whether the whole undertaking was simply so much boloney?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should check his own diet before referring to other people's comments as boloney. I shall certainly check what I said in that regard and attempt to live up to it.


Mr. Fairweather:: Would the minister arrange the leak of this report like the last report on which he was engaged?


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. On May 14 the minister replied to a question I asked concerning undue delays in income tax refunds. In view of the fact that since that inquiry income tax refund delays have increased rather than declined, can the minister now say when Canadian taxpayers will receive their tax refunds?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the bulk of refunds has already gone out, some six million of them.


An hon. Member:: Where is mine?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Preference, of course, has been given to those returns that can be processed by computer, that are "clean returns". In the case of those returns with no errors either in figures or in the placing of the figures and those returns that bore the "urgent" tag which was provided for taxpayers, refunds have largely already gone out. Even in the case of the problem returns, refunds should be out within the next two weeks or a month.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time as there is just about one minute left before the end of the question period. Hon. members will appreciate that we have spent quite a bit of time on one or two subjects, which eliminates most questions. The hon. member for Wellington.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the fact the minister said on May 14 that they would all be out within two weeks, and as he still has not answered the question, is he going to notify Canadian taxpayers, whether or not their returns have errors, when they may expect their refunds?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Of course, Mr. Speaker, but as I have said nearly all the refunds have already gone out for people whose returns were completed without any errors.
[Mr. La Salle.)
June 7, 1973


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of a new publication issued by the Liberal Party of Canada called "This Week In Ottawa" purporting to describe to weekly newspapers events in Ottawa in a non-partisan and factual way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: -and in view of the fact last week's column forwarded to weekly newspapers was a blank piece of paper, can the Prime Minister confirm whether this new policy of honesty will be followed by all government agencies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. Prime Minister who may have a reply to the hon. member's question, but I am sure the question was not intended to elicit a reply. We are running short of time. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West, the hon. member for York-Simcoe and then call orders of the day.


AIRPORTS
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on an earlier occasion the Minister of Transport said that the terms of reference for the board of review over the building of the Pickering Airport would be very broad and include such matters as need, location, planning, etc., and in view of the fact the Minister of Public Works said in Toronto on Tuesday that unless the hearings discover a facility which makes airports obsolete the airport will be built, will the Prime Minister assure the House and the residents of the Pickering area that the attitude and terms of reference-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. It seems to me, and I am not saying this in relation to the hon. member's question, although it does seem a little long, that we would proceed much more effectively and there would be opportunity for more members to ask questions if questions were not really speeches. I think questions as long as the hon. member is asking now are unfair to other members.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether it will be the position of the Minister of Transport or that of the Minister of Public Works that will hold?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to look at the speech of the Minister of Public Works which is referred to. I do know of speeches and statements that have been made by the
Oral Questions
Minister of Transport and I can only say that they represent government policy. I would be inclined to gamble that the Minister of Public Works is also in line with what the Minister of Transport has said.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLYING STATE OF WASHINGTON THROUGH TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AS ALTERNATIVE TO WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government offered or is the government willing to offer western Canadian low sulphur sweet crude oil to the Washington state area to obtain an agreement from the United States that supertankers would not service that area and would therefore not have any need to go through United States coastal waters which are near to British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is obviously referring to a speech which was made by Senator Stevens who is a great supporter of the Alyeska trans-Alaska pipeline. I indicated to the American senators, as I have indicated to the House many times, that the preference obviously is to have a Mackenzie Valley route which would obviate the necessity for tankers at all on the west coast, but that a second alternative would be, if that were not achievable, to repeat the offer made last year that we would continue to supply the Puget Sound refineries through the Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Cafik:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough West said that a meeting was held in Toronto by the Minister of Public Works in respect of Pickering airport. I wish to point out that Toronto and Pickering are two distinct places and I hope they stay that way.


AIR CANADA
Mr.   John. Lundrigan@Gander-Twillingate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as this information has just reached members of the House I wonder whether the Minister of Labour could indicate to the House if he has received word that Toronto International Airport will be struck at four o'clock today by the machinists and inform us whether there is any indication from Air Canada that the airport will be closed so far as Air Canada flights are concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is directing his question to me, no, no information has been conveyed to me or, as far as I am

Oral Questions
aware, to any of my colleagues that the airport in Toronto will be closed.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have gone beyond the question period and we would need the unanimous consent of the House to continue the question period. I appreciate the importance of the matter but there are hon. members who, if the hon. member for St. John's East is allowed to ask a question, will want to ask questions. The hon. member for Champlain has been waiting for a long time and there are others as well. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member is rising on a point of order, I shall have to call orders of the day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest, perhaps by way of a point of order, that perhaps now the minister might be prepared to take the next train to Montreal and personally intervene in this dispute.


Mr. Cossitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for the second time in several days I rise to correct a grave error in Hansard. I have just noticed that in yesterday's Hansard, at page 4516, my name is not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to make a point of order when the trained seals are hollering again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has complained before of the language used by other hon. members. I think I have to make the same remark to him regarding the language which he uses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is not conducive to the dignity of this chamber for hon. members, every time they take the floor, to use offensive and abusive language. The hon. member, I am sure, does not appreciate being called names, and I think it is not right for him, without provocation very often, to use strong language. That is not conducive to debate in a dignified atmosphere. The hon. member may have a very valid point of order. He will be heard, and if it calls for redress I will assist him, but it seems to me he is injuring his own case when he prefaces his points of order or questions of privilege with this kind of reference to other members of the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully accept your remarks. I only have this comment to make. It is very difficult to speak when one is being constantly interrupted by buzzing noises on the other side of the House. In yesterday's Hansard, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member has the floor and should be given the opportunity to raise his point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In yesterday's Hansard my name is not shown in the division list, as having participated in division No. 25 on the amendment proposed to the bilingual resolution by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). I was present in the House for that particular vote, and I voted "nay" on that occasion. I should like, if possible, to have that error corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: The record will be corrected and the hon. member's correction is accepted. Certainly it must be the result of a mistake on the part of our staff. The difficulty will be straightened out and the official record corrected, as suggested and indicated by the hon. member for Leeds.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader about the business of the House for the rest of this and next week, and as far ahead as he can project his mind.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today is an opposition day and tomorrow will be as well. On Monday, we will begin the report stage of the National Housing Act, followed by the residential mortgage market proposal and followed, in turn, by the series of tax proposals, namely, Bill C-192, Income tax bill No. 2 with regard to corporate taxes; Bill C-193, Income tax bill No. 3, on personal income tax, and other matters, followed by the excise tax bill and customs tariff bill. Next week, we will call an opposition day on Friday. Beyond that my mind is not projected.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me whether, with the exception of opposition days which are essential and healthy, the government intends, once the tax bill debates begin, to complete them in all their forms in the House before we go to other legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the corporate tax and the income tax, we would like to complete those bills without interruption. I cannot give the same assurance with respect to the customs tariff and excise tax.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the leader of the government has enumerated the various legislation to be put before the House, and that it is urgent to adopt the legislation on the 1976 Olympic Games, I would like to ask him when he will bring in that particular legislation, and whether he can assure us that it will be brought in before the summer recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Olympic bill will be given first reading tomorrow, probably, and we will deal with it as quickly as possible following the tax bills.


Mr. Bell:: Before 1976?
June 7, 1973

[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the government when the next discussion will take place on the obvious necessity of having secretaries in the ridings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that debate is a continuous one.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House accepts the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fisheries resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes, that the management of these fisheries resources are the responsibility of the coastal state, that other states may only fish such resources with the permission of the coastal state; and,
This House agrees that, in implementation of this policy, Canada must provide adequate surveillance so that swift action can be taken when Canadian interests are threatened or violated.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the interest of so many hon. members in this subject, possibly after the first four speeches, one speaker from each party, it would be acceptable to the House to limit speeches from then on to 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is a very pleasant day. It is an appropriate day for a trip to sea as long as we do not get too far off shore or lost at sea.
This motion is placed before the House today to give members an opportunity to indicate their support for the position and, indeed, the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fisheries resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes, and that the management of these fisheries resources are the responsibility of the coastal state. It is important that we indicate our support for our position in view of the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference and, without injecting too much controversy, we wish to discuss some of the misrepresentations made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) with regard to general views on this subject in this country. I simply wish to open the subject. A number of my colleagues will want to develop the points that I make as well as develop further points.
Fisheries
Those of us who have grown up by the sea have been involved in coastal life, associated closely with fishermen and the kind of life they lead, and are aware of the vast potential of the sea as a source of wealth as well as of the importance of the supply of fish to our fishermen. We are intensely aware of the vital importance of preserving the stock of fish, as well as the increasing pressure from many sources upon this great reserve of wealth as a result of technical innovations and vessels from various countries being able to move further afield, particularly factory ships. We are aware also that this increased pressure is not confined to our traditional fishing areas, but is a phenomenon that is being very keenly felt elsewhere.
I, of course, am identified particularly with the east coast of this country and the fishing problems there. However, I am familiar with the problems on the west coast and the measures that have been taken over recent years to at least cope with these problems. I am familiar with the disputes and difficulties that still remain, as well as with the general state in which they are today.
It is the east coast that I know best. I am familiar with the jurisdiction in eastern waters and the extension further to sea as well as the inclusion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I am aware of the importance of this. However, I am only too familiar with the depletion in the stock of fishing species in the region over which we are claiming jurisdiction, namely our continental slopes and shelves. I am well aware of how difficult it has become for fishermen to make economic catches, despite very significant improvements in their equipment. Anyone who sits in this House must be aware of the depletion of many species as well as the often expressed fear of the extinction of certain species.
Many times my colleagues in this House have demanded action and protection for our fishermen and offshore fishing grounds. They have expressed concern about the share of available fish to be harvested by Canadian fishermen. I think I know what has been going on under the jurisdiction of ICNAF. Moves have been made to establish quotas. I think that a quota on herring is in operation. I believe that quotas are now in effect for other species such as cod, haddock and flounder and quotas for other species are under consideration.
I do not rise today to carp or be critical. However, I think these efforts have been a very long time in coming. I do not think there is any reason to believe these quotas will really work. I say this because of the slowness of this process. There is concern as to whether these arrangements will really work in terms of conservation or whether they will take care of the needs of Canadian fishermen. Because of this, some time ago my party turned to a consideration of the extension of Canadian jurisdiction over the waters over our continental shelves and slopes. We turned to the principle of Canada achieving that jurisdiction and exercising management of the fishing stock in the waters over our continental shelf and slopes.
I agree in principle that there is something attractive about the idea of a truly international approach to the problem of conservation. There is something attractive about the idea of nations being able to work together to achieve agreement, to achieve some joint means of surveillance and enforcement, to achieve an equitable sharing of
4532

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
the marine resources of the world. But the idea really does not seem to be working, either in terms of management or in terms of surveillance, and there does not seem to be much prospect of much success in the future to judge by the way things are going.
I could not help noticing an article in the Economist, dated June 2, devoted, basically, to the dispute between Britain and Iceland. The article reviews the general situation, speaks about the erosion of the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, speaks about preliminary consultation already going on in preparation for the San Diego conference and says that very few governments have shown any real interest in fair sharing of supplies or in the preservation of the marine environment. The article goes on to say, and I quote:
Much of the current excitement turns on claims to national authority in the "superjacent" waters that lie above the continental shelf and slope zones off the coastal states' shores. Australia and New Zealand are thinking of claiming authority over a 200-mile zone; several South American states already make similar claims; Morocco is now violently at odds with Spain over its 70-mile claims; Iceland has indicated that it will soon extend its claim to 70 miles; and so it goes on, with China even demanding the scrapping of the 1958 and 1960 conventions, which it denounces as the product of imperialist machinations.
Then follows what is, to my mind, the most interesting part of the whole article, particularly since it is devoted basically to the dispute between Britain and Iceland and the right of British fishermen to fish in waters off the Icelandic coast.
If the trendy thing is going to be for each coastal state to grab all it can, there is not much to be gained-and there may be much to be lost-by a solitary attempt to buck the trend. It is probably time for Britain to start preparing for the 1974 conference by deciding how far out it will push its own maritime frontiers-and then enforce them.
Now, for a perceptive economic journal to take this position in the context of the dispute which is going on between Britain and Iceland indicates how much the thinking has changed with regard to this whole situation and how far disillusionment has set in as to the prospect of any satisfactory regulation of these matters by international arrangement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This may be regrettable. As I say, there is something attractive to me about international regulation and co-operation, but to date at least the ICNAF arrangements have not in my judgment effectively protected the species or done the job that needs to be done to manage these marine resources properly. As Canadians, we want to be good citizens of the world but it is certainly our duty to protect our fishermen and to conserve the stocks of fish off our shores. Pressure on these stocks has been increasingly heavy. There is, too, I am told, inadequate surveillance of these waters-insufficient protection of our fishermen and fisheries. I have no doubt other speakers will emphasize this aspect.
So it was to protect our national interest and to protect our fishery stocks that my party adopted a resolution in Charlottetown last autumn which called, first of all, for the re-establishment of a separate department of fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The resolution then went on to say, and I quote:
-under this new department, launch a new, aggressive program to extend Canada's managerial control to the extremities of its continental shelf, for conservation and management of its marine resources; immediately increase its surveillance and protection capabilities for the fishermen ...
This principle was adopted as a matter of national policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: Long before the minister made his speech, I may say.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true the dispute involving Iceland and Great Britain has so far been in terms of a 50-mile limit, although the article I quoted from the Economist indicates that Iceland is thinking of going further than that and claiming 70 miles. A number of days ago, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) tried to get the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to indicate Canada's support for the basic position taken by Iceland in extending jurisdiction to the 50-mile limit.


Mr. Sharp:: He asked me to intervene.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not intend to become involved in an argument with the minister as to whether he was asked to intervene or not. The point I want to make is this, that it was in relation to Iceland's position, and, therefore, 50 miles-


Mitchell William Sharp: But we are going way beyond that-way out to 200 miles.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs wishes to give us the benefit of his views and wisdom, I am sure he can take part in this debate. But I suggest that in what he has had to say so far he has given no adequate justification for the kind of twisting he is doing now or what the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) said in his speech in New Brunswick. It is not my intention to interject too much controversy into this debate, though I enjoy it just as much as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, though he is a much more restrained individual, since basically he is a civil servant-


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been here longer than you have, and involved in more controversy, too.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will take that back, Mr. Speaker, because members of the public service might think I was trying to insult them.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was just correcting the record.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate sought to get the Secretary of State for External Affairs to indicate support for the principle behind the position being taken by Iceland. I do not know how happy the Minister of Environment and Fisheries is with his title, because he tried pretty hard to get "Fisheries" expunged from it. Anyway, he made a political speech

June 7, 1973

before a Liberal association in New Brunswick the other evening, no doubt trying to generate a little enthusiasm for his party in a difficult part of the country. I quote:
And where do our Conservative friends stand now? They are boldly talking about a fifty mile limit. Little Iceland is going for fifty miles so Canada might be so bold to do likewise. That is Conservative thinking for you.
I simply indicate to the House that, because of our disillusionment with the effectiveness of international arrangements such as ICNAF, we in this party last fall formally adopted the resolution I have read. I think it must be the fault of the organization. I do not think it is the lack of drive which the minister has put into Canada's participation in that organization, and so it must be because of the lack of success of that organization, or at least partly for this reason, the minister has turned to the idea of making a vigorous demand to the Law of the Sea Conference for the extension of our rights to the waters over the continental shelves and slopes.
As a matter of fact, I think it was a rather cheap shot that the Minister of the Environment took when he was in New Brunswick, but I recognize the dire straits in which he must have been down there in trying to generate a little excitement in his party. I say to him that he had better get on with the job and, if he does, he will get lots of support over here. I think he had better get ahead with the business, within ICNAF, of protecting species, at least while we are relying on ICNAF. He had better get ahead with the job of providing adequate surveillance, because surveillance seems to be very inadequate today. Indeed, Sir, if I may give him a little advice, which I hope he does not find offensive, it might be more helpful for the fishermen if he did get ahead with the job of providing the surveillance that is needed, and providing the protection that is needed, instead of talking so much about it.
I simply want to say this in closing: we want to see the protection; we want to see the conservation; we want to see the management by Canada of our marine resources in the waters over the continental shelves and slopes. Those of us who live by the sea do not enjoy seeing the minister playing games with the matter. We want to see him get on with the job, and we will support him.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and indicate the support of the New Democratic Party for the motion which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has placed on the order paper for our consideration today. I think it is important to recognize that when a motion of this kind is put before the House it represents some forward advance in our thinking in the area of preserving the resources of the sea that are adjacent to our coasts.
I think it would be well if we, as members, were all prepared to admit that over a period of years we have been groping towards a more adequate way of conserving those resources and protecting the rightful interests of Canadians who go down to the sea to fish.
I thought the Leader of the Opposition exercised very commendable restraint-perhaps it was his style of speaking-in reference to the speech delivered at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, last May 26 by the minister. Obviously, it was a political speech. Far be it from me to suggest that ministers of the Crown should not from time to time make
Fisheries
political speeches. But, Mr. Speaker, the notes for that speech were distributed to us on the letterhead of the Minister of Fisheries for Canada, and when we get them in that form they lead us to hope that at least basically they contain serious statements of policy. As I say, it is self-evident it was a political speech, but the point that needs to be clarified in this chamber, and it has not yet been clarified, is to what extent that speech represents the official policy of the government of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I certainly agree with him that it is high time the Secretary of State for External Affairs got up in his place in this House and gave us his views, in such a way that we could recognize exactly what Canada's foreign policy is in the realm of developing an approach to the law of the sea that will protect Canada's interests. It seems to me that often such matters are shoved off on to the Minister of Fisheries, and not enough recognition is given to the fact that in this area at least we, along with other countries, are involved in a great many important matters that vitally affect our interests, and indeed the future resources that will be available in terms of high protein foods to feed a hungry world.
When I first came to this House we were really in a different era. At that time, Canada dealt with this question, and it is only fair to say we did not do too badly, through bilateral treaties or arrangements. By and large, the encroachment of other nations with modernized high-seas fishing fleets had not yet come into being. So, we had bilateral treaties. Later, it began to be apparent that that approach was not adequate. It became apparent that we had to have a new look at where, either ourselves or in concert with other nations, we should assert increasing jurisdiction.
I was quite dismayed by the speech which the Minister of Fisheries made in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, because undoubtedly it was most unfair and not a factual attack on the position which the Conservative party is currently enunciating. If there is any one matter on which this House should try to set aside any narrow, partisan considerations and speak with a united Canadian voice, it is on this matter of our position on our jurisdiction over the resources of the sea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hope the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will clarify, during this debate, whether the rather extravagant remarks made to the Charlotte-Carleton Liberal Association do represent the position Canada is taking at the Law of the Sea Conference looming ahead. It is not my business to interfere with that question of which kettle is calling which pot black, but in this context I cannot help but draw the attention of the House to a little item that appeared in the Ottawa Journal on May 31 in which Mr. Henry Heald says:
If anyone can claim kudos for far-sightedness in pushing out fishing limits, it should be Frank Howard (NDP-Skeena) who was calling for bold advances before Mr. Davis was ever elected to parliament. He was a constant prod urging the government to take the bold step of replacing the old three-mile limit with a 12-mile headland-to-headland fishing zone.
4534

