1975-06-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Because capital punishment is such an emotional issue that quite obviously the government is unable to cope with it and because of the fact that this same government does not even uphold its own laws in respect of capital punishment, and because of the hesitancy to adhere to the wishes of what is now obviously the majority of Canadians who are in fact being asked to accept the alarming growth of crime as a way of life, and on the basis that this is indeed an urgent and pressing matter which deals with life and death, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt):
That this parliament instruct the Prime Minister to initiate a national referendum with regard to capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For reasons which I have stated many times in the past, and with which I am sure the hon. member is familiar, I have declined consistently to consider this as a proper subject for a motion under Standing Order 43.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 arising from a number of instances, including Tuesday's manipulation and misuse by the CBC president, Mr. Picard, of publicly owned news facilities on the "World at Six" and the national television news to slander a member of this House, and last night's reprehensible prevention by CBC management of the same programs carrying the rebuttal given Picard's actions in the House yesterday, constituting management rather than editing of news, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the House requests the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to hold a public inquiry into the existence of disgraceful manipulation and misuse of publicly owned CBC news facilities by CBC management, particularly by President Laurent Picard, for personal and political purposes that are not consistent with the principle of unbiased coverage of the news and that such inquiry also specifically determine whether or not such actions are encouraged, requested, or in any way arranged by persons in the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order '43 and cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REQUEST FOR SURVEY OF RESOURCES TO PREVENT MONOPOLY FORMATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask leave to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the demand for energy of all sorts will grow increasingly in Canada in the years to come, and as it is most important for Canada to know, as accurately as possible, what potential it has in all fields of energy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That a special committee of the House be set up to make a survey of all energy research being done throughout Canada, this to enable the government to spare Canadians the creation of monopolies which might exploit the good faith of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

June 19, 1975
Oral Questions



WHEAT-SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF METHODS TO PREVENT LOSSES TO PRODUCERS AS RESULT OF LABOUR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the light of reliable statements released by the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association that the wheat producers of Canada have incurred losses of $261 million during the 1974-75 crop year as a result of labour disruptions and breakdowns in the grain handling and transportation system, which is the equivalent of 50 cents per bushel or $1,700 per producer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That the subject matter be referred to a special parliamentary committee to immediately consider ways and means of resolving the current labour-management relationship-to consider ways and means by which the producers may recover: and be further saved from any future losses as a result of the failure of management and/or labour to act responsibly in the over-all national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given the lack of performance by the government in its housing programs, as highlighted by the minister's admission that the anticipated results from his extended AHOP program have not been encouraging, less than 400 applications out of a predicted 30,000, and given the fact that the minister has admitted that it will be difficult to attain his over-all minimum of 210,000 housing starts, can the minister give the House a revised estimate of starts he now feels is realistically possible to attain in this year?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not accept the preamble about there being a lack of performance of the government. Government programs have been operating exceedingly well. We have had to operate in an open economy and in an international economic situation. In that situation, I think the government is performing well. At this

time I am not prepared to give a prediction. I am still keeping my sights high, but I realize the difficulty in meeting those targets.



FINANCE


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My supplementary is to the Minister of Finance, and it is based on the reticence of the reply of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is now prepared to reaffirm his statement of March 10 that one of the priorities of the government is to give sufficient leverage to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to enable him to achieve a rate of housing starts at a minimum of 210,000, also bearing in mind that he had predicted in his November 18 budget that there would be lower mortgage interest rates, whereas they have gone up.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be saying something about this subject soon.



REASON FOR DELAY IN ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL MORTGAGE EXCHANGE CORPORATION

Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the ministers seem to have so little comment to make on the desperate housing situation, I would like to put one final supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Given the importance attached to the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation as a source of secondary mortgage funding by two ministers of housing and given the minister's comment on May 13 that after two years the corporation still has not been established because he has been unable to find a president and board of directors with sufficient experience in this field out of some 23 million Canadians, will the minister say how his search for this elusive group is proceeding or if he is according it any priority at all?