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries' perspective is understandably a bit foreshortened on this matter because he has not been in the House that long, but I took the trouble to look at Hansard for the year 1960 and I think perhaps one of the first references ever made in this House to the extension of our territorial waters was made on June 29, 1960 by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), as reported at page 5565:
Perhaps the most appropriate thing to do, so far as our general limits are concerned, is to take unilateral action and declare as Iceland has declared and as others are considering now, that our territorial limits for all purposes are 12 miles, and that is that.
It is surprising how often Iceland crops up in discussions of this matter. One can follow this course of events through the years. I might point out that in the next year, 1961, the member for Skeena introduced Bill C-96, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, to provide for a 12-mile fishing zone in Canada.
When I returned to this House and rejoined the hon. member for Skeena on the fisheries committee, there was a question then as to who was outdoing whom on the matter of how timid we could be in the steps we were prepared to take regarding our fishing zones, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries or the Official Opposition. However, I suggest that question is not really pertinent today because the motion before us clearly indicates our changing thinking on the matter of exercising jurisdiction over the continental shelf.
If I may, perhaps I could just blow my own horn a little bit. In 1970 when we had Bill C-203, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, before the House I moved an amendment which had the effect of doing exactly what is envisaged in the resolution now before us. It was not accepted by the House, and to the best of my knowledge it was supported only by my colleagues in the NDP. My amendment read:
The fishing zones of Canada comprise all water adjacent to the coasts of Canada, the natural resources of whose subjacent submarine areas Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit-
I took this rather awkward phrase from the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act as the definition of the continental shelf envisioned by the government of Canada. I hope we can have an indication from hon. members on the government side of their preparedness to recognize the position of the opposition, and that they will support the opposition in exercising our jurisdiction in respect of the continental shelf.
There is one rather important omission in the text of the motion put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition. One of our most important fisheries, namely the salmon fishery off the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, would not be protected merely by asserting Canadian jurisdiction to the edge of the continental shelf. We all know that salmon roam abroad in the high seas and return to our coasts and our rivers to spawn. If we are to consider this whole matter in its full context it is necessary to propose, in addition to the motion now before us and I intend to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Olaussen), an extension to our jurisdiction. I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by adding a comma following the words, "with the permission of the coastal state" and inserting thereafter the following:
"and asserts ownership by Canada of anadromous fish spawned within our borders, and the exclusive right to harvest the same."
I think I have already made it clear, but for those who may not be familiar with that particular term, let me say that for all practical purposes this refers to our salmon fishery. In this connection, we recognize that on both coasts one of our richest fisheries and the most highly regarded species is the salmon. Unless we are prepared to recognize the principle that when these salmon are feeding in the high seas they are still considered as Canadian fish, in the long-run we cannot assure their protection, and cannot assure that the money we may invest in developing and conserving their propagation will not be wasted. I feel this is one of the important principles Canadians should be endorsing.
I remember suggesting in this House a number of years ago that we might say when these salmon are in the high seas they carry our brand. We should treat them in the same way as cattle were treated in the days of the old open range. The range lands were open, not the property of any one cattle ranch and, since the cattle were branded with the owner's name, they were permitted to roam. Then, at the appropriate time, they were rounded up. As we can all recall, it was a very serious offence to engage in cattle rustling, and I suggest that Canada should be saying that we do not want anyone rustling our salmon. I understand that our scientists now have the technical ability to identify salmon by their scales in somewhat the same way as human beings are identified by their fingerprints. We can now identify salmon in the high seas as being, in fact, our salmon.
I cannot help feeling that the minister has been unnecessarily using some of our commercial fishermen as pawns in this game, and my opinion is shared by others. I should like to make a brief reference to a letter which appeared in the Evening Times-Globe, Saint John, New Brunswick, on February 21 last. It was written by A. G. Huntsman, Professor Emeritus of Biology of the University of Toronto. He is sometimes referred to as the "father of fisheries research in Canada". In that letter he says:
When the ban on New Brunswick commercial salmon fishing was announced last April, I at once wrote to the minister that he was doing a very foolish thing, to stop the fishing without scientific evidence of overfishing and then to spend public funds to compensate the fishermen.
This may be a debatable point, Mr. Speaker, but from what I have been able to learn, the fact remains that it was not the commercial fishermen of the Atlantic coast who were responsible for the depletion of our salmon. When one considers what may have happened one is led to the belief that the industrial activities of others resulted in the depletion of our salmon. The other day the minister was talking about the amount of money being spent for research and development of the Canadian fishery and the fact, that it is much more than is being spent on agriculture. The minister made two errors. One was that constitutionally the fisheries are under federal jurisdiction, and he ignored what the provinces may have spent on agriculture,
June 7, 1973

on forestry resources and so on. Second, he ignored the impact upon our fisheries of other industrial activities which quite properly should bear a share of the cost of preserving and expanding our salmon fishery at its source in our rivers.
The only other point I should like to make, if I have time, has to do with the current situation in respect of our Pacific salmon. We have been having some discussions with the United States authorities. According to the minister and other spokesmen who have been following these discussions, the United States has been pretty tough with us. I suggest it is about time we started shoving a few facts down the throats of our United States friends because they refer to the Columbia River as if it were their river.
The United States apparently is not prepared to admit that it has robbed Canada of its share of the Columbia River salmon. If the United States is now producing salmon in hatcheries in the lower reaches of the Columbia River, it should recognize that a fair share of this salmon rightfully belongs to Canadian fishermen. The United States authorities should cease this nonsense of trying to establish their claim to the Columbia River salmon and, at the same time, demand half of the Fraser River salmon. The United States-and this came out in the 1964 hearings on our territorial seas bill-has a solemn treaty with Canada which the then Secretary of State for External Affairs told me was still in effect, the Oregon Treaty, which guarantees us our rights on the Columbia River, our right of navigation forever from the 49th parallel to the mouth. The United States stands in flagrant violation of the terms of its solemn treaty. In that connection, when the Grand Coulee Dam was built it not only cut off navigation on the Columbia River but also, and incidentally at the same time, killed off all the Canadian salmon which previously had spawned in the Canadian part of the Columbia River.
When one starts talking about a respect for the right to the salmon which originate in the streams of a coastal state, this is an important point which we should be making with the United States, and which, in all fairness, I do not see how it can ignore. This issue, I suggest, must be faced in our dealings with the United States and, hopefully, the United States may be prepared to recognize the justice in our position. I believe the United States is concerned with the basic principle which my amendment suggests should be endorsed by the House. If the United States is to have jurisdiction over the salmon which originate in its streams in Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska-I shall not mention the Atlantic salmon because I do not think the United States has any left; they killed them all off quite a while ago-it must also first recognize that Canada must have that same right and, second, that when it talks about the Columbia River it is talking about not a United States river but an international river. I put forward this suggestion in the context of this debate because I think it is the type of issue which will have to be sorted out as we move into the final discussions of the upcoming conference on the Law of the Sea.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the recent events relating to the problems facing Icelanders and
Fisheries
Britishers in connection with coastal fishing have prompted the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to introduce a motion which, I must admit, is timely and deserves our utmost consideration.
In my view, the amendment which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has just moved complements the motion of the leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that a country like Canada, which has vast openings on the Pacific and on the Atlantic oceans, needs legislation that can guarantee both autonomy and respect for fishing rights along the coastlines so that they can really be applicable and applied.
As regards the Gulf of St. Lawrence for instance, I happen to know that many fishermen were complaining precisely about the fact that, because of the lack of regulations, anybody could come in these waters and catch the fishes which happen to be there. We have to remedy the absence of regulations or the lack of means of implementation. The motion asks for the recognition of, and I quote:
. . . the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fisheries resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes, that the management of these fisheries resources are the responsibility of the coastal state, that other states may only fish such resources with the permission of the coastal state . . .
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it has now become urgent that we get concerned with developing relevant rules which I could qualify as being rather severe.
We know very well that we have here in Canada immense resources of every description, including fishing resources, but we should not be careless and run the risk of losing them progressively simply because of a faltering sense of responsibilities.
It is thus quite natural, as indicated by the motion before us, that we agree to implement this policy of:
. . . adequate surveillance so that swift action can be taken when Canadian interests are threatened or violated.
Before being driven to major conflicts, it should be very important that we spell out clearly and categorically our country's position concerning coastal fishing rights. And the more quickly we do this, the better we will be able to avoid all kinds of problems like those between England and Iceland.
I therefore think that the government should very seriously consider accepting this motion so that we may be assured that Canadians will really be masters in their own home and will be able to have the whole population benefit from controls guaranteeing our ownership.
This is why I approve the motion moved by the NDP member. In fact, should we accept these two principles, we would have adequate legislation, favourable to the whole of Canada. It would not be a matter of requiring respect from others but by being consciencious and adult enough to take our responsibilities we would deserve the respect of other countries and we would not have to face serious difficulties likely to tarnish our reputation.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome, and I am

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
sure all hon. members of the House welcome this opportunity to discuss the fishing limits of both our coasts. It is a very important matter, not only for fishermen but for Canadians. It is a matter which verges on sovereignty, but it also has a great deal to do with wise management and conservation of many of the world's living resources of the sea.
Canada has the second longest coastline in the world; it has the world's largest continental shelf, and it is, I believe, the duty of Canadians to manage the living resources along its vast coastline out over its vast shelf, not only in the interest of our own people, but in the interest of all mankind.
The resolution before the House goes some distance down the road toward permitting the wise management of the fish and other wild living things out over our continental shelf. I am glad to see that the resolution mentions the slope as well as the shelf. We must concern ourselves with management of fish over the whole of the shelf and the slope.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) indicated that if we confine ourselves to the shelf and the slope we will not include salmon. He is right. This would not include swordfish, tuna, and a number of other species that swim along the margin of the continents. In our measures for conservation, in our management of these resources, we should pay close attention to the life cycle of all our fish stocks. Therefore, we should think in terms of territory which is not simply the shelf, not simply the slope, but also areas close to the slope of the continent or continents where great upwellings occur, where ocean currents bring food to the surface, and where many fish populations congregate and feed. Many of the groundfish which are common to the continental shelf, in fact, swim out over the great ocean deeps nearby.
. So in the wise management of those resources we should concern ourselves not simply with the shelf and the slope but with margins beyond that, and our management approach must be that of the geography of the fish and not the topography of the bottom. However, the shelf concept is important because, in a general way although in a somewhat limited way, it describes where 95 per cent of the fish resources spend their lifetime.
I first advocated, in a speech in Boston in 1968, that the continental shelf be the general topographical ambit within which Canada should manage its fish stocks, and within which the coastal nations the world over should endeavour to manage fish resources in the best possible fashion. This because very few fish are found beyond the shelf and the neighbouring waters adjoining the shelf.
I realize that some hon. members from the NDP have advocated limits at the edge of the shelf; they have advocated 200 miles; they have advocated even greater distances at times and have been talking in terms of these extended jurisdictions for a decade or more. They were speaking in those terms in the House. However, they did not have the responsibility of trying to negotiate arrangements with other nations or make sure that those nations observed those limits.
I think that as Canadians we must be doubly conscious of the fact that at least on the Atlantic side of Canada, the
Grand Banks, the vast fishing areas off our east coast, have been fished by many nations for centuries. We cannot unilaterally kick them out. We have been moving in that direction but we have been doing so by negotiation and, I hope, sweet reason rather than the use of gunboats.
When I say "sweet reason" I think that the approach we used, for example, at the world conference sponsored by FAO and convened under our leadership in Vancouver this spring, was that kind of approach. Basically, we have stressed conservation. Conservation was the fundamental idea, the fundamental concept which we wanted to pursue, and our management techniques must be designed to ensure that all stocks are kept at levels consistent with a productive fishing effort.
The term used in the industry is sustained yield. It is well known in the forest industry. It is being practiced increasingly in the world's fishing industries. Sustained yield as a term should be further defined. It does not mean the maximum biological sustained yield; rather it is the maximum economic yield. This is a lower rate of catch. It means less pressure on fish stocks than does the maximum sustained biological yield.
In any case, we have been preaching this doctrine, first, to protect the species from extinction; second, to enhance the incomes of fishermen who are so heavily dependent on the health of the fish stocks and, finally, to make sure that in the longer run Canadians do, in fact, get the maximum economic yield from our vast fish resources.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said some of the right things. He is a compassionate gentleman and I know he is a conscientious man. He was pessimistic on one count, however, and I found that distressing. He was pessimistic about our ability to convince the fishing nations of the world that sound conservation was in their best interests, and that management practices which involved the idea of optimum sustained yield would not carry the day.
We have evidence that these are succeeding. This week in Copenhagen the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission is holding its annual meeting. That meeting comprises 15 nations that fish in the north Atlantic and it has been meeting for close to a quarter of a century. For a long time, it was really a scientists' club. It developed data, it developed ideas, but it was not until the last few years that the idea of converting this data into quotas and into management criteria really caught hold. Indeed, it was only in 1972 when they met in Washington that the message we had been preaching for several years turned up in the form of quotas. The result of that developing consensus among the 15 nations, Canada included, was quotas for several of the major fish species taken in many of the major fishing areas of the north Atlantic.
I think it is important to state that scientists had a maximum input. Their evidence on the state of each stock was taken fully into account. The maximum sustained yield was calculated from that evidence and it was evidence from the international scientific community, not simply from a few fishing nations. The maximum sustained yield, having been set as the maximum catch for the north Atlantic, was then divided between nations and

June 7, 1973

Canada, being a coastal state, got the largest slice of the overall quota, if I may put it that way. Canada got 10 per cent extra for the expansion of its fishery. In fact, we were not able to take up all of the fish allocated to us during the last 12 months. As far as we can determine, all 15 countries lived within their quotas. They did not, in total, take more fish than the scientists indicated could be taken without seriously reducing the stocks. While expanding her catch, Canada still did not in fact take all the fish allocated to her fishermen.
This year we are trying to revise the formula in close consultation with the fishermen and the industry. We hope to get the other 14 nations to agree that in 1973-74 we should be able to take everything we can catch. We will be hard put to take more than the quota allocated to us last year. We seem to have convinced these countries, however, that the coastal state does in fact have a special claim on the resources swimming along its shores, living its life over the continental shelf, over its slope and out into those other waters where the groundfish also feed during part of their lifetime.
One of the fundamental problems that the world fisheries face was largely tackled and overcome toward the end of the middle ages as it concerned agriculture. The great debates over the commons and what would happen to the commons finally resulted in enclosures. Only when land was enclosed and allocated to an owner was it properly managed. Prior to that time, everyone had turned as many sheep, as many cattle, out on the commons as they could. The commons were over-grazed. It was a case of the devil take the hindmost. The stock was in poor shape and, of course, not as many could be maintained under those circumstances as in the enclosed type of agriculture we know today.
This is happening in the world fisheries. Adjoining waters are being divided up so as to conserve their resources. I am not really suggesting that Canada should harvest those resources exclusively, certainly not in the next few decades because there are many species that we do not take yet, although we may begin to take them in time. First of all, we have no taste for them and there is no market on this continent or with the more affluent nations of northern Europe and, second, we do not happen to have the techniques. But where there are resources within these boundaries, which I believe the coastal state should in large measure determine and certainly manage, we should be prepared to give licence under contract or some kind of arrangement to other nations to either come in or to contract with Canadian companies or Canadian fishermen, and fish and process the resources on our shores.
I am optimistic about this because there is a limited supply of fish in the world, certainly in the wild state off the shores of the continent. At the same time, the demand for seafood is mounting steadily and has been for several decades at the rate of 5 per cent a year. The market for fish 15 years from now will be twice as large. As a broad generalization, world fish stocks will not stand much heavier fishing than they are presently exposed to. If the demand is to keep rising and the supply is limited, it is obvious that prices will continue to rise as they have in the last few years, so it is going to pay other countries to enter into arrangements with the coastal states for the
Fisheries
coastal states to do much of the harvesting. However, it must be done under sound management, using the best conservation practices so that fish stocks are there forever in quantities which will permit a maximum economic yield from the resources.
Ten years ago Canada's fishing limit was three miles running close along the coast, and that is what it was during the period that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister. In 1964, legislation was passed to extend the limit to 12 miles so until the early 70's that was our limit.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question in the interests of the record?


John (Jack) Davis: Well, I would like to finish my line of thought-


James Aloysius McGrath: He is forgetting the 1958 Law of the Sea Conference and the half vote within which we came of getting the 12-mile limit at that time.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member is correct. At the Law of the Sea Conference in 1958, Canada endeavoured to get the 12-mile limit accepted but did not manage it. However, we went from three miles to 12 miles in the mid-sixties and we moved out handsomely in the last several years by drawing a straight base line across our bays and inlets, the straight lines going from promontory to promontory around Canada. We drew several lines which are exceptional, such as that between Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes, which is longer than the previous line by some 90 miles. In the north, we drew lines across the Gulf of St. Lawrence and across the Bay of Fundy. As a result of drawing these lines and adding 12 miles outside them, Canada extended the area-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on a question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My point is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister refers to the line between Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes as a base line. I wonder if it would not be more in order to refer to it as a fisheries closing line since it does not enclose the internal waters of Canada. I wish it did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That hardly seems to be a remark that occasions a point of order. It might occasion debate.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I admit that I could have used better language. Since members on this side of the House invented the term and since fisheries closing lines are a Canadian invention, I should use the same terminology. In any case, the total area enclosed by drawing these base lines and fisheries closing lines around Canada's very extensive coast-the total area, which became in 1971 the exclusive fishing zones of Canada-added up to over 700,000 square miles. I mention that figure, because members often talk about South American countries and their 200-mile limits, and the vast extent of their unilaterally declared fishing zones. Chile's 200-mile limit added roughly 1 million square miles to that country's fishing area,

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
300,000 more than our 700,000 square miles. Brazil's 200-mile territorial sea covers about 1.1 million square miles. By contrast, the United States 12-mile limit, which follows its coastline closely, has added only 131,000 square miles, as compared with our 700,000. The United Kingdoms limits which go out 12 miles added 33,000 square miles compared with our 700,000. Italy's zone includes 39,000 square miles, and so on. But few other countries have extended their fishing limits to the extent we did.
Our extension of exclusive fishing zone limits is a recent happening. Our closing lines are years old. While we draw them to some degree unilaterally, we also entered into negotiations with half a dozen nations for the phasing out of their fishing operations. For example, with respect to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we now have agreements with all the countries which fish there, and those agreements see an end to the operation of their fishing fleets in our exclusive fishing zones. These zones, as I have mentioned, are very large in extent.
We, among other things, brought to an end a more than 200-year old treaty with France. In a few years fishing vessels from metropolitan France will no longer be coming to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for example. Such countries, as a result of signing agreements for phasing out fishing with Canada, really recognized, for all time, the extent of our exclusive fishing zones as we know them, as they now appear on our maps, as they now appear on the charts of captains responsible for the navigation of fishing vessels owned by other nations that come close to our shores. Those are our limits today.
Many of the fish stocks we have harvested have been taken far out, beyond the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or well outside Queen Charlotte Sound on the west coast. We must be concerned about the total life cycle of the fish, about their lifetime habitat, which includes the shelf and the slope as well as those adjoining waters of the ocean which supply great quantities of food for our fish stocks, and which are therefore important to their management. I am speaking of a biological map, if I may call it that. That is the area in which these wild living things spend their lifetime, and is the area within which we have to manage fish stocks. The approach we must take, in my view, at the next Law of the Sea Conference, is that we must endeavour, first, to conserve these stocks and, second, that as we are the coastal state most closely involved, with the greatest concern and interest, that the responsibility should rest with us. That is a principle which should operate around the world, with all coastal states having that responsibility. It should not be exercised to the total exclusion of other nations, because at times, there will be a surplus for harvest and because other nations will have an appetite for many of the fish which the coastal state would not ordinarily take for its own use.
I am optimistic about the future of our fishery, even though there has been great pressure from foreign fleets off our shores. This optimism is shared by our industry. A large number of fishing vessels are being built at the present time. Confining my comments to the Atlantic coast, the total value of vessels under construction is about $18 million, of which roughly $5 million is for small boats in the 35 to 75 foot category and $13 million for those in the bigger trawler category. Plans have been announced
for next year. They see a total of $46 million allocated, of which $16 million is for boats from 35 feet to 75 feet in length, and $30 million for large trawlers over 75 feet in length.
This is by far the biggest fishing vessel building program this country has ever seen. I cannot believe that our fishermen are wrong, that the fishing companies are wrong or that the fishing industry does not know what it is doing. They have some faith in ICNAF. They have some faith in our ability to manage our fish out to the edge of the continental shelf and beyond. It acknowledges our recent achievement in establishing an inside track position for the coastal state and it knows, as well, and this has been reported to the Fisheries Committee by representatives from the fisheries service and of the Department of External Affairs, that the consensus developed among the members of the United Nations is that the coastal state must have a major say over its coastal resources. There is a consensus about extending limits 200 miles seaward.
I prefer always to talk in terms of conservation in areas where the fish live and over which they travel as well as into the areas through which they travel during their lifetime. Any figure regarding limits, whether it be a three-mile limit, 12-mile limit or 200-mile limit, I find arbitrary.
According to my reading, the large majority of fishing nations, indeed, of the underdeveloped and other nations of the world which will be going to the Law of the Sea Conference, will have made up their minds and opt for the 200-mile limit. As it happens, 200 miles roughly covers our eastern shelf and slope and most productive near-by waters, with the exception of the Flemish gap; the 200-mile limit, as a generalization, would be a lot better from our point of view than a 12-mile limit or a 50-mile limit. Certainly, I would be surprised if Canada were to vote contrary to a resolution which advocates 200 miles and has built into it the philosophy of sound conservation and good management.
There are several tough questions which we may have to face in the not too distant future. One relates to port closures. This prickly question and has come up before. We used it on the west coast to force the Russians to talk to us about over-fishing off the west coast. We may have to use that kind of leverage on the east coast. I hope not. We are studying the effects on the merchants in our ports of invoking emergency measures of this kind. There are many other issues that have to be faced in detail.
The least discussed and potentially most controversial is that relating to joint ventures with other countries with large populations and rising standard of living, countries prepared, eventually, to pay almost any price for fish. Faced with a likely 200-mile limit, or some such limit, they want, somehow, to get a corner on production which may involve possibly a number of coastal states.
I know the Japanese have been making inquiries. I know that several companies in this country have held discussions with the West Germans and Japanese on joint ventures, under which Canadians would do the fishing in Canadian-owned vessels, and Canadians would do the processing in Canadian-owned plants, but the production would be tailored for certain foreign markets. The joint

June 7, 1973	COMMONS DEBATES	4539
venture would be arranged in such a way that the country putting up, say, 50 per cent of the capital or 50 per cent of the working inventory would have a claim on the supply of fish over a period of years. This verges on foreign ownership. It raises the question as to how long these contracts or agreements should be allowed to run. But they are compatible with the idea of coastal states having control over the living resources off their coasts and responsibility for the wise management of these resources, more than some other arrangements we could enter into. They are far better than the first come first served arrangements, if I can call them arrangements, which now exist off our shores.
As I say, we are developing a system of quotas in the North Atlantic, but we need to improve them. We need to expand our own effort and increase our Canadian take. We should be doing the catching because we are far more efficient than foreigners are. We are two or three times as efficient as the Russians with their big trawlers. Processing on shore is much more economic than on ships at sea. When the vessels only have to go a few miles, or at the most 200 or 300 miles from shore, obviously their travel time and expenses for fuel and so on are much less than those of nations which have to send their fleets half way around the world. The economics are in favour of the coastal state doing the fishing and the processing as well.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to an article in the London Economist which I have not read. It indicated to me that the United Kingdom was in the process of throwing up its hands and suggested that it should exploit its own shelf or 200 miles or some such concept and buy its extra fish abroad rather than to fish close to countries with a coastal fishery. They should get into joint ventures of the type I already envisaged. I can imagine the United Kingdom getting into joint ventures, not only with Canadians, but with other countries, developed and underdeveloped in Africa, South America and around the world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him under Standing Order 58(13) has expired.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Will the minister accept a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions can only be asked with unanimous consent, because the maximum time allotted to the minister has been used. Is it agreed that questions to the minister be permitted?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask that questions be asked after I have spoken?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for proposing his amendment to the motion before us and indicating the support of our party for that amendment. We in this party also believe we should assert ownership over anadromous fish spawned in our inland waters and our exclusive right to the harvest of those species.
Fisheries
Others in this debate will be dealing with the origin of the continental shelf treaty to which Canada is a party, how and when it came into being and what it provides to Canada. Mention has already been made of it.
In the few minutes available to me, I would like to say that it was concluded in 1958. I underline the date, 1958. It confers on coastal states sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its resources.


John (Jack) Davis: Minerals only.


Donald W. Munro: I agree that is what it confers. However, we must remember that by a very short margin Canada missed obtaining the 12 mile limit for which the minister is claiming sole responsibility. I say this only to get party lines straight at this particular stage.
Having said that, I wish to turn to those areas of the problem on which I will base my remarks. I have, of course, a vested interest in this debate. I am proud to have that vested interest and I intend to represent it fully here. In my area there are deep-sea fishermen, inshore fishermen and sports fishermen. I wonder whether the present government is doing enough to sustain, maintain and expand those enterprises which are so much a part of Canada's heritage. We rely on the living resources of the sea for our way of life and our food. I maintain that not enough is done for that interest. The government claims it has great plans afoot but relating their comments to their actions, one is permitted to wonder and be confused.
I propose to deal with only two aspects because of the limited time allotted to me; first, the fishing safeguards and, if time permits, pollutions safeguards which are, of course, closely inter-related with our fishing safeguards.
As far as the fishing safeguards are concerned, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) recently talked bravely about going out 200 miles. He said, and I quote:
We will go, flat out, for an exclusive fishing zone which will include the fringes of our Continental Shelf ... Whenever our continental margin reaches out more than two-hundred miles from shore, it is the continental margin which will form our fishing limit-
He said more along these lines, all of it in the context of exclusive fishing rights. Those were brave words. I notice that recently he has toned down these claims a bit and is now only talking in terms of management. This brings me to a point I made even before hearing the minister, namely, that I find claims of this sort hardly credible. They are even less credible now because he has backed off from that claim to a large, exclusive fishing area. The map which the minister circulated along with the text of his comments on that particular occasion bravely extolled the nationalistic and sovereign delights of these vast claims, but is this truly credible? Is this claim of his one that, through the actions or plans of his government, he can substantiate in practical or even theoretical terms?
In a debate last February, I referred to the size of Canada's coast guard. On the basis of the latest statistics I could find, May 1972, I stated that we had some 32 vessels in Canada's coast guard designated as patrol vessels. Let us say we have 40 today. That is being most generous.
4540

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
Also, let us assume all of these vessels are fit and ready to proceed.
Where do we stand on fisheries patrol vessels? It is not always easy to find out just how many of these we have. I did a bit of research and came up with some figures. The minister announced a five year program in February. According to the press release which he issued at that time, he was aiming for scientific and fisheries patrol vessels capable of operating 100 miles or more off the coast for extended periods. How did he get out to 200 miles between February and May?


John (Jack) Davis: Ever heard of aircraft?


Donald W. Munro: But the minister did not say 200 miles at that time. I suspect that what he was out to catch on that occasion were some fish in the St. Andrews area where he was talking, presumably, to supporters. Perhaps he was looking for non-supporters to convince, but I doubt they would be convinced.


Mr. Haliburton:: A fisher of men.


Donald W. Munro: That's right. With a $50 million program for one 200 ft. offshore patrol vessel to operate off Newfoundland, in 1975 and 1976, plus two other similar vessels, one for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic, completion in 1978, and a 95-footer due for completion in 1974-75, and three 48-footers. And, it is stated in the press release, some 17 vessels which are to be replaced in the course of this five-year program. Finally, the press releases announced there were 78 vessels engaged in fisheries patrol work in February of 1973. We have some 30 coastguard vessels and some 78 fisheries vessels.
The minister spoke just now, and I will accept his figures, that the extension of our fishing limits covered some 700,000 square miles. Going further, I was doing a bit of calculating and I arrived at a figure of about 2 million extra square miles to be patrolled by some 120 vessels. I find this is asking a good deal of crews, particularly when we cannot find them as indicated by the fact the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) had to lay up some of our vessels because he cannot man them. There is nothing in the program of the government which encourages the native heritage of Canada, which is going to sea. We cannot find mariners for our naval vessels and we are doing everything to discourage our fishermen. This clearly indicates how non-credible is the minister and the policies he is advocating.
Let us look at the situation in a nother light. What are the officials who advise the government saying about exclusive fishing rights? Not long ago in a committee we heard a lengthy statement on territorial sea matters by one of the government's most knowledgeable and practised advisers. After dealing with the rights of coastal states to the continental shelf, and even to the continental margin, a matter which for many purposes was settled by international convention in 1968, this specialist said:
As to fisheries, we have asserted that the coastal state must have the power to manage the fisheries resources including the right to determine quotas.
I note that the minister has backed up so that he will be able to fall in line with the advice he is getting.


John (Jack) Davis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman has said several things which are a flat contradiction of my speech. I said during my speech that we must manage the fish over our continental shelf. His last words were that I backed down from that.


Donald W. Munro: You did back away from your speech in New Brunswick. What I suggested in my last comment was that the minister backed away from the statement he made in New Brunswick. I have the text in front of me and I am prepared to table it if necessary. He has backed away from that statement because he has found he cannot get support from the people who know how to negotiate treaties, people who are aware of the problems faced when trying to persuade others. I just cannot foresee, at this stage, and I am sure the minister doesn't either, the problems involved in saying "That's it"-certainly not with 120 vessels to defend our limits.


John Howard Lundrigan: We do not have five.


Donald W. Munro: I made a calculation and I arrived at a rough figure of 120, that is if they were counting all at sea at the same time for 24 hours a day and never had to put into port. In any event, the witness who was giving this testimony knows the difficulties of negotiating even management rights. As for exclusive fishing rights, with all due respect, the hon. minister stepped way out of line.
So, we find the minister out of step with his advisers and, I suspect, out of step with his colleagues in the cabinet. Therefore, he moved back to the position he outlined just now.
All in all, the government is not doing enough to protect our fisheries, or to encourage our youth to garner the harvest that is theirs. It is not doing enough to encourage fishermen to go to sea, or to build a viable coastguard. It shames me to hear that when there is an accident off our shores the United States Coastguard is called in to pick up survivors. Why does Canada not have a coastguard worthy of the name? We do not have sufficient fisheries patrolmen, either. Our tradition as seamen is not being upheld.
This is not all. We are faced with the knotty problem of split or undecided jurisdiction in the area of maritime control. We have been told here and there in the question period and in committee about the hopes of the fisheries department to wrest control of harbours from transport and to get public works to do the building and maintenance of the facilities within the harbours. This I consider to be business management run wild. Divide and misrule, I call it.
Then, the defence department gets into the act. Listen to this. In the course of questioning the Minister of National Defence only two weeks ago, on May 22, we went into the question of the environmental protection and surveillance responsibilities allotted to our naval and air forces. As reported at page 29 and 30 of the minutes of the 13th meeting of the Committee on External Affairs and Defence, we heard the deputy minister of national defence outlining the problems of multiple jurisdiction or coordinated command. All we got out of that discussion was

June 7, 1973

that a complex study of this question had been undertaken but because the inquiry would involve matters touching on security it could not be made public. This suggests to me that we are still nowhere near determining, in a crisis, which authority goes to sea and for what purpose. Is it a fisheries patrol vessel, is it a coastguard, is it a naval vessel or is it an RCMP vessel? The fisheries and environment people and the coastguard are clamouring for definitions, but the government has not provided any of the answers. So, there we are. We are expected to accept, on faith, that a government which cannot understand national priorities will act in a responsible way to co-ordinate the activities of the many jurisdictions operating for 200 miles out to sea and using all of our 120 vessels. I will not even mention the decision of the government to lay up, or even sell, several of our naval vessels because of inability to man these ships.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I now have the consent of the House to ask my question of the minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a somewhat irregular procedure, but if the House wishes to consent, the hon. member could ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister failed to address himself to that very important part of the resolution dealing with adequate surveillance. May I ask the minister, and my question is prompted by this very serious omission on his part,-he seems to be suffering from amnesia these days- why he cannot use Canadian Armed Forces ships, just as we are now using Canadian Armed Forces aircraft for surveillance? As the minister well knows, aircraft have very limited ability in respect of surveillance because of weather conditions and their ineffectiveness at night. It would help if they were supplemented by ships of the Canadian Armed Forces. Is it the intention of the government to utilize Canadian navy vessels in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: It could well be the government's intention, especially when we have exclusive limits reaching out to the continental shelf and in some places beyond. But it has not been necessary yet. The hon. member downgrades aircraft. Possibly he has not been out on any of the Armed Forces aircraft which can tell through fog, and at night, how many vessels there are, how large they are, whether they are fishing and so on. I would not downgrade the role of the Armed Forces which can carry out surveillance efficiently. I would also suggest that having negotiated quotas with other countries, and especially if we get into joint ventures where the catch is landed on our shores, the problem of surveillance would not be as difficult as it was in the past.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not reflect on the motion which is before the House, when he was speaking. Does he accept the motion which we presented? Secondly, does he still stand by the position he took at St. Andrews, on Saturday, May 26, when he said that the position of the government next year at the Law of the Sea Conference will be that we will go flat out for
Fisheries
an exclusive fishing zone which will include the fringes of the continental shelf?


John (Jack) Davis: Dealing first with the last question, Mr. Speaker, I am personally going flat out for it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am not talking about you personally.


John (Jack) Davis: I believe we should go further where 200 miles does not encompass the shelf, and we should include these broader shelf areas as well.
Dealing with the first question, I agree with the intent of the resolution but it does not go far enough. It does not include waters adjoining the slope, which are important fishing waters over which we should have authority, and it should cover salmon and other species which swim far beyond it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will this be the position of the government next year, the position the minister announced at St. Andrews?


John (Jack) Davis: I believe it will, and it is my job to make sure it is.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. De Bane) perhaps I could announce at this time that, pursuant to Standing Order 40, the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Olauss-en)-Transport-Subsidy to Foreign Registered Vessel, MV "Travetal"-Suggested requirement of Canadian registry; the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers)-Post Office-Alleged delay in delivery of first class mail.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield:
That this House accepts the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fisheries resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes, that the management of these fisheries resources are the responsibility of the coastal state, that other states may only fish such resources with the permission of the coastal state; and,
26314-74 £
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1973
Fisheries
This House agrees that, in implementation of this policy, Canada must provide adequate surveillance so that swift action can be taken when Canadian interests are threatened or violated.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Barnett.
[ Translation]
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has just been introduced in the House bears on an issue which for a very long time, in fact since the very beginning of Canada, has been of great significance for the economic life and the welfare of the population. Besides being one of the first resources to be developed near the North American coasts, fishing has long been one of the most sturdy supports for our dawning economy. Since our fishing resources are also at the limits of our country, they have brought us into contact with our next-door neighbours and many other countries, and that has rapidly led us to conduct, in that field, more and more extensive activities and assume our own responsibilities. Every member recalls, for example, that the first treaty concluded and signed by Canadians was a convention concerning halibut fishing and our bilateral relations with the United States of America.
In a way, it is fair to say that the situation has not changed much, because fisheries remain a very important area of our national and international activities and that, once again, we must consider how Canada can turn to the best account the biological resources along our coasts and how to defend our interests in the light of new circumstances prevailing in the world today. So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to describe briefly the present situation concerning the matter of national jurisdiction over maritime fishing.
We will recall that for centuries fishing was part and parcel of the concept of the freedom of the sea, and that consequently the fishermen of the whole world could, without restraint, give free course to their talent and their boldness on all the seas of the world. It is only in recent years that we have realized that this total freedom could lead to serious impoverishment and in some cases to complete extinction of biological resources of the sea and that it became imperative to set up new rules if we wanted to preserve those important natural resources.
As the hon. Minister of Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) recalled earlier, Canada was one of the very first countries to propose, in 1958 and 1960 at the Geneva Law of the Sea Conference, that beyond the traditional three-mile territorial sea it was advisable that coastal states should obtain certain rights over a wider area for the exploitation of their resources.
As early as 1964, Canada set up a nine-mile fishing zone beyond the three-mile territorial sea and thus contributed to develop a new concept to guarantee better control over fishing by coastal states.
In 1970, this control was enlarged to even more important areas by extending the territorial waterline to 12 miles and creating exclusive fishing zones in the gulf of the St. Lawrence, Fundy bay, Dixon entrance, Hecate's Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait.