John Napier Turner: I will deal with that subject at the same time, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact the hon. Minister's predecessor in 1974 was promising a housing warranty program so that housing quality would be assured in Canada, and since almost a year later, on February 28, 1975, the minister responsible was still promising that concrete measures would be taken to implement a warranty program, is the minister now ready to inform the House if this program has either fallen
June 19, 1975

through or if it is to be implemented in the immediate future?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we are in consultation with the provinces, with the builders and consumers and everyone involved in this independent warranty plan on a national basis. In so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned, we could implement one and would be quite prepared to do it in a very short period of time with relation to our programs. What we would like to see is a national program applied to all home building across the country. The provinces are co-operating fully as is the industry, the consumers and suppliers. We are giving it a very high priority. Meetings are taking place on a regular basis at which the provinces are present. I have every expectation of meeting the goal of later this year which I indicated in the House the other day.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that some of the provinces are now going ahead with their own home warranty program is this indicative of the minister's ability to achieve consensus and agreement on this pressing issue in Canada's housing policy?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker. One province has instituted its own scheme with the private sector builders, that being Alberta. Others talk of it from time to time but they are still co-operating in achieving a consensus and I hope that will be achieved.


Mr. Stanfield:: In this decade?



MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE SHORTAGE OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO AHOP AND LIMITED DIVIDEND PROGRAMS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the growing shortage of rental accommodation, and the likelihood that the shortfall in building will push both rents and housing prices even higher than they are now, what immediate steps does the minister intend to take to alleviate this serious problem?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we give a very high priority to rental accommodation. The most recent step has been the $200 million for limited dividend rental accommodation and we continue to give it that priority.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the payment of subsidies to financial institutions under the private AHOP program and the payment of subsidies to builders under the private limited dividend housing program has failed to attract more money into housing and thus increase the supply of housing, will the minister direct more moneys into the public AHOP program and into the public limited dividend program?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we do not pay anything to private lenders; it goes to the borrower under the private
Oral Questions
AHOP program. Under the limited dividend program it goes to the developer who enters into rental agreements with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make certain that the benefit of those subsidies goes to the consumer, the renter, the Canadian taxpayer. Certainly, we continue to give those higher priority.



HIGH INTEREST RATES AND COST OF LAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact is that the direct subsidies to home purchasers go directly to the financial institutions. As the minister's rhetoric does not build houses and as the main obstacles in the housing crisis are high interest rates and the cost of land, what immediate steps does the minister intend to take, to solve these two serious problems?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Broadview is referring to the serious problem concerning the shortage of mortgage funds. This is a difficulty with which we are dealing.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Under what pretence did he meet with 120 native people from the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians yesterday who came here to voice their specific concerns but who were forced to hear the minister delivering a 40-minute speech, until he was interrupted. Is that the kind of communication which took place in connection with the guidelines? Is that how consultation was carried on?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's arithmetic is wrong. The speech was considerably shorter. However, that is not germane. What is germane is that we held discussions and, finally, I think the message got through to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, as it had to the Alberta Indian Association, the Union of New Brunswick Indians and the Union of Nova Scotia Indians long ago, to this effect: that if they will only sit down and discuss these problems and say where they think specific difficulties with the guidelines lie, we would be prepared to change and amend them. I think the onus is on them. They have come forward with no specific proposals, no precise suggestions. They have indicated now that they want to meet with me and come forward with their precise suggestions, which is what the other groups have been doing for months.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure bands across Canada in writing

June 19, 1975
Oral Questions
that their second quarter funding will be granted even though they may not have had time to enter appeals, since the July deadline will soon be here.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are difficulties in those areas. A couple of days ago I was talking with the president of the Alberta Indian Association, in the hon. member's own province. He said, "Look, there have been a few difficulties but we are getting them ironed out, and there is no problem." I suggest that is the attitude everywhere except in the one province.