Those efforts have already brought us important benefits but our offshore fisheries are still subject under international law to a freedom which does not seem to us adequate. We believe that the Great Banks of Newfoundland for instance which for four centuries have attracted fishermen from all over the world, must from now on be governed by new regulations, new concepts. Obviously, the matter does not come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Canada and as is the case in all the seas of the world, fishing must be submitted to regulations universally recognized and applicable to everyone. These concerns are, of course, shared by most states of the world and this is why studies were undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations to develop adequate solutions to this problem.
The United Nations sea bed committee who is now preparing the third law of the Sea Conference is developing a fisheries system that will allow hopefully a better use and conservation of biological resources of the sea. it should be noted that in the same time, this committee also works on problems that have a direct impact on fisheries such as defining the rights of coastal states on the continental shelf and the rights and duties of those states with regard to prevention of pollution. Canada is no doubt one of the countries which were most actively involved in these studies and which contributed most to the development of an almost general agreement not only on the goals to be reached but also on the approach most likely to ensure the success of the operation.
Being aware of the importance of fishing in some areas of our country-including the constituency of Matane which I have the honour to represent-and, in a wider sense, for the whole of Canada, but realizing-which I feel is the most important-the interdependency of all nations of the world, we wish to emphasize that besides being tinted with economic egotism our policy but would above all take into account the primary importance that must be given to this vital resource and its conservation, it might therefore have been easier, but much too simplistic, to propose to the community of nations that they simply share the oceans and their resources and draw more or less arbitrary off-shore limits. Instead, we have decided that the only defensible position under these circumstances, was to treat fishing in a functional way, taking into account not only the geography and the very nature of the various species, but also the related economic and social factors and the necessity to maintain rational control over these activities. We must be delighted that that functional approach now seems to be meeting the acceptance of most countries. Indeed, when considering the concepts put forward by some countries in the context of the law of the sea, like those of the off-shore sea and the economic zone, one can only conclude that that reflects in different ways a practical implementation of that functional policy. Once again I must point out that Canada has been innovative when establishing three years ago its exclusive fishing zones where are already found in fact the main elements of the proposals now under serious consideration by the United Nations, that is the establishment within a certain zone of the rights and privileges in favour of coastal states, in connection with fishing resources, continental shelf resources and the prevention of sea pollution.
June 7, 1973	______________COMMONS
As you know we already have this jurisdiction over the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Hecate Straight, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound.
This policy has a double objective: First, it is obvious that those guidelines should lead to a workable system that should ensure our fishermen and the Canadian people the protection required for the maximum exploitation and conservation of our biological resources. On the other hand, the interests of the international community should obviously be taken into account and it would be a mistake to ignore the human and political context we are living in and to deny to others rights obtained through tradition or which are theirs by the very nature of things. Many countries which are not endowed as we are and which cannot find near their coasts the fish resources required for their survival and trade have been, for years, intensively exploiting the biological resources of all the oceans and, in several cases, quite far out from their own coastal regions. Quite naturally the coastal nations have responded to this mass intrusion of foreign fishing fleets over banks situated near their territories. In view of the modern technology now used by those fleets it became obvious that pure and simple competition between coastal nations and remote fishing nations would have quickly entailed the loss of major resources. No one would have won anything in the long run. It goes without saying that a solution should be found to this confrontation and that we must urgently reconcile the views and interests of all nations involved.
The current negotiations should therefore take into account the opposition of certain very important countries which do not agree with coastal states extending their jurisdiction over large regions. An ideal policy consisting in a coastal state assuming outright control over all resources off its shores would be hardly negociable. It is also obvious that purely and simply maintaining the traditional fishing freedom would not constitute an element of fruitful negotiations either.
Therefore, what is to be done? Considering the positions developed by our natural allies in that field, namely those coastal states that are concerned above all with the resources adjacent to their shores, one realizes that a good number of them chose to secure rights and privileges over a zone up to 200 miles off-shore. As things are now, one can say that those states now represent a majority within the international community. But the kind of rights and privileges to be enjoyed by the coastal state over such a zone have yet to be defined. Some would like those rights to be exclusive, which would entail of course the automatic exclusion of fishermen from other states over large sea areas. Now very few states can say they are able to fish all the resources of those areas. Setting aside for themselves the exclusive right to such resources would be neither practical nor reasonable, given the protein needs throughout the world especially in the underdeveloped countries.
On the basis of scientific statistics, the Canadian government on the one hand deems essential that the coastal state keep for itself the exclusive administration of fishing resources and, on the other hand, firmly believes that the coastal state, while setting aside for itself a preferential share of the production, must allow other states to use the surplus of such resources that it cannot or does not want
DEBATES	4543
Fisheries
to take itself. Obviously, the coastal state must have all the necessary latitude to determine, on its own, what share it has coming to it, and to regulate the activity of other countries so that its own activity will not result in a serious decrease or the complete destruction of its stocks.
The question of knowing whether the rights of coastal states will be exclusive, totally or only partly, still remains to be decided at the next Law of the Sea Conference, but there is another equally important matter to which I alluded a few moments ago and which is particularly important to Canada, namely, the question of the limit of the jurisdiction to be exercised by the coastal state. I said that there is a tendency now to grant the coastal state some jurisdiction over fisheries up to 200 miles. Of course, in the case of most countries that distance covers the entirety of so-called coastal species since in most cases the continental shelf of those countries where those species live does not extend beyond 200 miles. However, the situation is entirely different in the case of the East Coast of Canada where the continental shelf of Newfoundland extends beyond 400 miles. On the same scientific grounds that led us to adopt a functional policy, it was normal for Canada to claim rights over that whole area, that is to say up to the limits of the continental shelf since that is where fish is found. It would be foolish to suggest that a state can manage, conserve and exploit adequately stocks lying within an arbitrary limit of 200 miles, without taking into account the elements of those stocks to be found in adjacent areas. A single stock must therefore come under one regulation because, otherwise, the effect of uncontrolled activity in one part would of course be disastrous for the other part of the stock. That is the position Canada defended and continues to defend because we think it is the only defendible position if a rational plan is to be established with respect to coastal fisheries.
Up to now, Mr. Speaker, I have only referred to the so-called coastal species, those which are found mainly on the continental shelf and which depend upon it for their conservation and development. Needless to say, the Canadian government was also concerned with other species of fish, some of which are of prime importance to Canada. I refer in particular to anadromous species, such as salmon. We took the stand, and we intend to maintain it, that salmon should be restricted, wherever it may be found, to the fishermen of the state where it was spawned. Without the large amounts of money and numerous efforts devoted to the reproduction of this species by the state where it is spawned, salmon could not exist, but of course, it is quite natural for it to happen to be, at some time or other, in territorial waters other than those of its country of origin. In such circumstances, interceptions are inevitable, and that problem naturally lends itself to bilateral solutions. Otherwise, there is no doubt that only the state of spawning should be entitled to catch this species.
Non-migrant species which live on the continental shelf are already covered by the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958, which Canada signed, the sovereign rights of coastal states.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this government has advocated the most appropriate policy to guarantee Canadian fishermen all the necessary protection for the

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
development of their industry, and to ensure that their individual welfare and their contribution to national welfare continue to improve. A policy based exclusively on sovereignty concepts would only emphasize the disputes which already take place amongst some nations of the world. We developed legislation and regulations to protect our fisheries, but we have also reached agreements with given countries whenever necessary. We will continue to assert our rights at the international level, but we will also endeavour to ensure that proper consideration is given to the legitimate interests of other States and the international community as a whole.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise to take part in this debate to support the motion presented this afternoon by my leader dealing with the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fisheries resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes, that the management of these fisheries resources is the responsibility of the coastal state and that other states may only fish such resources with the permission of the coastal state. I naturally support that motion.
Before I become too involved, I should like to take exception to the remarks made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in the course of his speech in New Brunswick last week, because I am sure the minister must be aware of the position taken by our party in this matter on September 22, 1972 at a meeting of our Atlantic caucus in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. At that time our party stated its position with regard to our marine resources. I should like to read into the record a part of the release which came from that conference concerning our marine resources. It reads:
.. . under this new department, launch a new, aggressive program to extend Canada's managerial control to the extremities of its continental shelf, for conservation and management of its marine resources;
I think the minister must have been aware of that resolution. Certainly, the people of Atlantic Canada were well aware of it. I am at a loss to understand why he would so deliberately try to misinterpret the views of our party and or our members in respect of our position regarding the continental shelf. I am rather surprised also to see the tug-of-war which obviously is taking place between certain members of the government.
The Minister of Fisheries in his speech at St. Andrews mentioned the continental shelf and came out with a program whereby we would go all out or flat out for exclusive fishing rights including the fringes of the continental shelf. However, a few days later, I believe on Monday, May 28, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) introduced a motion in this House under Standing Order 43 in which he called upon the House to stand behind that principle. The motion was not allowed unanimous consent. I understand the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is one of the members who refused this unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter C. Carter: This did not surprise me, and I am sure it did not surprise most people in Atlantic Canada, because we know where the Secretary of State for External Affairs stands when it comes to fishing. As a matter of fact in 1953, in a speech, the minister stated that the fishery represents poverty and should be allowed to die. This is a statement made by the man who now occupies the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs. He outlined his attitude toward the fishing industry and the fact that it represented poverty and should be allowed to die. I am concerned that if a tug-of-war is in the making our Minister of Fisheries, as good as his intentions are, in all likelihood will lose the war because we have seen the influence the Secretary of State for External Affairs can exercise on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and we have seen how well he can represent the views of his Bay Street constituents in respect of policies made by the Prime Minister and this government.
I feel that if there is to be a battle between the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Atlantic area and indeed Canada, could very well come out on the wrong end of the stick. If that should happen, it would be extremely regrettable because we all know that our fish stocks are seriously declining to a point where it is now almost uneconomic to fish. Surely, if the present situation is allowed to prevail much longer it will be uneconomic to fish and a large segment of our population will be deprived of an opportunity to derive a livelihood from that industry. I make that statement in the light of figures which were released to the effect that in 1971 our catches represented, I believe, two and a half billion pounds. This figure was reduced in 1972 by almost 300 million pounds, despite the fact that the capability of our fishing fleets had increased due to improved technology, improved gear and so on.
This situation, of course, is all the more alarming in Atlantic Canada because we find that approximately 75 per cent of all the fish caught in Canada come from the Atlantic area. This is a rather shameful situation. I believe it is a very serious indictment of the present government which has allowed this situation to continue and worsen. We find that in respect of the Atlantic area-I have said this before in committee and in the House-there seems to be a complete and utter indifference to the fishing industry. We find that the government is totally insensitive to the needs of the area in respect of harbour and marine facilities. I am sure the records of the Committee on Public Works and the sub-committee on public works in respect of small craft harbours contain some very interesting and very alarming statistics which reflect the attitude of this government toward the fishing industry, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
We find that the expenditure on public works, such as harbour and wharf facilities, this year is to be 25 per cent of what it was in 1951. These are not my figures but rather are figures that were quoted at the meeting of the subcommittee to which I have just referred by highly placed officials of the Department of Public Works. We find, according to their testimony before the committee, that this year it would cost approximately $30 million to properly maintain and service our facilities in Atlantic Canada while in fact they are this year spending I believe a little over $15 million. I think this is pretty indicative of the

attitude of the present government in respect of the fishing industry, particularly in Atlantic Canada. It is a very alarming fact when we realize that so many of our people depend on the fishing industry for a livelihood.
Earlier I mentioned my views in respect of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the fact that I believe the gentleman in question has no compassion whatever for the fishermen, and no optimism in respect of the fishing industry. I think that attitude has been reflected in the statement the minister made in 1953 when he referred to the fishing industry as representing poverty. He no doubt made that statement in view of the fact that according to official statistics the fishing industry accounts for less than 2 per cent of the gross national product of Canada. I think, therefore, it has become a political question.
The question, of course, is: why should we cater to the people involved in the fishing industry? Why should we cater to the regions in Canada where the fishing industry is important, when it represents such a small percentage of our gross national product? That question is very misleading in that the fishing industry represents much more than the reported 2 per cent. In fact, according to an economist with the Memorial University in Newfoundland, a man who has spent considerable time studying the effects of the fishing industry in Canada as a whole, the fishing industry is seventh in importance among all Canadian industries. When one realizes that a number of service industries are connected with the fishing industry, employing a number of people who derive a living from the fishing industry but yet never go out to the sea to fish, one cannot help but be surprised at the fact that so little attention has been paid to it by the government, and in particular by the Minister of Fisheries.
In my riding, fishing plays a very important part in our economy. There are communities in my riding where the fishing industry is all important and if the fishing industry were to die, the community would die. In the province of Newfoundland which I represent, if the fishing industry were to fail, the economy of our whole province would be shattered to such an extent that I doubt we could survive economically. That is why those of us in particular who represent Newfoundland are so anxious that action be taken immediately to adopt a sane approach to the management and control of our marine resources.
Of course, it is laughable to observe the government's attitude with regard to surveillance and control. I was amused the other day when in the House we were questioning the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and trying to impress upon him the need to make the four destroyers to which reference had been made available to the Department of Fisheries, rather than mothballing them, so that a proper job of patrolling our coastal waters could be made to protect our fishermen. The minister's reply was that he was quite satisfied we were doing a good job of patrolling our waters. If he were to tell that to the fishermen in my riding, I am sure he would get a laugh out of them.
It is obvious to all of us, particularly to the people who are affected, that this government is not doing its duty in properly patrolling our waters and protecting our fisher-
Fisheries
men from the ravaging of foreign fishing ships. Not only do these foreign fishermen rob our fish stocks and contribute to the depletion of our marine resources, but in the process in many cases they destroy the fishing gear of our fishermen. Then, they just thumb their noses at our fishermen and fade out into the sunset, not giving a thought to paying any compensation and with no respect for authority and law. This is a sad situation because fishing gear is vital to the operation of fishermen. Without it, they cannot fish. In many cases, fishing gear represents a substantial sum of money, certainly an amount which fishermen should not be expected to forfeit as the result of actions by foreign fishing fleets.
One alarming effect of the activities of foreign fishing vessels is that, for years now, we have noted an abrupt decline in our fish stocks. For the past number of years we have found that the catches of our fishermen were seriously declining. Yet, we have been prodding this government, and particularly the Minister of Fisheries, to try to bring about some method of control and management of our marine resources. However, I am afraid that our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, and very little action has been taken by him to protect our fish stocks. He has imposed other regulations on the advice of his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to seals. There are times, it seems, when the minister is quite willing, indeed anxious, to impose certain regulations. This is so often the case that at times we think perhaps he should be called minister of the environment, fish restrictions and regulations. Yet, when it comes to protecting that all important species, our groundfish, he seems unwilling to take any action that would have the effect of staving off the day when the extinction of this species would occur.
We have seen the minister take steps to curb the killing of baby seals. We all realize that it is not a pretty sight to see animals being killed. Yet, those of us in Atlantic Canada continue to hold very strong views concerning the wisdom of the minister's regulation with respect to that animal. We know how it came about. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and our ambassadors in foreign countries could not stand the thought of being badgered by the sob sisters of SPCA at their cocktail parties. Imagine that, they could not go to a cocktail party in European capitals or in New York without being approached by some lady wearing her mink stole and her kid gloves who, after having eaten a full sized meal of calves' liver and bacon, would come up to them and make objections to the killing of baby seals. Of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs could not allow his staff to be harassed by such people, and consequently the Minister of Fisheries agreed to impose these restrictions, the effect of which was to pretty well ruin our sealing industry.
We have seen the minister impose other regulations with regard to whales, swordfish and salmon. This seems to be a government that is more concerned with imposing regulations on our own people, on our own fishermen, restricting their area of activity, than with talking sternly to the Russians, the Cubans, the French, the Spaniards, the East Germans and the Portuguese. You name them and they are there. What we want is a minister of fisheries, a government, and a secretary of state for external affairs who would be prepared to take off their gloves, if

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
they have to, and tell these people that fish in our waters belong to this country and that they can fish them only by Canada's leave and licence.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting motion. The minister has already said that he can find little to disagree with in the motion except for the fact that it does not go far enough.
There are certain points in the motion which interest me. It reads:
That this House accepts the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fishery resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes.
In other words, what it is really saying is that basically the opposition is adopting the same position as this government will be taking at the Law of the Sea conference. Yet, if it is that, on the one hand, members of the opposition are saying that basically they agree with the position that Canada will be taking at the Law of the Sea conference and, on the other hand, they are expressing pessimism regarding whether in fact this position can be improved. They say it is a good position to take, but can we actually do it?


John Howard Lundrigan: We are not accepting that position, my friend. Tell the House the truth.


Bill Rompkey: You people have thrown cold water on ICNAF and on the Law of the Sea conference. The only alternative, then, is gunboat diplomacy. I think the opposition should come out clearly and say whether they are in favour of our ships firing on vessels of foreign nations and having them fire back on our ships.


Walter C. Carter: Stick to teaching.


Bill Rompkey: I had better classes when I was teaching, I can tell you that; they were much more orderly.
I think the Conservative party should come out quite clearly and say whether they are in favour of ships firing on other ships and precipitating an international incident. There are two alternatives; either gunboat diplomacy or "walk softly, and carry a big stick," in the words of Teddy Roosevelt. I think it should be clearly stated which of the two alternatives the opposition favours.
In many ways, the fishing industry in this country is in good shape at the present time. There are many indications of this. We have talked about the federal contribution to shipbuilding in the Atlantic provinces. In Newfoundland alone this means a federal contribution, for 1973-74, through a 50 per cent construction subsidy of $5 million. In addition there is the possibility of construction at the Marystown shipyard of ten 65-foot, steel, multipurpose units with a capacity of landing another seven million pounds. This represents jobs for 305 men for one full year. When in operation these ships will provide continuing employment for 272 crew members on a year-round basis. This contribution to shipbuilding is important to the fisheries as well.
There are other indications that in general terms the industry is in good shape. Fish prices have increased. For

instance, cod blocks have risen from 21 cents per pound in 1969 to 62 cents per pound in 1973. The Salt Fish Corporation, even though cold water was thrown on it in committee by members from Nova Scotia, has put money in the pockets of fishermen. Choice, light-salted cod was selling for $27 per quintal in 1969; it is now selling for $49. It is true that in the last couple of years landings have gone down, but from 1953 to 1971 landings per fisherman increased from 29,000 pounds to 45,000 pounds. The available statistics show that in the last two or three years there has been a reduction, but looking at the broad picture it is evident that landings have in fact increased.
The position we are taking at the Law of the Sea Conference is increasingly geared toward improving the fisheries in this country. I want to speak particularly about the Atlantic area, which I represent and which is very much concerned with the fisheries. As a matter of fact, my province of Newfoundland has been historically and traditionally dependent upon the fishery to provide a living for its people, and I am sure it will continue to depend upon the fishery as a prime source of income in its economy.
The two major themes of this government are national unity and the elimination of regional disparity. We have already shown that the government is interested in improving the economy of the Atlantic area to the point that it is self-supporting. As I see it, our position at the Law of the Sea Conference is fulfilling that aim. If we can ensure increased earnings for our inshore fishermen, there will be less need to find alternative employment for them; in other words, DREE need not provide as many alternatives to jobs in the fishing industry if we concentrate our efforts on that industry.
One issue covered at the Law of the Sea Conference is that of control to the end of the continental shelf. If I understand the motion correctly, this is what it calls for. Our position at the conference seeks control to the end of the continental shelf whether it be 200 or 400 miles and, indeed, to the bottom of the continental slope. This is very important because there is a danger of depletion of stocks and only the host nation could have adequate control over those stocks. First of all, we must make sure that we have adequate stocks from which our fishermen can draw.
I was pleased with the appointment of Dr. Arthur May to the marine biology laboratory in St. John's. For some years he has given valuable aid to Canada at Law of the Sea conferences and I am sure that his knowledge will be valuable to the province in carrying out adequate research programs. It is not as easy to do research beneath the surface of the ocean as it is above the surface of the ground; it is not as easy to count fish as it is to count trees, and you cannot predict the same kind of maximum sustained yield in the water as you can on land. But we must go as close to it as we can.
Another point is that, as the host nation, we must have a preferential share in our fisheries' resources. This means that we should be able to fish to the limit of our resources. If we can establish such a policy, our next important point is to make sure that we have the capability with which to carry it out. The minister pointed out that we have not been fishing up to our established quota. If we can achieve control over the continental shelf and ensure preferential
June 7, 1973

fishing rights, our next job is to make sure that our people have adequate technology to enable them to take those stocks. We must not emphasize, as this motion does, limits to the exclusion of facilities; we must view both aspects in context. It is one thing to set a limit and control stocks, to have maximum sustained yield and quotas; but we must also ensure that we have the proper facilities, inshore and offshore, to harvest that yield. This means improvements in technology. I have already pointed out that the government has been putting money into ships and gear; it is subsidizing these areas of the industry in order to help fishermen take more of the resources which, of course, means more money in their pockets.
We have discussed a small craft harbours program in various ways, and at length. There is no point in having quotas and controls if fishermen do not have the facilities with which to reap the proper harvest. We must ensure that breakwaters and other fishing facilities are in good shape, that boats are protected and able to harvest the resources properly. We must bear in mind the program announced recently whereby the department would provide a subsidy for freezing and chilling facilities in small craft harbours throughout Canada. This is important because usually a great deal of the catch is lost due to deterioration.
We must be careful, too, that while we are improving the facilities we improve the infrastructure-water supply, housing and all other facilities. I would like to see many of the OFY, LIP and other programs which have been up to now on an ad hoc basis put on an ongoing, comprehensive basis so that communities can plan ahead and thus make sure that the infrastructure is improved. I would like to see an ongoing program of winter works in connection with our small craft fishing harbours.
In a committee meeting recently my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Rooney) mentioned the effect that unemployment insurance has in encouraging people to leave the inshore fishery. It has been pointed out that the inshore fishery is possibly the most economical of our fisheries because it is less capital-intensive and therefore brings greater return to individual fishermen. We must make improvements in the unemployment insurance program as it applies to fishermen if we are to ensure that they remain inshore fishermen.
Proposals are already under way, through the proper authorities, to bring about necessary changes in unemployment insurance for fishermen. The only alternative would be some sort of catch insurance or, if I may put it another way, we must ensure a guaranteed annual income for firshermen. The form that this help is to take, whether it be unemployment insurance, catch insurance or any other form, is really a matter for debate and for the government to decide. We must ensure that there is some sort of guaranteed annual income for our fishermen. The other point that came up in our committee meetings recently had to do with greater communication with those in policy-making positions. Indeed, we must provide in future for more input from fishermen at the lower level.
All this, Mr. Speaker, is very important in view of the fact that we have a food problem in the world. We recently
Fisheries
debated in this House the rising cost of food. Only a small percentage of the world's food comes from the sea. In future a great deal more of its food will come from the sea. This means that we must place greater emphasis on the fisheries and emphasize greater returns for our fishermen.
Naturally, I am very concerned about the northeast coast of Newfoundland, that part of my riding which is almost wholly dependent upon the fishery. In a year such as this, when ice conditions have been bad, our fishermen have no income to fall back on. Many have been without income since the middle of March. We all hope that the fall fishing will be good. When the ice has been bad at the beginning of a year it is said that the fall fishery will be good. In the meantime we must provide some form of income for our fishermen.


John Howard Lundrigan: How will you do it?


Bill Rompkey: There are at the present time proposals before the government to do this very thing. I have tried to show that the government has increased its spending on the fishery and I have tried to indicate the areas in which it has done that. I have also tried to indicate some of the problems which remain, which some hon. members have tried to discuss within the context of the motion before the House.
Really, what I am trying to say is this; the first thing we must be concerned about is stocks off-our shores. We must improve our technology to ensure greater returns for our fishermen. We must try to improve market prices. We have done this. We must ensure that with improved market prices all the profits do not remain in the hands of the middleman but that the price paid to the fisherman is improved. We must continue to improve facilities in small craft fishing harbours. Finally, we must attempt to provide a guaranteed annual income of some kind for our fishermen.
The position as set out in the motion varies little from the position of the government. However, if we approach this matter from the point of view of the motion alone we will find it is not enough. We should not consider the motion out of context; I think we must be concerned about the broad spectrum of our fisheries' problems.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to ask a question. This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will ask him privately.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate for it provides me with an opportunity to place before the House some of the problems faced by our own fishermen and those engaged in the fish processing industry. Seldom in our history have the people of Atlantic Canada been more concerned over the future of the fishing industry, and they cannot help but question the federal government's role and its future development policy as it concerns this industry. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Romp-

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
key), made some comment about the healthy aspect of the industry. Although I do not wish to engage in any long controversy with him, I suggest that he read the annual report put out by Environment Canada in which he will find these words:
Canadian landings of fish and shellfish in 1971 amounted to 2.5 billion pounds, 6 per cent less than 1970 and 12 per cent less than the peak year of 1968. The total value to Canadian fishermen at $190.7 million was, however, only 1 per cent lower than in 1970.
On the Atlantic coast, total landings have been declining since the peak in 1968.
I could go on, but I think that is sufficient to show what is happening in Atlantic Canada. The fishing industry is vitally important to Atlantic Canada and it is especially important to Nova Scotia where the landed value last year of all species brought our fishermen a total of approximately $60 million. These species had a market value of approximately double this figure. However, this amount when distributed among our offshore and inshore fishermen still leaves them with an income far below the national average. This situation does little to encourage young men to consider fishing as a vocation. This, I submit, is unfortunate and is a situation which must be changed, and changed very quickly, if the fishing industry is to take its rightful place in Canada's over-all development.
In recent years it would appear that our fishermen and their activities have received a very low priority rating from this government. This fact was recently highlighted when fishermen from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Quebec appeared before the subcommittee on public works, where all of them without exception deplored the lack of consideration given their requests, as presented by petition through their Members of Parliament, for improved wharves, skid-ways, dredging and breakwaters.
It is utter nonsense for the government to say that it has not been alerted to the fishermen's needs, for in my own constituency the file is fat with copies of petitions forwarded to the government in support of fishermen's requests. The file from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) is equally fat; his communications state that the requests of the fishermen have been noted but no action can be taken at the present time due to shortage of funds. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what is the real reason behind the lack of action on these requests. I wonder why these people, whose requests are so small and reasonable, are denied assistance in order that they may earn a livelihood and add to the gross national product and to our economy. Why were these requests denied while at the same time this government made available millions of dollars in the form of grants, which in some cases do little for society and often are highly questionable?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) cannot boast about a $445 million surplus for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, and at the same time ask us to make any sense whatever out of the statement of the Minister of Public Works that he cannot provide funds for skidways and wharves because there is no money available. You simply cannot have it both ways. And to judge from discussions I have had with fishermen, they are not being fooled by the manner in which the government is attempting to fog the issue. Surely the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) must be aware of these
situations, and surely he could support pleas for funds made by the Minister of Public Works in cabinet, pleas which would lead to some improvement in the present disastrous and inadequate situation.
This may be one way in which the Minister of the Environment could polish his tarnished image among the fishermen. Having taken away their fishing bounty, their sick mariner's benefits, their swordfishing, salmon fishing and whaling industry, to name but a few, the minister-I can assure him-holds about as much respect among the fishermen as a faulty compass which they know will never lead them in the right direction. Perhaps if the Minister of the Environment spent more time with his colleagues devising policies for our fishermen, rather than attempting to make cheap, partisan politics out of our need for fishing limits on the high seas, as he tried to do at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, our fishermen would have more faith in this government than is now evidenced.
The minister is well aware that our party stated as a matter of policy that we, as a government, would adopt and recognize the principle that Canada and other coastal states own the fishing resources on and over their respective continental shelves and slopes, that the management of these fisheries resources is the responsibility of the coastal state, that other states may only fish such resources with the permission of the coastal state, and in implementing this policy Canada will provide adequate surveillance so that swift action can be taken when Canadian interests are threatened or violated.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our policy. That is our stand. That is our position. That is where we have stood for many years. And what did the minister try to do? He said in his speech that the Conservatives are boldly talking about a 50-mile limit. In effect, Mr. Speaker, Conservative spokesmen were asking this government to support Iceland's stand which is, in my opinion, the same in principle as our own. The only difference is that their continental shelf is approximately 50 miles wide, while ours is 200 miles in some areas and much more than this when one considers the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. The minister fooled no one in New Brunswick. He certainly did not fool any of the fishermen in Atlantic Canada. He fooled no one because there is no record of any action taken by this government to support the principles of continental shelf management as enunciated by Iceland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is the point we are trying to establish. When the minister and his parliamentary secretary say this is their position, I would like to know where in this House they have enunciated that position and placed it on the record. It is nowhere to be seen. By not showing any backbone, this minister and this government have made a mockery of their pledges to Canada's fisheries. They have made a mockery of their proposals for the upcoming Law of the Sea Conference scheduled for November in New York, and for Santiago, Chile, in 1974. They have robbed us of support for our proposals from Iceland and other countries, which support will be sorely needed if we are to obtain control of the fishing resources on our continental shelf.

June 7, 1973

Partisan politics will never be a substitute for practical policies. Instead of trying to intentionally mislead the fishermen and the fishing interests of Atlantic Canada, as the Minister of the Environment tried to do at St. Andrews, I suggest that he should try to remember we are still in opposition and that he and his colleagues, as long as they are the government, share the responsibility of proposing a policy that is acceptable to the majority of countries in attendance at the Law of the Sea Conference.
I remind the minister that the problems of the fishing industry are not only the concern of his department: they are also the concern of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp); the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand); the Minister of Public Works; the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), for surveillance; the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), for unemployment insurance; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), for marketing; the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), for plant development; and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), for pricing and quality control. These are but a few of the ministers directly involved. Each one of these ministers has a relatively important role to play in the over-all development of our fishing industry.
There is every indication that there will be more government activity in the future; this is something which will have to be worked out between the government and the industry. In my opinion the government has certain responsibilities to this industry, such as the enforcement of regulations, conservation, biological research and the negotiation of international agreements. However, the industry should be permitted to assume certain responsibilities, such as the proper way in which to utilize the resource, the type and size of the ships required to catch the fish, the location of processing plants and the marketing of the catch, as well as the right to research new markets.
There should be one common goal to this over-rail policy; that is, the achievement of an adequate return for our fishermen and processors in relation to the effort made and the capital invested. To bring this about we need to process high quality fish in a form acceptable to the market. For far too long our fishermen have been treated as second-class citizens.
The prime requirement, of course, is some assurance that the fishing resource will always be available. Therefore, in my opinion the results obtained at the upcoming Law of the Sea Conference are vitally important to Atlantic Canada. In this regard I am concerned that the Minister of the Environment may not have the wholehearted support of his cabinet colleagues for his proposal to manage the fisheries on our continental shelf. I cannot help but wonder about the stand that will be taken at this conference by Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs. From the answers given this afternoon by the Minister of the Environment, obviously he has personal views on the course to be followed but he does not have the backing of the government. In my opinion he misled his audience in St. Andrews and he is misleading Canadian fishermen today. Until his stand is backed by the entire cabinet we will not have a clue as to where the govern-
Fisheries
ment will stand when it comes before the Law of the Sea Conference.
The Minister of the Environment speaks about continental shelf management of our fishing resources as though it is something new which he has conceived. What arrogance and what nonsense! I remind him and the House that it was in 1952 that Chile, Ecuador and Peru, in their Santiago declaration, asserted full jurisdiction over the sea to 200 miles from their coasts or to such greater widths as might be necessary to protect in full the rights and well-being of their nationals as the three governments concerned might see fit. Perhaps it is only fitting that the next Law of the Sea Conference will be held in Santiago, because the Santiago declaration did more than any other action or document to launch the nations of the world on a course seeking an acceptable revision of the law of the sea.
In my opinion it is vitally important that the government of Canada, with the support of the opposition, present a united front at the next Law of the Sea Conference so that meaningful progress can be made. We must know who owns the sea bed, who has the right to exploit the minerals of he sea bed and how, where and to what depths this will be done. We must know how far out to sea the living resources of the sea belong to the coastal state. None of this will be easy. I say this, for in the preliminary consultations very few governments have shown any real concern about their sharing or about the whole world's interest in protecting the marine environment. When taking this stand they are only enforcing their present actions on our own continental shelf.
At present we know that some 2,000 fishing vessels are operating in the ICNAF area off the east coast. This increased fishing effort is, in effect, robbing us blind and is contributing to our declining fishery resources. The minister can claim that the countries belonging to ICNAF have agreed to fixed quotas-and I understand the quotas that have been established-but I believe it is our responsibility, as the coastal state, to carry out surveillance of these ships in order to monitor the quotas and also to inspect the fishing equipment to see if it is in accordance with ICNAF regulations.
It is for this reason I suggested to the Minister of the Environment, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that the minister's department take over the four surplus destroyer escorts of the Canadian armed forces. This is not a new idea. Last year, when announcing control of its waters up to 200 miles from its coast, Mexico negotiated the purchase of ten fleet mineweepers, 215-feet long, from the United States navy. These World War II ships were mothballed at San Diego. They are being used as offshore patrol vessels on both the Gulf and Pacific coasts of Mexico. This type of surveillance off Canada's east coast is long overdue. I hope the minister will take immediate steps to beef up our surveillance capability.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

June 7, 1973
Fisheries AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[ Translation]


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, 50 or even 25 years ago when marine resources were or seemed endless and when our fishing fleets were almost at the handicraft level, the motion presented today by the leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would have been of very little interest and it might not have come to the mind of hon. members to discuss such a matter, at least in the way we are discussing it today. But in recent years, with the advent and development of technology in the fishing industry as in all other industrial sectors, with the appearance of those fishing fleets and floating plants that invade our international and domestic waters, with the advent also of this technology used by our own Canadian fishing fleet, and the very great importance of the fishing industry for the Canadian economy, it has become necessary to change the criteria, since with all the development of this modern technology, we are beginning to fear desperately that our once endless resources be wiped out.
And in recent years it has become evident that the international law was less and less adapted to the new problems and needs deriving from the accelerated development of that technology. That is particularly evident as regards marine environment matters. And when we talk about environment we must not think only in terms of water pollution. The marine environment covers everything concerning the fishing industry.
About 400 years ago, Grotius wrote that most things were getting depleted through excessive use, but that such was not the case with the sea. The sea, he said, could not be depleted either through shipping or through fishing, in other words, through either of both uses that could then be made of it.
The traditional concepts of the law of the sea are unavoidably based on the hypotheses reflected in that assertion from one of the most emminent publicists of the law of the sea. Unfortunately, the nature itself of problems calling for regulations through the law of the sea has been radically changed by modern technology and the development of the law failed to keep pace with the development of technology.
Therefore, Grotius has excuses for not having foreseen the long range implications of technological progress as regards the law of the sea. In his time, since he lived towards the end of the XVIth century and in the beginning of the XVIIth, he could not ask himself for instance, whether nuclear ships and super tankers could be included in the definition of the "innocent passage", whether radioactive waste and nerve gas could be thrown into the sea under the principle of high-sea freedom, whether some protection should be a prerequisite to the drilling off our shores and whether modern fishing fleets more impressive than the Spanish Armada should be free to fish at will in the open sea.
As for us, we would have no excuse for ignoring modern technology's consequences on regulations devised in the
remote ages of sailing boats and old empires. Uses of the sea have been multiplied since Grotius' time. Today, the sea can be depleted through over-fishing, as the one that is unfortunately practised every day, and it is up to us to develop a new law to prevent such a catastrophe.
Canada has a prime interest in all aspects of the law of the sea; this is readily evident when one considers the length of our coast and our dependency on high sea transportation because of our position as an important trading nation. Everybody knows that Canada has taken part in all efforts aimed at establishing new and better adapted rules in line with the new uses of the oceans. Canada's involvement in the 1958 and 1960 conferences is well known, but on many occasions since then we have tried to find solutions to yet unsolved problems, including the limit of territorial waters, as well as the nature and extent of the rights of coastal states over fisheries resources. Even though some progress has been made on those questions at the international level, we have a long way to go before unanimity is achieved. Some states are advocating strictly regional and even domestic solutions; others want a single limit with regard to the maritime sovereignty and other forms of maritime jurisdiction, but this, of course, is a potential source of conflict.
A complete review of all the principles of the 1958 Convention is not desirable and could lead to a return to anarchy and chaos. It remains that the third Conference on the law of the sea scheduled for next fall and the summer of 1974 in Santiago, Chile, will have to study a number of problems that have never been settled satisfactorily. I am thinking more specifically of the review of the rights and duties of the states in the area of conservation and management of maritime living resources, in the light of the growing depletion of those resources as the fishing techniques became more industrial, as I already indicated at the beginning of my remarks. I find it abnormal that some nations should make heavy investments to protect their spawning rivers, as in the case of the Atlantic and Pacific salmon, and that in so doing they should sacrifice the enormous profits they would have made by develop-ping the hydro-electrical energy of those same rivers to find that this very fish which they tried to protect is being caught without any discrimination, by anyone at all, as soon as it starts migrating. Canada believes that the coastal and long distance fishing states should realize that a rationnal system of conservation, management and exploitation of fisheries is necessary in the interest of all. On the one hand, to allow fishing until the last fish is caught would be insanity while, on the other hand, the conflicts and chaos that total prohibition by a coastal state would entail should be avoided.
From Canada's point of view, first of all the international community must provide for special rights and duties of coastal states and set up at the same time new regulations for high sea fishing which will take into account both the need for an equitable distribution of profits and the importance of a rational development of resources.
Mr. Speaker, do I have to refer my colleagues to the stand taken and the suggestion made-which Canada approved-during the environment conference in Stockholm? The material that was published and released to all

June 7, 1973	COMMONS DEBATES________________________4551
members during this conference is proof of it and is available to all hon. members.
The freedom of the seas cannot mean "freedom to exhaust the resources of the sea". Mr. Speaker, I repeat that marine resources are very important, not only for a large number of Canadians but for all our country, and in particular for those I am most concerned about, for most if not all of the constituents of the riding I have the honour to represent. It is a vital industry for these people and 1 suggest that it is the responsibility of both our leaders and those who exploit these resources to do it in a rational manner.
Fisheries are not the only area, Mr. Speaker, in which we have realized, unfortunately a bit too late, that our natural resources are being unconsideredly exploited. The same thing happened to forests in the province of Quebec, for instance, where there used to be numerous and very thick forests. They were exploited unconsideredly so that we find ourselves today in an alarming situation and that is why our governments have dealt with this issue, perhaps a bit late. The national development of our resources is the only way to conserve them for future generations.
Of course, I cannot blame the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) for taking a strong stand on such a crucial problem, and I understand their feelings because they are the feelings of their constituents and the fishermen in the areas they represent.
However, this does not mean that the government has done nothing and ignores the problem. Never has a Canadian government concerned itself so much with our fisheries, and I would ask my colleagues, without meaning to reproach them what did the tory government do about ten years ago in the area of fisheries, and particularly in the field of fisheries within our territorial waters, whereas right after Mr. Pearson's government came to power, Parliament passed legislation extending our fishing zone to 12 miles.
Fishing is now prohibited to foreigners in the gulf of St. Lawrence and many other steps and initiatives were taken by the government, which proves its great concern about this particular area of fisheries.
I realize that everything has not been done and if everything was done at the same time, I wonder what would be the use of having successive parliaments. Fisheries have evolved like any other area and that is why every successive Parliament is faced with problems and must find solutions to the best of its ability in the best interests of the people.
Mr. Speaker, we must therefore take the necessary steps to protect those resources. As I said earlier, I am very concerned with fisheries and on the matter of the depletion of those resources, one cannot remain silent.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must protect those resources on which a large number of Canadians depend, including my fellow citizens from Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine, while acknowledging that other countries are interested in establishing a functional system offshore under which Canada would have priority rights, a system that will also recognize that others are entitled to a fair share of the benefits.
Fisheries


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked what our party had done in respect of fisheries when-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it would fall within the realm of proper debate for the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) to now make a second contribution to the debate.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has used up the time allotted by the Standing Order. However, if there is agreement in the House that the hon. member be allowed to ask a question, he will be recognized. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) asked what was done by the Department of Fisheries during the period the party to which I belong was in office. I should like to ask whether he is aware that during this period an immense subsidy program was put into effect under the Diefenbak-er regime, during which the coastguard was established to provide protection to Canadian fishermen. Also, is he aware that in 1958, under the Conservative government, steps were taken enabling Canada to control and manage its continental shelf? Is he not aware that these progressive steps were taken under that regime?
[ Translation]


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, he answered my question, but he is asking me whether I was aware of it. I am; I did not say that the members of the party of the right hon. member from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had remained idle, but as far as the resolution introduced by the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is concerned, it deals with fisheries limits. Well, I say to him that if something was done, we were not aware of it; everything has been done since 1963.