JAMES SMITH RESERVE-ALLEGATION NATIVES REFUSED SUPPORT FOR THEIR CHILDREN UNLESS LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES SIGNED

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, following on the question which has just been asked, may I remind the minister of the reply he gave me on June 4, as reported on page 6429 of Hansard, when he said that the Indians were not being coerced or forced in any way. I immediately challenged that statement, because in the province of Saskatchewan and on the particular Indian reserve to which I referred then, the James Smith reserve, the Indians have been refused support for their children unless they sign these guidelines and accept them. That does not look very much like the kind of co-operation which should be expected between the government, untied by bureaucratic autocracy, and the representatives of the Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the right hon. member realizes that he is entering into debate instead of asking a question. If the right hon. member has a question to ask, perhaps he will ask it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to impinge on the mentality of the Indian department with an ordinary question. I ask this: Considering what has happened on this particular Indian reserve and on others, where people are being forced to accept guidelines they don't want, will the minister do something at once to bring about support for the children, the boys and girls on these reserves, so that they will have the necessary food; for starvation faces them because they dared to stand for a principle.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that simply is not fact. All I have to say is that Chief Ahena-kew, the president of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, and the right hon. member's good friend, the vice president, Solomon Sanderson, indicated that they would like to meet with me before July 1 and finally come forward with some concrete suggestions for the guidelines. I indicated that I would be happy to meet them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Indian Association of Alberta and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians are opposed to these guidelines. Why should they, the first people of our country, be intimidated in this way when they are actually wards of the Queen and so regard themselves to be? Will the minister endeavour to break himself loose 
from the enthralment of bureaucratic tyranny being practiced against the Indians?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is concerned, they are off on a different tack right now. I have had no representations or expressions from British Columbia concerning the guidelines. As you know, they indicated they wish to reject federal government funding totally. In the province of Alberta, as I indicated, I spoke a couple of days ago to the president of the Alberta Indian Association. He gave me a reply directly contrary to what the right hon. member just said. I have already indicated what is going on in Saskatchewan.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the province of Quebec has a very important area which is known generally as the south shore region, part of which includes the Bellechasse riding, and since there are a great many unemployed in this area, can the minister advise the House whether he has had consultations with the Quebec government about a possible program to attract new industries or expand existing ones in the area, in order to create jobs and find use for the qualified workers who are available there at this time?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, personally, in a general way, I have discussed the region of Quebec to which the hon. member refers along with a number of others where developmental opportunities are important. As well, I know that my officials, including those who are resident in the province of Quebec and in Quebec City, have also been discussing these matters with the provincial government. I do not immediately know the current stage of those discussions. I will be pleased to make inquiries and get an up-to-date report for the hon. member.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary. Without wanting to give to understand that the federal and Quebec governments showed greater interest in the Montreal and Quebec City regions, I should like to insist on asking him whether he is willing, as the person in charge of regional economic expansion, to make representations, if necessary, to the government of the province of Quebec for the establishment of a very specific program in the south shore region so that for once the population of that region will not feel neglected and may in its turn receive benefits and aid enabling it to expand and use the manpower available in the region?
June 19, 1975


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I simply point out to the hon. member that many regions of Quebec, other than the Montreal and Quebec city areas which he mentioned, have received attention. Indeed, only a couple of months ago a number of areas strategically located throughout the province were designated for the creation of, for example, industrial parks. I will be glad to discuss with the hon. member the specific geographic region he has in mind and to initiate specific talks along those lines with the government of Quebec, if it has not been done already, but I suspect it has.



SALE OF TAINTED MEAT IN QUEBEC-REASON FOR DELAY IN ACTION BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, one of whose inspectors yesterday testified before the crime commission in Montreal that the federal government knew about the meat situation in the Province of Quebec as far back as 1968 and that by January, 1974, the situation was, to quote him, so serious as to be frightening. I should like to ask the minister why this situation was allowed to continue for so long, indeed, to continue until the crime commission was appointed in Quebec, and why, in the words of the inspector, no tangible results were achieved from any of the efforts made by the hon. gentleman's department? Yet this public inquiry appointed by the government of Quebec immediately gets results.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to send to the Leader of the Opposition a copy of the testimony of the inspector in which he will find an answer to his questions. He will even note that the inspector has clearly shown before the committee that the necessary inquiry could only be carried out by the police force with its facilities available for that purpose. It was impossible with the indications which my inspectors had to provide any evidence.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the evidence of the inspector that he was not able to get any results in 1973 and that the police, when they were called in, were not getting any results either, why did the minister not take some other course of action such as the appointment of a public inquiry? As we know, a public inquiry did get results eventually. Is there any way in which the minister can justify this situation being allowed to continue from 1968 to 1975?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can merely speak about the period during which I was minister, but I can give the assurance to the Leader of the Opposition that the inquiry
Oral Questions
carried out by the police force gave some results. They have been submitted to the commission which would have been unable to discover what it did find out without the work performed by the police force throughout the inquiry.