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, the very important motion before us for debate gives us the opportunity of speaking on this subject. The government is being urged by members of the House to implement policies that are in the best interests of this country and our fishermen. The motion deals with fishery resources on and over the continental shelf and slope, as well as adequate surveillance.
First of all, I must mention that before implementing any policy or considering anything that will improve our fishing industry it is important to consider our air and sea rescue operations, particularly in British Columbia. These operations have proven to be rather ineffective at times and have been criticized in respect of poor performance and lack of immediate action. Steps must be taken to bring about improved air-sea rescue operations. I am sure hon. members of this House are agreed that something should be done in this direction in order that Canadian fishermen can operate in an effective and safe manner while harvest-

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
ing one of the most important resources of this country. It is imperative, if we are to expand our fishing operations and if we want safety for our fishermen, that this be treated as a priority matter. Fish stocks have been declining over the years, not because of Canadian fishermen but because we have allowed our territorial waters, just as has happened with the territorial waters of Iceland, to be gradually depleted by foreign fishing fleets.
I welcome, also, the amendment to the motion before us, which I seconded, to the effect that this House assert ownership by Canada of anadromous fish spawned within our borders and the exclusive right to harvest the same. The views expressed in the House today will go a long way toward the formulation of policies that will bring longterm benefits to this country.
The question of the extent of a country's territorial boundaries has arisen many times in many parts of the world. Many countries which depend on fishing and the fishing industry as a major source of revenue and as a matter of national interest are taking action to protect this interest. We have recently witnessed the action taken by Iceland to extend its territorial waters in order to preserve its fishery resources. With the gradual depletion of these resources, Iceland now clings precariously to the edge of an economic precipice, as it finds no alternative to taking such Lilliputian action as is necessary against Great Britain in order to preserve the economic health of its country.
We have also witnessed the action taken by Uruguay, Ecuador, Peru and Chile to extend their territorial waters and fishing rights to 200 miles from shore. We witnessed an earlier declaration by Argentina to extend its fishing rights over the Patagonian shelf. This is the kind of action these countries find necessary to preserve their resources and prevent other countries from depriving them of their livelihood.
Here in Canada we are also faced with the encroachment of foreign fishing vessels within our waters, contributing to the gradual depletion of our fishery resources. It is not sufficient to have a 12-mile limit as this is merely an invitation to other countries to take advantage of our ground-fish resources which extend to the edge of the continental shelf, or of our salmon and herring which are spawned in this country and are the resources of Canada.
There is no doubt that the fishery resources in the waters adjacent to our coastlines must be conserved and developed in the interests of Canadians today and of future generations. The rapid increase in the world fishing effort and efficiency has focused attention on the fact that unless adequate safeguards are taken the marine resources which have played such a vital role in the development of the Canadian economy will be harvested by foreign fishing fleets.
Fishing resources harvested by Canadian fishermen in or out of Canadian territorial waters are also exploited by fishermen of other countries in the high seas adjacent to Canadian territorial waters. Unless positive action is taken by the Government of Canada to enforce the Canadian maritime boundaries and to extend these boundaries beyond the present 12-mile limit, there can be no planned program of fisheries management and conservation. If, however, action can be taken by this country to preserve its interests, then Canadians engaged in the pri-

mary fishing operation and in the many processing industries will be assured of a means of livelihood for many generations to come.
As a member representing a large coastal section of British Columbia it is in my interest and in the interest of fishermen in my constituency to ensure that steps are taken now to safeguard the marine resources which are adjacent to the coastlines of Canada. One of our weaknesses is that we cannot compete economically and on the same scale as the Japanese and/or the Russian fishing fleets. As a result, we must develop and implement a policy that will give us jurisdiction over our fishery resources in the waters adjacent to our coastlines, to the edge of the continental shelf and slope and if necessary to the limit of 200 miles in order that we can conserve and develop these resources.
There is no doubt that the principle of the 200-mile limit must be enforced, not only to 200 miles but also farther than that because the contintental shelf off the east coast of Canada extends in some cases 300 or 400 miles. We must develop a policy by which we can direct our attention toward better conservation to sustain yield operations, toward enforcement of anti-pollution laws and toward measures that will ensure that our fishery resource will continue to be a healthy sector of the Canadian economy.
In conclusion, I insist that this country must enforce its authority in defending the rights of Canadian fishermen to fish unmolested in their own waters. It must also be prepared to enforce its authority up to the edge of the continental shelf and slope, and even up to the limit of 200 miles which is the limit we may have to impose in order to preserve our fishery resources.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute a few minutes to this debate on the welcome motion by the leader of our party. He made clear the policy we stated at the Atlantic conference in September of last year and specifically one of the many recommendations to the effect that we would extend Canada's managerial control to the extremeties of the continental shelf for conservation and management of our marine resources.
It was pleasing, also, to note that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) welcomed the position of our leader. I congratulate him on following the lead of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who also has the habit of stealing some of our policies. Now all the minister has to do is to get together with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and pound some sense into his head so that the government can move forward to make its clear case at the Law of the Sea Conference.
Since many former speakers have been taking credit for what they did and said over the years even before we Newfoundland members arrived in Ottawa, I am glad to see that the minister is finally coming around to listening to the many pleas we have made to him in the last five years on conservation of our resources and on the provision of meaningful surveillance. It took us five years, Mr. Speaker, and after a few battles I think he is beginning to see the light.
June 7, 1973

However, the leader of our party said, and rightly, that because the Law of the Sea Conference was finally taking place we should not get too confident that the minister will have his policies or objectives accepted immediately. It took a couple of years even to get agreement on an agenda from the other nations. But I am sure everyone in the House who is interested will wish him well. I mention this because our fishing industry is deteriorating even though the minister has such high hopes, which is indicated by the reams of releases which come out of his office. I must say that of all the paper coming out of government offices giving members glad tidings of great things to come, his office must hold the record. I mention this also because we have a problem on our hands right now which must be corrected immediately.
If I might refer to my own province, Mr. Speaker, our patrol capability leaves much to be desired. The foreign draggers must have a great time teasing the Cape Friels, for example, which could not catch a dory at low speed. Even the tracker squadron surveillance operation of the Department of National Defence is meaningless because they fly at predetermined hours and are not available at the time when foreign draggers are fishing within our boundaries. The minister and his department, for some reason or other, in respect of the reports coming in from the district officials take the word of these officials rather than the word of the fishermen.
I had a phone call from a fisherman last year who, while he was talking to me, was watching a foreign dragger tie up at a CNR dock and dump its offal when reports were coming in that all draggers were outside the limits. The department made a token arrest, however, of a Canadian dragger. I wonder what political implications were inherent in this instance. While we are waiting for the extension of our continental shelf, what are the 17,000 fishermen in Newfoundland to do?
This year the ice blockage along much of our coastline delayed the execution of the fisheries for many hundreds of fishermen. When I bring the matter to the attention of the minister he tells me this is not so because his officials have told him it is not so. And while he does not believe the representations of members, and in turn the fishermen, for some reason or other the government has not been able to come up with an unemployment or catch insurance plan to satisfy the industry, under the guise that fishermen are self-employed. I wonder what we are waiting for. Do we wait until the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is here, comes up with his master plan which will take from three to five years to complete?
The minister also mentioned earlier the direction of his department's effort, and particularly that he is putting another $46 million into a vessel-building program. Fine and dandy, I say, But we have a good vessel-building program now whereby Newfoundland fishermen can get, through federal and provincial programs, 90 per cent of the cost of a longliner; but on the other hand, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) does not have enough money in his budget to provide the necessary wharfage facilities for these longliners. This emphasizes the lack of, and need for a comprehensive Canadian fisheries policy, which is now a patchwork system of various departments, both
Fisheries
federal and provincial, going off in different directions and wasting millions of dollars.
The fishermen of Newfoundland are a completely frustrated lot of citizens, wondering what kind of legislators we are in Ottawa. Newfoundland joined confederation in 1949 because of the great benefits of our nation. True, there have been many benefits and I am glad this has come about, as are most Newfoundland citizens. But the Fathers who made the deal up here in Ottawa did not realize that the federal government would brush aside our little fishing industry as a little speck in their national goals. They did not realize, and evidently did not convey the idea that fishing was our basic resource and that it dictated our unique way of life. Those who governed after 1949 caught the industrialization disease, a disease which even today we cannot get rid of in our greed and our search for oil and other minerals. Unfortunately, we in our proud province still do not realize the environmental value and peacefulness of our lifestyle, a quality of life that is fast disappearing in our greed for wealth regardless of the cost.
The fishing industry in Newfoundland is our basic resource and we must protect this industry at all costs. We must protect the small fishing communities and the fishermen citizens who are as good Canadians as those whom we push to the big cities, citizens who because of fisheries policies have tried to relocate to growth centres to their detriment and disturbance. The fishery in Newfoundland is analogous to that of Iceland because we are fighting for survival. Iceland, as an independent nation, is dependent for 80 per cent of its economy on the fisheries. Can anyone blame it for the action it took to reinforce its survival?
The Minister of the Environment keeps repeating that we do not, and should not have to resort to gunboat diplomacy to protect our livelihood. I ask him: What do we do. Do we wait for the countless studies and programs he has announced? Do we wait for support facilities, the responsibility for which will be handed over by the Department of Public Works to the Department of Fisheries? Do we wait for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to sign the transfer of responsibilities so that the minister can get on with the job of providing small craft harbours to our fishermen? Do we wait for the minister to believe the members of the opposition from Newfoundland who are on his side but he does not know it? Do we wait for him and his government to show some backbone and tell the foreign nations that we were not aware of the value of the fishery resources and did not provide the factory ships and the trawlers necessary to compete for this lucrative resource?
Is it any wonder that the fishermen of Newfoundland have lost their hope of regaining their livelihood in the fishing industry? Is it any wonder that my colleague the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) had to make an issue of the political speech the minister made in New Brunswick a short time ago? Is it any wonder that I as a Member of Parliament, in my frustration when foreign draggers were raping the shores of my district two years ago, reluctantly threatened to take up arms together with my fishermen to keep these foreign draggers from ravaging our shores and denying our citizens their rights?

Fisheries
No one in Canada wants to resort to gunboat diplomacy. The minister is either being partisan or is still not aware of what poverty is. He is not aware of what frustration is and what the consequences might be of denying Canadians their rights: if he had been, he would not have made the statements he did.
Since time does not permit me to go on much longer, let me conclude by saying to the minister that all he has to do is trust Canadians regardless of their political leanings. Let him bring his case to the Law of the Sea Conference with our support. Let him bring Bill C-4 before the House of Commons so as to provide the support facilities necessary for the fishermen of the Atlantic region. Let him bring in his new programs for the provision of vessels to allow Canadian fishermen to take advantage of our resources. He should get on with the job of supplying the new patrol vessel which he announced. But let him remember the pledge of this government to guarantee equality of opportunity to all Canadians wherever they may live, which should include the fishermen of the Atlantic region and will benefit all Canadians.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, since I have decided to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), you will permit me to say that the government took action quite a long time before the idea of protecting the fisheries resources on our continental shelves and slopes ever crossed the mind of the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
The opposition days in the House, designated to deal with ways and means resolutions, do not offer the Canadian people anything new. We have already studied in its minute details the subject presently before the House in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, as well as in that on Fisheries and Forestries. Because what we heard today had already been said on many occasions by ministers and department officials, I say this is stale news.
The opposition is really limited in the choice of measures it wishes to suggest to the government. How lucky the Canadian people are, Mr. Speaker, to have had, since 1963, a government which is so concerned with their welfare and which presents legislative measures, not only for this generation but also for future ones. I would like to quote only the legislation passed by this Parliament on our territorial limit of 12 miles, and I remind this House that we have shown the way to a number of other countries by passing a legislation to protect our environment as far as 100 miles off our coasts, north of the 60,h parallel.
With regard to the limits beyond territorial waters, several proposals have been made by various countries during the international conferences that have taken place, in order that the state may exercise its jurisdiction over the off-shore resources as far as 200 miles.
In addition to the jurisdiction over the off-shore resources, some states also want to broaden their jurisdiction over fisheries, and others would be prepared to take into account fishing done on the high seas for generations. There are some treaties to be considered and Canada, through its Secretary of State for External Affairs and its

Department of Fisheries has signed protocols with several countries concerning provisions to control fisheries within the 12-mile territorial limits. The negotiations were not easy, and we are grateful to those two ministers for the achievements. There is another type of jurisdiction with which we are concerned and that is pollution control. The Canadian government has already indicated that it advocates very strict regulations. On the other hand-that is well-known-our neighbours to the south, the United States, hardly accept the policy of the Canadian government in the area of pollution control on our coasts.
The Canadian position is known to everybody, since it has been outlined a number of times at the UNFAO, to the effect that we want to be the owners of the fishing resources on our continental shelves and slopes. We even went further in defining a continental shelf, since we have always maintained the position that the Canadian continental shelf extends to the continental limit, that is the shelf itself plus the slope or part of it.
In fishing matters, the government has defined two kinds of jurisdiction: that which the coastal state can exercise on fishing resources, as there is no longer a question of sticking to the previous system of non-interference, according to which anyone can fish at will. The coastal state must preserve the right to manage resources, including the right to set quotas. The government proposals still go further; it is asking that the coastal state be the sole beneficiary of certain marine species.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has already pointed out that some anadromous species such as the Atlantic salmon should not be fished in open sea, lest it become depleted. We are endeavouring on the Atlantic coast to preserve the salmon-especially the Gaspe salmon-and the countries practising that fishing should be more conscious of the conditions. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to prod the northern countries into preserving that species and we know that the Minister of Environment has performed significant work to that effect.
The motion of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) reads as follows and I quote:
. . . the management of these fisheries resources are the responsibility of the coastal state, that other states may only fish such resources with the permission of the coastal state;
As for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we are facing a very special problem: the presence of the Islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, which belong to France.
During an external affairs and national defence committee debate, Mr. Alan Beesley, legal adviser and general manager of the Bureau of legal services, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), concerning the islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, had this to say about the negotiations, and I quote:
They are in abeyance at the moment... Our problem is that we have had a series of negotiations and over the course of years, literally, that these negotiations have taken, the position has developed to the point where we could be on the verge of an agreement. The problem is, in simple terms, that the French government originally took the position that St. Pierre and Miquelon were entitled to a shelf such as any other piece of land and therefore the equidistance principle must apply in determining the boundary line between their continental shelf and ours.

We took the position that the convention on the continental shelf to which both countries are party clearly envisages special circumstances, refers to the problem as special circumstances in which the equidistance principle would not be deemed to apply, and they said this is a classic case for the application of the special circumstances rule. So that meant we then had to get into negotiations to bring the two positions together.
The tentative outline of an agreement which has been worked out and which both governments must consider is rather complex because it is not based on a simple territorial acquisition. It is based on an attempt to determine what the real needs of the respective parties are, what the real interests are and where the point of accommodation lies. In other words, it is not simply a case of drawing a line on a map and saying there is the edge of the continental shelf.
It is conceivable, for example, that France might accept a lesser continental shelf if it could obtain certain types of benefits which we would normally not be willing to grant. So this is about all I really can say at the moment because the negotiations are confidential.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the government ensures an appropriate control so that swift steps may be taken to safeguard the interests of Canadians, especially those of fishermen on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts.
The association which exists in France concerning the islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is an excellent example of the complexity of negotiations at the international level. Hon. members of the opposition blame the government for not taking immediate action concerning the fishing rights on the continental shelf of Canada.
What a calamity for Canada if diplomatic negotiations were the responsibility of the hon. leader of the opposition. How would he succeed in having Canada's positions accepted at the international conferences since he cannot even sell his own ideas on national policy to members of his own caucus.
With regard to negotiations on the international level, it is not an easy task and the government must take the lead in the conservation of our territorial waters and fisheries resources on and over the continental shelves and slopes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The speech is not worth applause. That is bigotry over there.


Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this evening to support the motion of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). When one thinks of the power at the negotiating table mentioned by my hon. friends across the way, one wonders what power the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) may have when he arrives at an international conference without even the blessing of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) for the proposal that he plans to present. Not only can he not get the consent of all his confreres to put forward this proposal, but he cannot get the consent of the minister who is particularly charged with that responsibility.
At this stage of a debate, Mr. Speaker, pretty well all that can be said has been said. I might take a moment, however, to review what I consider to be that situation as
Fisheries
far as the Canadian fishery is concerned, or at least to speak of that with which I am familiar, the Atlantic fishery. The fishermen on the Atlantic coast are filled with uncertainty. We have seiners encroaching upon the territory of the weirs, big vessels encroaching upon the territory of little ones, foreigners encroaching upon the territory of Canadian vessels, lobstermen facing the depletion of lobster grounds by the encroachment of foreign vessels, lobstermen faced with broken promises by this government with regard to research which was to take place on the effect of fishing of offshore lobsters on inshore grounds. We have the effective loss of the whaling industry, the swordfishing industry, the salmon industry and the sealing industry. There is a good deal of uncertainty in the industry about the future of scallops and herring because of recent measures taken by the department.
New standards for fishing vessels have been brought in without any meaningful consultation with the men who operate them. The regulations involve not only those aspects of vessel construction and management which concern the quality of fishing but also changes which recently came into effect in regard to steamship regulations and the measurement of vessels. The regulations now require extremely small vessels to undergo the same type of rigorous inspection as steamships. Last, but not least, is the uncertainty of our fishermen about whether they are going to have a harbour big enough to hold their vessels once they acquire the new vessels that will be needed to comply with the requirements.
As we have learned in committee, in Atlantic Canada wharves are in a deplorable state of disrepair and require many millions of dollars to bring them up to standard. The future of the small fish plant operators in my riding is very uncertain. There are inconsistent inspection procedures, and apparently ad hoc standards. A fish plant and the product may pass inspection one day but not the next. There is an absence of meaningful help or guidance from the Department of the Environment as far as fisheries are concerned, and there is apparent callousness on the part of those charged with this responsibility toward small fish plant owners.
The vocabulary of this administration includes such words as "regulation", "protection", "inspection", "service" and "rationalization". Very seldom do we hear officials of the Department of the Environment or the minister speak of the promotion of the fisheries, encouragement of the fisheries, assistance to the fisheries or diversification of fish plants and fishing operations. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, can go some distance toward securing dependability of supply for our fishermen and fish plants. Within this context, however, there must be harbour facilities for big vessels, small vessels and intermediate vessels. Also, we must provide assistance to fish plants: there clearly is a need for large, small and intermediate operators.
Mr. Speaker, I heartily endorse the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). The amendment falls into line very well with the context and import of the motion of the leader of our party. I was encouraged, too, by the minister's statement about the changing attitude of various countries toward the imposi-

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
tion of control of our continental shelf to a 200-mile limit. I was concerned, however, by the answer he gave this afternoon to questions which indicated that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not been won over to that view.
The ICNAF agreement on quotas represents a forward step in protecting and controlling our fishery resources off our coasts. Whether the Canadian fishermen will benefit in fact has yet to be decided. So far the result has been that fewer herring and haddock have been landed than would have been landed if the ICNAF agreement had not been reached. Contrary to the minister's statement this afternoon, not enough herring were provided for in the quota to keep our fishing fleet or our fish plants operating. In the Bay of Fundy there is a seiner fleet potentially able to catch some 200,000 tons of herring on our traditional grounds but now, under the ICNAF agreement, they are limited to 5,000 tons which is barely enough to supply one vessel with an adequate annual catch. Also, the over-all catch, as several hon. members have mentioned, has been declining annually. Our fishermen believe that this is the result of the rape of our resources by the vessels of foreign fleets operating off our coasts.
Despite the minister's assurances to the contrary, we have no way of knowing how much fish is actually being caught by many of these foreign vessels. There are 2,000 such vessels operating off our coasts. Until there are practical controls or controls which are negotiated with respect to the size of catches, the means of catching or the technique of catching the ICNAF agreement will be suspect so far as our fishermen are concerned.
What of the 200-mile limit? Here I am talking of Canada's surveillance capability. There is little use proposing a 200-mile limit or a continental shelf limit unless Canada has the capability to patrol this area at sea to make sure that our sovereignty is not abused. At the moment, on the east coast we have one vessel capable of providing surveillance and enforcement. We have heard proposals respecting another vessel which will come into being some years hence. I am astounded at the press release issued by the minister on May 11 which said in so many words that Canada has increased its aerial surveillance to the point where we will now have one flight per week of a tracker aircraft.


James Aloysius McGrath: Big deal!


Charles E. Haliburton: That is right; it is a big deal. They will fly 1,400 hours per year, or roughly three hours per day if you average it out.


James Aloysius McGrath: Or one day per week.


Charles E. Haliburton: That is a very token effort and it is certainly not one designed to provide an adequate means of obtaining knowledge of the location and size of catch of foreign vessels which regularly fish off our coasts. I suppose, if you work it out, that the tracker aircraft by the time it flies from one ship to another will spend about ten minutes in surveillance of each foreign vessel off our coasts.


John Howard Lundrigan: That is a misleading statement. It is about 60 seconds.


Charles E. Haliburton: True, it is about 60 seconds. Tied in with that we must consider our rescue capability. To me, a maritime Canadian who has confidence in the ability of our seamen, who is proud of our maritime heritage and knows the capability of our seamen to cope in the worst weather conditions as well as in the best weather, it is particular galling to find that almost always when one of our vessels gets into trouble, or one of our fishermen needs to be rescued, the rescuer is either one of our own fishing vessels or the United States Coastguard.
The situation will be totally ridiculous if one considers it in the light of a 200-mile territorial sea limit. Certainly, if we are to have a 200-mile territorial sea we must have the ability to do the necessary lifesaving and patrolling that will be needed. A worth-while suggestion in this regard was made by one of my colleagues last week. He suggested that serious consideration should be given to taking over the four destroyer escorts which have been mothballed in Halifax. These destroyers are admirably suited to this task. They are fast and seaworthy and can carry a helicopter, which could be of vital use in the event of a disaster at sea not only in rescuing people but in flying them back to the coast where they can receive medical attention.
Much has been said about the 12-mile limit and the fact that the Liberal government of the 1960s was responsible for declaring it. Taken as a bald fact, that may be so. However, such statements ignore that the concept was advanced by the Conservative government at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1958, and that the idea very nearly won international acceptance. That was the ground-breaking episode with regard to that matter. The Liberal government of the sixties was merely following suit, merely following the line that had already been established by the former Conservative government.
What has been the effect of that unilateral declaration of the 12-mile limit? In many instances the declaration has not had any effect because every nation wants to protect its own interests. But is has affected our lobstermen who are unable to fish on their traditional grounds while American boats fish there, because presumably those American boats have some traditional right to fish in Canadian waters. I do not know whether a solution could be found, but if one is not found shortly there will be another shooting war because the Nova Scotia lobster fishermen, faced with declining catches and knowing the effect of the offshore lobster catches, are in no mood to sit idly by. They do not appreciate trying to catch haddock, halibut or hake while American fishermen are inside our 12-mile limit catching lobster which they may not be able to take.
I want to say in closing that I am proud of my country and proud of its maritime heritage. We cannot, as Canadians, stand by and see our maritime resources depleted by others who come to our shores. We can share. We have enough resources that we can share with other countries, under proper management, a portion of them. But we, the members of this House, must protect our citizens as well as the various species of fish. Whales, scallops and lobsters may need protection; but so our fishermen. Independent

June 7, 1973

fishermen and independent fish plant owners are in danger of extinction as well. I believe that is something this House and this government ought to be concerned about. We must declare our title to the continental shelf and/or the 200-mile limit. We must agree to persuade others to recognize our ownership and right of control. We must have the capability, as well, to control that area. The resources of the sea are ours, but we must act soon to ensure our continued right to lay claim to them.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish tp join with others in welcoming this positive motion put forward by the official opposition as it clearly puts the official opposition on record as supporting the position which this government has taken, at least since the present minister made his hard-hitting speech in Boston in the autumn of 1968, when he claimed Canada's right to manage the marine resources on or over our continental shelves and slopes.
This is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that individual members of the opposition such as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) have not been ahead of their party in supporting the control of Canada's marine resources on and over the continental shelf. I think it is accurate to point out that before today neither the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) nor the fisheries critic of the official opposition have addressed themselves to this particular question. They did so today, and all members welcome this.
The hon. member who preceded me raised a very important point, the need for better surveillance facilities. Last May a delegation from parliament attended a NATO meeting in Brussels. They followed up a resolution which had been adopted by the NATO assembly the previous autumn. This resolution, which was sponsored by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and myself, put forward the difficulties which most nations of the North Atlantic face on the question of surveillance. We asked the NATO council to examine areas of potential collaboration among members of the North Atlantic community in using the full range of surveillance facilities, including satellites, to monitor fish migration and pollution dangers.
As a result of this resolution I was named as a special raporteur to report back to the assembly on this question. In preparing my report to the assembly I called upon the expertise which is available within our government. A very excellent report was prepared on the subject of surveillance facilities, describing the latest developments, by Dr. L. W. Morley, director of the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I presented this report on remote sensing to the NATO assembly meeting on May 19, 1973.
I do not know precisely the formula which should be followed, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that this report which was prepared by an outstanding Canadian civil servant is worthy of being attached to today's Hansard. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to do this. I feel the report would be of sufficient general interest to justify this being done. I have not had your attention for the past
Fisheries
two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if Your Honour could address yourself to the question I asked, whether this very excellent report which has been prepared by an outstanding civil servant can be added to today's Hansard. It sets forth in a way which has not been done before the latest developments in satellite surveillance. Is this possible, Mr. Speaker? I ask for Your Honour's guidance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The Chair will first have to determine whether there is any objection. I will certainly need the-
[ Translation]
-unanimous consent of the House to table such a document.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member can only do this with the consent of the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules the hon. member is not competent to table anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There is not unanimous consent; therefore I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: Only a minister can do that.


Ian Watson: Am I to understand I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker? While welcoming the motion on the subject of fisheries resources on and above our continental shelves and slopes, I wish this could have been a more general motion dealing with all resources on, under and over our continental shelves because this is an area where the position of the official opposition is cloudy, to say the least.
The position of the federal government on the question of resources, hydrocarbon and mineral resources on and under our continental shelves was to propose a formula whereby there would be a 50 per cent revenue-sharing arrangement with the provinces off whose coasts these resources exist. My own position on this is perhaps at odds even with that of the government. It has long been my contention that the resources of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and our offshore resources, whether they are offshore in the Arctic, the Pacific or the Atlantic, are the patrimony of the Canadian people as a whole. I have not hesitated to express my opinion in this regard in the Yukon and I would not hesitate to express this opinion on the west coast or the east coast. That is my own view.
The government has gone further tnan my own feelings on the subject. It is prepared to share the revenues of offshore resources on a 50-50 basis. Presumably these are offshore resources within the 12-mile limit. I am not sure whether it includes the resources extending from the 12-mile limit to the limits of the continental shelf and slope. Presumably it does. In any event, the government has taken a clear position. The opposition has not taken any clear position on the question of these resources.

June 7, 1973
Fisheries


John Howard Lundrigan: You've got rocks in your bloody head. I will tell you what it is in a minute. You've got rocks in your skull.


Ian Watson: I would like to know the position of the opposition on the subject of resources under the continental shelves. If that position is clear, I would certainly like to hear about it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Then sit down.


Ian Watson: I would like to know that position. The Canadian people have a right to know whether any party in this House is about to sell out the Canadian patrimony which I feel exists in these resources. As far as I am concerned, these resources, whether in the north or off our coasts, are the heritage of the Canadian people from coast to coast, regardless of the province in which they live. That position has not been clearly stated in this House by anyone. I hope the various political parties will begin to at least take some clear position in this regard.
It was the official policy of the Conservative party in the last election to make the Yukon a province within five years of taking office. This was in Conservative campaign material. I feel strongly that for the Yukon, which has a population of 20,000, to turn over the immense resources of that territory-everyone familiar with the Yukon realizes that the economy is controlled by perhaps 15 to 30 individuals-would be tantamount to creating a Canadian Kuwait in our north.
We ought to consider seriously in relation to our northern resources a system different from that which was adopted when the provinces were first created. The situation has changed dramatically. We now realize that resources are limited. They are a much more important element in our economy; they have a greater potential for the country's future well-being than any other factor. Surely all parties in the House should be giving this subject much more reasoned attention than has been the case up to now.
There is one way in which we could do something about these resources. Unfortunately it is a matter which has been neglected by this government. I refer to the apparent helplessness of the Canada Development Corporation to act in areas where attention is badly needed now. If we had a resource development corporation which could invest heavily in oil and mineral resource development and exploration in the Northwest Territories, in the Yukon and offshore the whole question whether Canadian or provincial jurisdiction applies would become less important. We would see, in effect, a strong resource development corporation controlling a key portion of these resources in the name and on behalf of the people of Canada.
This would be a solution, but apparently the government is not yet ready to create a development corporation which could do these things. The corporation which presently exists is designed to assist manufacturing industries in southern Canada. It is designed to provide a safe return to shareholders and to pay out dividends. It cannot contemplate the kind of risk which a natural resource devel-

opment corporation would have to undertake if it were to explore, develop and bring mines and oilfields into production in the north or offshore. For this I have no one to criticize but my own side of the House.
In my view we must move toward control, if not by agreement with the provinces then at least through a resource development corporation to ensure an interest for the Canadian people as a whole in the offshore mineral and oil resources as well as of our mineral and oil resources in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. There is no constitutional conflict involved here. This is a field in which we can act without treading on anyone's toes.
I would point out to the official opposition that their motion today talked solely about fisheries. It should be talking about marine and undersea resources in general. I should like to hear an official declaration of policy from the opposition, not five years from now as they have done on this issue-it is five years since the minister made known his clearcut position on the fisheries-but within the next few months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time alloted to him has expired.
[English\


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the first think I want to say is that I did not intend to speak today for the very simple reason that there is little I can add to what my colleagues have already said. For the last five years, if you count all the 2,000 interventions I have made in the House, many of which might be classified as irrelevant to the major interest of Canada, you would find that the majority of them involved fisheries. The reason for this is, I suppose, that there are few subjects on which I have any background or what might be called gut conviction.
On this subject, however, I have been persuaded to become involved, and if I were to look back over the last five years-it is only a matter of a few weeks from now when I will celebrate my fifth anniversary as a member of parliament-I would have to admit that today has been the most memorable I have spent in the House of Commons. There are two reasons why I say this. First, my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) tells me that he cannot remember another occasion in the House when we have debated an opposition motion specifically applied to fisheries. Second, I can think of no other occasion when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or anybody else in a position of such importance and distinction has stood in his place and led off a debate. To my way of thinking, this has shown that I have achieved in my five years something that I did not expect to see-that fisheries has been placed in a very high position of priority in this House of Commons in contemporary parliamentary history.
I was very pleased to see the leader of our party stand up in the House and present a firm and definite position with no equivocation on the issue of our fisheries on both coasts of Canada. I am very pleased that the debate has taken place. The hon. member from South Western Nova (Mr. Haliburton) and the hon. member for South Shore
June 7, 1973

(Mr. Crouse), particularly the hon. member for South Shore because of his long tenure in the House of Commons, made notable contributions. The hon. member for South Shore made one of the most spirited, aggressive and straightforward statements I have heard for a very long time on the subject of fisheries. As a matter of fact, I would be satisfied if I were to do nothing but second his observations. I have to say that the minister will go down in parliamentary history as one of the great stickhan-dlers-the Max Bentley of the House of Commons.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He lost the puck toward the end.


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, he did lose the puck toward the end; that was because he was speaking without conviction. I must say I do not expect the national press to pick up the debate. I should be quite frank about this; I might as well get it off my chest. Our national press are so ill-informed about the fisheries issue in Canada that one could say just about anything in the House of Commons and it would be accepted.
With the greatest respect to our national press, very few people, especially those in central Canada today, are able to understand the complexities of the issue. Consequently, people like the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) can present any kind of argument and if they are smooth enough and subtle enough they can convince the country that they are sincere and honest. It takes somebody who has a maritime background to be able to recognize that what the minister said today represented a serious withdrawal; the minister was retreating from Moscow. I will return to this in a few moments.
I shall have to excuse the presentation made by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) on the basis that he did not know what he was talking about. I do not expect him to do so. I cannot speak on the serious problems in the Montreal area because I do not have the necessary background. He got involved in the issue of our resources, both inshore and on the continental shelf, and the subject of decisions in international law back in 1958 and later.
These are Canadian resources. They belong to Canada. The difference is that the hon. member has stated in less sophisticated fashion, in less calculating fashion, the position of his government. Therefore we now know that if the present government has a long tenure of office in this country we in Atlantic Canada have had it so far as concerns using our continental shelf resources to our advantage. We will be imprisoned in a form of economic slavery if the philosophy he expounded today is ever accepted as long-term economic policy. I am very disturbed about this.
As a matter of fact, with respect to what he put on the record today I suggest that every member from Atlantic Canada should see it is repeated and sent to all our constituents to allow them to understand the condescending, narrow-minded approach that he and his government have toward our continental resources. As I say, if that policy is accepted we in Atlantic Canada are doomed to a form of economic slavery for the next and succeeding generations. Our party is unequivocal in the position, in the stand we have taken toward using the continental
Fisheries
shelf resources. That stand has been stated publicly. I challenge the hon. member to repeat it. It is a very aggressive policy that will give Atlantic Canadians and other Canadians who have continental resources the best chance to use them.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


John Howard Lundrigan: Don't ask me what it is. It is on the record. It is clear. It is unequivocal. It is stated formally. It is stated in no equivocal terms in our policy decisions. But I excuse the hon. gentleman for not knowing. The Minister of the Environment certainly knows the attitude which we have expressed, the stand which our party has taken with respect to continental marine resources, but he says that this has never been firmly established in international law.
I point out to the minister that our party's stand goes back a number of years. In December, 1971, approximately two years ago, one of the few resolutions to be unanimously accepted by our party at a meeting of 1,500 delegates from every constituency in Canada upheld the rights of the Canadian nation to the marine resources of the continental shelf, slopes and other areas in proximity to the continental shelf. As a national party we have been very progressive in our position, and had we had the responsibility we would have implemented that policy. The minister expressed a personal position in New Brunswick a few weeks ago.


John (Jack) Davis: And in Boston in 1968.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister talks about 1968. I agree with him on that; he did express a personal position in 1968 too. But unfortunately the minister does not have the confidence of his government; he does not have the backing of his government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He pretends to be expressing the government's view.


John Howard Lundrigan: In his speech a few days ago he said that we would go flat out for the adoption, at the international Law of the Sea Conference, of the 200-mile limit, and where the continental shelf extended beyond 200 miles to include the extremities of the continental shelf. He did not say, "I will go all out" or "my department"; he said, "We will go all out." Then when we brought him back to parliament where he had to be honest, straightforward and show a bit of political integrity we found that the government does not support him.
I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a week last Monday, after his speech in New Brunswick, we moved a resolution in this chamber that was properly drafted. We presented it to the House of Commons for acceptance and it was rejected. Right now I can say without fear of contradiction and with all due respect for the Minister of the Environment that the reason it was rejected was because thumbs were turned down by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I have proof of what I am saying.


John (Jack) Davis: You did not mention 200 miles.

June 7, 1973
Fisheries


John Howard Lundrigan: We did not mention 200 miles. We mentioned the continental shelf and the continental slopes, which are in the same context. Two hundred miles happens to be the sexy, "in" language in international affairs today, but we mentioned the continental shelf and the continental slope even though we haven't the scientists to back up the position we have taken, scientists that are available to the government.
We moved a second resolution to have the House of Commons express support for the Canadian delegation to the ICNAF conference that began in Copenhagen on Sunday. The Leader of the Opposition is expressing pessimism about imposing quotas, but he did not express any regret that we continue to support ICNAF save with the qualification that Canada may have to determine its own jurisdiction and take its own initiative.
The Minister of the Environment was quite willing to accept our resolution. I can tell Your Honour now that I had discussions with several members of the Canadian delegation, which is led by the former deputy minister of fisheries, who told me they would feel better at ICNAF if they had the expressed support of the House of Commons, the highest court in the land, behind them. But that resolution was rejected. I rose the next day in the House and asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would be prepared to bring a resolution before the House expressing support for Canada's position at the ICNAF conference, and that request was rejected. If we can achieve the position-and it is an important principle- that Canada is able to catch whatever fish it can under our quota, it is a step in the right direction. We are not pessimistic there. However, we are pessimistic about enforcing some of the quotas established, with the kind of surveillance which Canada up until now has shown on the east coast.
It is very restrictive for a member to have only 15 minutes in which to present a position on this issue. The minister had 40 minutes in which to speak, and I have only 15 minutes to present my argument. I cannot do it in that time but I do want to leave one more impression with the House. It is that what happens in ICNAF, at the Law of the Sea Conference or in the provision of marine facilities is in one way or another irrelevant to the main issue in this debate. The main issue at stake in this debate and the reason why this resolution is before the House is to challenge the attitude of the federal government toward the fisheries of the nation. This is the most important problem we have. It has nothing to do with the continental shelf or 200 miles. The main issue is the attitude that is developing in this part of Canada toward our marine resources. This is something we would like to change.
Coming in the aftermath of the proceedings on yesterday's resolution when there was a lot of debate about national unity, I would like to make this one last plea, Mr. Speaker. If I could be a bit small, a bit parochial in my comments I would like to mention something originally put forward by my colleague from the west coast of Newfoundland. We are a province, as my colleague mentioned, of 500,000 people. Iceland is a country, a nation of 220,000 people.
When we became part of Canada 24 years ago we gave up our right of self-determination in the fishing industry

because we wanted to become part of Canada and to enjoy the thousands of benefits that flow from being part of such a beautiful country. As I say, we gave up that right in the expectation that Canada would take up the cudgels and protect our rights as part of the Canadian nation.
Now, in Canadian terms fisheries are relatively unimportant. We can accept the statement of my colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Carter) that the fisheries represent only 2 per cent of the gross national product, or the statement by an economist who said the fisheries were the seventh largest industrial endeavour in the hierarchy of the Canadian industrial structure. But the fact remains that in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island the fisheries represent the most important economic endeavour in our nation. Consequently, it is vital that Canada stand up for our people, that it take an aggressive position, that it show some leadership.
However, we are very afraid that this matter has been pulled down to a political issue within the last few years. We in the Atlantic area are relatively unimportant politically. It will not make very much difference to the national scene whether the Liberal party wins two seats, three seats or five seats in our region in the next election. Consequently, to the party in power today, and possibly to any future government, we may seem to be a very unimportant piece of political real estate. This is what has had a greater impact than any other force on what has happened to our fisheries.
We ask the Canadian government to amend its attitude by even a few degrees on the compass and look at this issue, not as just a cheap, little political move, not in terms of economic importance to Canada but in terms of the livelihood and well-being of the people on the east coast. We want a change in the attitude of the Canadian public and a change in the attitude of this government in terms of the fishing industry on the east and west coasts of Canada. This is our plea. We are not asking for separatism, we are not talking about breaking our ties with Canada- but unless we can get the Canadian nation to change its course substantially and recognize that because we have lost our self-determination to make our own decisions in respect of trade, commerce and all the other aspects of international relationships and agreements, then we have to be a little bit unhappy to be associated with a government that will not stand and be recognized as protecting our rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to direct a question to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