SALE OF TAINTED MEAT IN QUEBEC-REASON FOR FAILURE TO ACT UNDER FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Was the
government of Canada aware that meat unfit for human consumption was being sold in the Province of Quebec as far back as 1968, as appears from the sworn testimony given in Montreal by an inspector from the hon. gentleman's department? If so, can the minister explain why he did not proceed under the Food and Drugs Act regardless of any inquiry which was taking place in Quebec, especially since the present inquiry has nothing to do directly with the meat situation? The current revelations are merely incidental to an inquiry into organized crime in Quebec.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that suspicions existed as far back as 1968. As the inspector concerned indicated very clearly, there were consultations with police authorities to determine whether it was possible to obtain any subsequent evidence. It seems that that could not then be done. As I pointed out in the House previously, new efforts were made later on, they were successful, as evidenced by the inquiry now going on in Quebec. Once more, I shall be happy to give the hon. member a copy of the testimony of the inspector concerned, which shows very well the efforts made by my department during that whole period.



SALE OF TAINTED MEAT IN QUEBEC-INQUIRY WHETHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENT INFORMED QUEBEC OR ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA OF SITUATION

James Aloysius McGrath: I apologize if this further question sounds repetitious, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you it is germane in the light of new evidence. In view of the fact there are more than 300 slaughterhouses in Quebec which are not under federal inspection or any inspection, and given the fact that the federal government knew as far back as 1968 that meat unfit for human consumption was being sold for human consumption-the evidence indicates that sales had reached massive proportions by 1973-did the hon. gentleman's department inform the government of Quebec of its suspicions and, in particular, did it inform the Attorney General of Canada what was taking place with a view to proceeding under the Food and Drugs Act?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have always said in the House. It is always the same thing, it is quite clear, the facts have been established. I merely invite the hon. member to refer to the questions which have been

June 19, 1975
Oral Questions
directed to me in the House over the past three weeks on this subject. The facts are exactly as I indicated.



WHEAT-REQUEST PRODUCERS BE COMPENSATED FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM STRIKES AND ASSURANCE THAT SITUATION WILL NOT OCCUR AGAIN

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Given the fact that Canada's wheat producers have suffered the loss of $261 million during the current crop year according to the calculations of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, can the hon. gentleman tell the House what the federal government is prepared to do to compensate producers for such losses since, in present circumstances, the producers are powerless to act? Can he give an assurance we shall not see a repetition of this sort of thing in the next crop year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Of course, everyone regrets losses caused to anyone as a result of a strike, and our objective is to lessen that kind of harm to everyone. However, the calculation the hon. member makes can hardly be accepted; I presume it is based on a change in price between the time at which grain might have been sold and the time at which it was subsequently sold. If the hon. member is using that logic I would have to remind him that a year and a half earlier a strike delayed sales and that wheat which might have been sold at a lower price was subsequently sold at a higher price.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister is well aware of the existence of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association and I believe he is familiar with its membership. So I would take their figures as being valid. It seems to me the minister is expecting the wheat farmer to bear the brunt of the loss and after the setback in Saskatchewan I expected the hon. gentleman might have taken a different approach. May I ask him when he will begin looking after the interests of the farmers instead of the big unions, big business and Liberal governments?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The Palliser Wheat Growers Association is, indeed, one of the more reasonable organizations and I would therefore expect them to accept the logic of my previous answer. I would also expect they would recognize, if one put the question to them, that this minister has done a great deal for the grain farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Following his meeting yesterday with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and bearing in mind the widespread objection to his department's policy guidelines I should like to ask the minister whether he would be willing to withdraw those guidelines. I should like a yes or no answer to that one.