John Howard Lundrigan: I would be delighted to answer the hon. member's question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In view of the fact that the hon. member's time has expired, I do not feel that a question would be in order.
June 7, 1973


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, like others I feel it is very difficult to put forward all my ideas in respect of this matter in 15 minutes. For that reason I will try to shorten my remarks and the expression of my thoughts on this motion and the amendment. Let me say that I am extremely proud and honoured to belong to a political party which has had a consistent view about this question for as long as I have been a member. The party which preceded the NDP, namely the CCF, was persistent and constant in its concern about fisheries and the 12-mile international limit. It was consistent in its concern about the international question concerning the continental shelf.
We appreciate the opportunity of speaking on this motion put forward by the Conservative Party. We regret that the motion is deficient in that it does not refer to the salmon fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, although we are happy to note that this has been corrected by the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). There is not another ana-dromous fish involved in this, but that is not at the moment a matter of commercial fishing importance. Anyone who has dealt with this subject matter over the years knows it has been an uphill fight. We also know that the motion put forward by the Conservative party is another move in that fight. I must state that the most difficult time we have had in respect of this whole matter was when the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) was minister of fisheries. We met during those years absolute obstinacy coupled with indifference and lack of concern.
I think we should pay our respects to a very tiny nation in this world for its approach to the matter of preserving its fisheries. We should express our appreciation for the tenacity and the foresight of Iceland in this regard. Coastal nations of the world owe a debt to Iceland which they will never be able to repay because it is an emotional debt and a debt with future consequences. It was Iceland that set the precedent for coastal nations in respect of a 12-mile limit. It declared unilaterally a 12-mile limit, and it had to contend with Great Britain in this respect. There was not another nation in the councils of the world that support that position. For all the brave words of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in recent days and weeks, it is a matter of national regret, on my part at least, that Canada has not declared openly and publicly support for the position of Iceland in its desire to preserve the fisheries of that coastal nation.
Iceland is now talking about a 50-mile limit because that circumscribes an area around Iceland and is an easy way to measure the continental shelf and slope. That 50-mile circumscription pretty well coincides with the continental shelf and slope in relation to Canada. I wish every success to Iceland in its contest with Great Britain.
Precedents in international law have traditionally and historically come about by unilateral action on the part of a state. Very rarely has international law been established by agreement between nations. Britain, or whatever it was called in the early days, unilaterally established a three-mile limit because that was the distance they could cover with their coastal guns. Britain was able to exercise that territorial jurisdiction by saying it could fire three miles
Fisheries
offshore and if foreign fishing vessels came within that distance they were in jeopardy.
It was Iceland that established the 12-mile limit, and this was accepted in the world. Some years ago Peru established a 200-mile fishing zone limit, but that limit had other complications than are conceived in respect of our territorial seas fishing zones. After Canada had consulted with the United States it unilaterally declared a nine-mile fishing zone. This was only after failure at two international conferences on the Law of the Sea and a discussion about putting this subject on the agenda at the United Nations.
Canada's position has been historically weak in the area of establishing authority over our own resources, especially those of the sea. Generally speaking, with one exception, and that was only after approaching the late President Kennedy and guaranteeing that United States, fishermen would have the right to fish within that nine-mile fishing zone and after we had committed ourselves not to infringe upon the so-called historical position of the United States, we have not taken a unilateral position. Apart from that we have sought consensus, agreement and accommodation from other countries to do those things which we ourselves should do for our own preservation and self-respect. Even in respect of the negotiations that took place a short while ago on the U.S.-Canada, or Cana-da-U.S. agreement, namely, the reciprocal fishing agreement, we knuckled under. We refused to stand up and be firm in our position. Unfortunately, that has been the attitude of Canada for too long in matters such as this. What we need is a determination, a strong unilateral declaration, not in fancy words or statements written by speechwriters for the Minister of Fisheries, but actions and declarations which mean something.
Mr. Speaker, if the government wishes any guidance or any advice in respect of how to approach this matter, it need go no further than look to the father-in-law of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Jimmy Sinclair, becau.se when he was minister of fisheries of this country we knew where we were going in respect of fishery matters. Ever since he left that post and was defeated, Canada's position on fishery matters on the international scene has gone downhill. Had it not been for people like Jimmy Sinclair and George Clark, the deputy minister of fisheries, and their determination we would not have had the Fraser River agreement with the United States, because that agreement was the result of our standing up to the United States and telling it what our position was.
I contrast the position at that time with the weak, lily-livered position taken by the government in respect of the current negotiations which apparently have just concluded with the United States. We do not need fancy speeches by the minister about 200 miles or any other number of miles. Rather, we need a declaration of intent. We need to take action as a nation in so far as our own fisheries are concerned. We must do so for our own integrity and for the sake of our respect and unity.
We have an obligation to future generations in this matter insofar as the food resources of the world are concerned. Up until now, very regrettably, we have treat-

June 7, 1973
Fisheries
ed this obligation as a bargaining item to be dealt with and dealt away in the niceties of our diplomatic relationships with other countries. What that approach has meant for us is that we have been made suckers by other nations of the world. We need a declaration to unify us, a unilateral declaration so that other people will know what we intend to do. In that regard let me read the motion and then ask the House a question. The motion asks that this House accept a certain principle; then it enumerates what it is.
In addition, there is an amendment by my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in respect of an assertion of ownership by Canada of anadromous fish. The motion states, however, that to implement this policy we must provide adequate surveillance, and so on. All the motion is asking for is a declaration of principle by the House of Commons concerning what our intentions and ideals are. Regardless of the position in respect of the Standing Orders, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the motion were put by you now it would receive unanimous consent. I do not think anyone in this House disagrees with what it says. I would ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the proposition be put to the House that by unanimous consent we call a vote on the amendment and on the motion so that all parties can declare themselves with one voice for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member knows that we are dependent on the rules and there is no way in which the Chair has the privilege or power to do what he suggests. I recognize now the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I might I should like to say I realize exactly what the rules mean, and that is why I asked if you would inquire whether there is the unanimous consent of the House to have a vote on the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I cannot seek the unanimous consent of the House in respect of a proposition which is not in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I suggest to Your Honour that if you would ask for unanimous consent to waive the Standing Order, the House would give unanimous consent and we could pass the resolution, which would have the effect of giving very substantial support to our delegation which is now negotiating at the ICNAF conference.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: What is being put forward now is a very unique request. Without a specific rule I do not see how the Chair could consider an arrangement of this nature. The Chair is being asked to do something in this House which is irregular.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest complaints in this House involves debates which lead nowhere. Today we have had a debate in which the minister has expressed support for the resolution presented to

the House earlier today. I would think the minister, the government and our country would be in a very strong position if we were to support this resolution of the House of Commons. I believe the House would do itself a great honour if the debate did not end in the usual manner and if we endorsed the resolution and the amendment proposed by our colleague from the west coast.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: As I have said, I am willing to listen to any explanations but the Chair has no choice in the matter unless members express suggestions to me, because right now I have no power.


John Howard Lundrigan: Ask for unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I have said already that I will entertain any assistance.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a small point in respect of the procedural impasse. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in putting forth the motion had the option of moving two types of motion. One would have lead to a vote and the other would not. That option was at his disposal. He chose to put the motion in the form in which it is now before us. This was clear to hon. members opposite at the time the motion was put. The choice was made at that time and I do not see how they can change it at this stage of our proceedings.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister and his colleagues will be saved by the clock. I would just like to suggest that the impression on this side of the House is that the minister of fisheries and the environment stands all alone over there. He does not have the support of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), he does not have the support of his colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), and as a matter of fact he does not seem to have the support of any of his colleagues.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you ask for unanimous consent. If there is not unanimous consent, and obviously there is not such consent from that side of the House, I would suggest to the minister, through Your Honour, that if he were tomorrow to suggest to his colleagues that he propose a motion under Standing Order 43 couched in the terms of the motion before us tonight, there would be unanimous consent to give the minister and our delegation which is now negotiating at Copenhagen the support they need. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you ask for unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I must now call it ten o'clock.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to become involved in the procedural argument. I must concede that what has been said about the way in which the motion is being put is correct. It has proven to be so popular that a member of another party has asked that it be put to the House. However, I object to what the whip said in respect of the Leader of the Opposition saying no. I want that expunged from the record.
June 7, 1973	COMMONS DEBATES	4563


Mr. Lefebvre:: You did.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want it made very clear that I did not say no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition, as pointed out by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), had a chance to put a motion that would or would not lead to a vote. He chose not to. It was his choice, and that is what I said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You did not say that.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. We have now gone beyond ten o'clock, therefore we can accept the principle that we are proceeding beyond ten o'clock. I take it that we have accepted what is called jurisdiction beyond the point which would be ten o'clock. I ask Your Honour to ask for unanimous consent so that we can present the motion which could be accepted by the House unanimously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In order to follow the rules properly, my duty now is to call it ten o'clock. It being ten o'clock-


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I have just called it ten o'clock. Will the hon. member resume his seat.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Harry Magnus Olaussen: Mr. Speaker, now that we have some order in the House may I direct my remarks to a subject that has aroused many people in eastern Canada. The matter of the Canadian coastal shipping trade has already been raised in the House and in various parts of the country, so much so that many people feel it is no longer a newsworthy issue. It may no longer be a newsworthy issue to some people but it continues to be a contentious issue among political and shipping circles.
When the government of Canada is willing to finance the operation of foreign registered and foreign manned vessels so that they may participate in carrying out Canadian trade between Canadian ports, it is time for us to question seriously the government regarding the overgenerous subsidies that are given to such ships. We find here in Canada a situation in which Canadian ships are being replaced by ships under foreign registry and in which Canadian crews are being replaced by foreign crews.
I can understand the government's argument against the implementation of the Darling report and the government's contention that the operation of foreign manned vessels is much less expensive, but I do not understand it when a Singapore registered vessel such as the MV Trav-etal is guaranteed new subsidies to operate between Canadian ports. Such a situation does not support the government's arguments in this respect.
The vessel Travetal has recently been picketed in Halifax. The operation of this ship owned by Trident Steamships Limited has cost Canadian taxpayers $368,100 in the fiscal year 1972-73 alone. I am not questioning the jurisdictional right of the SIU to picket this particular ship; what I am questioning are the political and legal manoeuvres whereby such ships are allowed to operate at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and Canadian seamen because they are out of work are forced to sail on ships which do not come under the control of Canadian steamship inspection and marine safety regulations. This is why the SIU or any other seamen's union has the moral right to picket such ships. This is one of the few means whereby our attention can be focused on this issue.
My opinion is that the use of cheap foreign labour and flags of convenience, not only in the coastal trade but also in the future development of offshore and Arctic areas, cannot be tolerated. The oil companies, the shipping interests and the assorted trading companies that control the economics and political life of the Atlantic provinces must be denied the generous concessions that have served their own interests in the past and that cannot contribute to the future prosperity of the area.
In conclusion, I ask the minister-unfortunately he is not here tonight-whether he can justify his actions in permitting the permanent entry into the coastal trade of Canada of the motor vessel Travetal and similar vessels, in terms of the provisions of the Alien Labour Act. I would also ask him to consider the views that I have expressed and to tell the House how and when he hopes to implement the recommendations of the Darling report.
4564

June 7, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with all the phraseology and the various things said by the previous speaker. If one were to agree with it, it would certainly put things out of kilter. The vessel is a Singapore registered ship, with German officers and a Spanish crew. The owner's address is London, England. In other words, it is owned by the British and the vessel is time-chartered to Trident Steamships Limited of Halifax, Nova Scotia. She carries out a completely roll-on, roll-off general cargo service, the principal cargo being automobiles, between Halifax, Nova Scotia and St. John's, N ewf oundland.
While she is permitted, on account of being a British ship, to engage in the coasting trade of Canada, she is also subject to other sections of the Canada Shipping Act. The one causing the problems relates to the certificates of competency of the master and officers which under the act must be Canadian, as the hon. member said, or others accepted by the minister such as certain Commonwealth certificates. The present officers hold German certificates.
Under the authority given to him by the Canada Shipping Act, the minister on March 6, 1973, exempted the Travetal from the requirements of carrying officers holding Canadian certificates for a period of three months only until June 5, 1973, on condition that the party responsible for the operation submit proposals for compliance with the act. To date no such proposal has been received. The exemption expired on June 5 and has not been renewed. I should like to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the exemption was to avoid disruption of the service currently provided between Halifax and St. John's, and representations urging this course were received from the Premier of Nova Scotia and representatives of the local International Longshoremen's Union.
Opposition to the exemption comes from the seamen's unions which are strong advocates of the recommendation that the coasting trade of Canada should be reserved for Canadian flag ships. With the expiry of the exemption, the Seafarers International Union took legal action to prevent its renewal. A telegram has been received from the Halifax local of the International Longshoremen's Union urging that the service be allowed to continue. Premier Regan of Nova Scotia has expressed the same concern.
Today, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) sent a telegram to Trident Steamships, to the International Longshoremen's Union and to Premier Regan of Nova Scotia stating that the exemption from the Canada Shipping Act provisions cannot be renewed indefinitely and that adequate time has already been allowed for compliance with the act. Late this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the minister received a new proposal from the operators which is now being taken under advisement.


POST OFFICE-ALLEGED DELAY IN DELIVERY OF FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when I asked questions in the House previously concerning unsatisfactory postal service, the Postmaster General (Mr. 
Ouellet) said that he required specifics. I will now list a few definite examples of slow delivery. First, I cite the instance of a letter posted on March 30, 1973, in Red Deer, Alberta, destined for Vancouver. It was delivered to a Vancouver law firm on April 6, seven days later. Second, may I mention delivery of letters between Red Deer and Edmonton, and Red Deer and Calgary, a distance in each case of 100 miles, taking two days. Previously these were delivered the next day.
Third, Rosedale Presbyterian church, Toronto, complained directly to the Postmaster General that a letter posted at noon on Thursday April 26 in Toronto, for delivery in Toronto, was not delivered until the following Monday morning. Fourth, a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which was posted in Red Deer on May 11 was not received in his office in Ottawa until May 18.
My constituents and others have expressed dissatisfaction also with the handling of mail which has resulted in breakages and other damage to well wrapped and securely tied parcels sent by first-class mail. The question arises whether or not there is any advantage in time and handling when one pays the highest postal rate. Parcels sent out first-class do not seem to arrive any earlier than parcels sent by ordinary parcel post rate, nor are they delivered in any better condition.
It is all very well for the Postmaster General to continue to acclaim the modernization of postal administration with computers and postal codes. Taxpayers are well aware of these changes, if for no other reason than that they pay for them and have had to spend additional hours in adding codes to their mailings both business and personal. When a person receives mail later than within a reasonable delivery period, and in the case of parcels in damaged or broken condition, that person is not interested in hearing again a glorified and detailed description of modern innovations to sort mail, or about the postal code system. On the one hand, the sorting of mail does not mean anything to the recipient or sender if mail is not delivered accurately and on time; on the other hand he is well aware that the computerized equipment is costing taxpayers millions of dollars. He wants to know why mail service has deteriorated to the extent it has over the last two years or so, when can he expect prompt and efficient mail delivery, will parcels be handled with care, as they once were, will letters be delivered to the address on the envelope and not to a residence three or four doors away or to one on the next street, and how long does it take inexperienced employees to become efficient, to read the address and deliver the mail? I do not think these questions are unreasonable or can be passed off with a shrug.
People pay for postal service. They are entitled to efficient and prompt delivery and they are still hoping they will receive the type of service for which they have paid and are paying. Just today I received a letter from a constituent. It is dated June 2, 1973. I should like to read it into the record. It reads:
Dear Mr. Towers:
Someone told me that you had complained about slow-moving mail but needed more proof. I enclose a envelope of the letter I sent to Mr. Reg Johnson whose address is Red Deer, but lives east of Penhold. You might know the person since he is not too far from your place. I sent them a cheque for seed oats on May 4th,
June 7, 1973	COMMONS DEBATES	4565
and they were wondering why I did not pay. I was there later on to get some more seed and stopped payment on the cheque since I figured that the wrong person got hold of it, but they got it all right, 26 days after mailing, so maybe this will prove that somebody is not on his or her toes.
People who are using our mail system expect service. If they do not get good service, they will stop using it. If they stop using it, the cost must rise. The easiest way to have cheaper mail service is to give better service. These points are being brought to the attention of the Postmaster General on behalf of the people whom I represent and to help others who have brought their complaints to my attention because they do not have access to the Postmaster General except by mail. Delivery being uncertain, even his letter of explanation might not reach its destination for ten days or longer.
Without making any additional comments, I ask now for corrective action to be taken. The changeover to new equipment and a code system is no longer as satisfactory to the people who are paying for our postal system, the Canadian taxpayers.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member to give a few details about the complaints which he wanted to make. I thank him for doing so. I can assure him that if there is a special problem in Red Deer, we will immediately try to correct it.
I would like, however, to point out that it is somewhat unfair to judge the whole postal service by a few isolated cases. It may happen sometimes that Canadians find that their mail has been delayed. Out of 100 letters which they receive, one or two may be late. This does not mean that the postal service is bad. It means that twice out of a hundred times delivery has been delayed.
[ English]


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member cannot raise a point of order during the adjournment debate.
Adjournment Debate
[ Transla tion]


André Ouellet: I would like to add that of course the Post Office Department agrees that certain difficulties result sometimes in late delivery. In fact, there are four kinds of difficulties against which we come up all the time and which prevent the mail from reaching its destination as fast as we would like.
Firstly, transportation is of prime importance to us, and we largely depend on air service. For sure, our service is to a great extent adversely affected by bad weather conditions and delayed flights.
Secondly, the mail volume varies each day, and an abnormal increase in that volume will overtax our sorting and handling facilities.
Thirdly, we have identified 31 handling operations as sources of errors or delays, from the collection of mail to its delivery, and such inconveniences, I admit, happen.
Fourthly, our postal facilities are unfortunately obsolete in many Canadian cities, which makes the task of our employees quite difficult.
But the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is to say that we are trying very hard to correct and improve the situation.
Finally, I can assure the hon. member that our assured mail program is meeting with great success. I have here figures for the week ended May 25, and the results in his province of Alberta, for instance, are rather outstanding. Our investigation has shown that in Calgary our assured mail service had an efficiency rate of 98 per cent at the national level, namely for mail throughout the country, an efficiency rate of 99 per cent for regional mail, that is for mail in Alberta and of 89 per cent for local mail.
I agree with the hon. member that there may be a problem in the Red Deer and Calgary area. We will attempt to improve the situation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that on the whole, our assured mail service has an efficiency rate exceeding 95 per cent. Since more than 5 billion pieces of mail are handled per year, it can be said that, on the whole, the postal service is very efficient in Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday, June 8, 1973