J. Judd Buchanan: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House whether he received any information from his counterpart in the United States with respect to the pending closure of the U.S. Air Force Base at Goose Bay? If so, can he tell us when this information was received, and whether it has been communicated to the government of Newfoundland?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been known for some time that this base would be closed next year. Pursuant to that decision of the United States government a committee was established, including representatives of the Government of Canada, the government of Newfoundland and, I understand, the Municipality of Happy Valley, to lay out plans to minimize any dislocation which might occur as a result of this projected closure.


Walter C. Carter: This closure might have been on the cards for some time. Would the minister tell the House if and when he has been informed by the United States government as to the exact date of closing, whether the date has been communicated to the province of Newfoundland and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the government of Newfoundland was advised by the officials and the ministerial assistants whom, I understand, have been working with our officials on this matter for some time. As to the precise date when the information was conveyed by the United States to Canada, I would have to check into that but it has been known for some considerable time. The information that was made public was certainly known to officials of both governments and to the officials of the municipality.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the implications of the closure of the Goose Bay
June 19, 1975

base go beyond Happy Valley and seriously affect industries in other parts of Newfoundland, and in view of the fact that the premier of Newfoundland said last night on national TV that the situation was scandalous, that he was not aware of it, would the minister indicate whether he was advised by the United States government that the base would close, what decisions were reached, and what information he gave the United States embassy as to whom they should give the information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that if the premier was unaware of this development his communications system within his government needs some improvement.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who, in his attempt to blame the Indians, neglected to answer the question asked by my colleague from Battle River. Again I ask the minister: Will he give the House a commitment now that Indian bands will not be denied second quarter funding if they fail to meet the July 1 deadline with reference to the guidelines, and will he advise band councils in writing immediately of any new deadlines that are going to be established?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I think the problem is more in the minds of hon. members opposite. My understanding is that the problems are being worked out. Basically most of the guidelines are acceptable; the ones that are not are being changed or modified, and the problem is in the process of being resolved.


Charles Joseph Clark: One supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I put the same question for the third time. Will those bands that do not respond by July 1 suffer a cutting off of second quarter funding-yes or no-and will the minister give us a commitment in the House now that bands will be allowed to develop guidelines, whatever reasonable time it takes, which will meet the unique situation of the various and different bands in the country? Can we have that yes or no answer now and have a commitment in principle?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, what in fact the hon. member proposed in the final part of his question is what we are doing.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense.


J. Judd Buchanan: Nonsense to you. In fact, in most cases the guidelines are being accepted; in other cases we are modifying them. In about 10 per cent of the cases we are using the old proposals and suggestions and there is no problem. I suggest that 95 per cent of the problem is right there on the other side of the House.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: What about the July 1 deadline? What does it take to get an answer?



ALLEGED IMMINENT EXPULSION OF CERTAIN WOMEN FROM CAUGHNAWAGA RESERVE-MINISTER'S POSITION

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Considering that about sixty women from the Caugh-nawaga Indian Reserve will probably be expelled next July 5 simply for having married white men, is the minister aware of the distress of these women and, if so, what measures is he contemplating in this respect?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is a very sensitive and difficult area. However, I talked a couple of days ago to representatives of the band at Caughnawaga and they assured me that they were trying to deal with the situation in a fair and equitable fashion. One area in which they have agreed to make an exception is in the case of widows, women who are over 60 years of age. It was indicated that they would not be expelled.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the minister was not able to answer respecting certain statements that have been made by the Canadian Labour Congress as to our strike record being the seventh worst among other industrial countries, whereas other members of the government had used the figure of second worst behind Italy. Has the minister's department in fact accurate records as to whether our strike record is second worst among certain industrial countries or seventh worst, or has the department any independent figures of its own so that the minister could, on an appropriate occasion, tell the Canadian people what our record is compared with other industrial countries?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I know that to be precise in an area such as this is quite difficult, since various standards of measurement are used in various countries for purposes of comparison. As far as the data released by the Canadian Labour Congress is concerned, I have not had a chance and neither has my department of checking their findings in terms of putting the credibility of the Canadian government behind them at this stage.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he can tell the House if in fact his own department compiles records that can be used
29576-24%

June 19, 1975
Oral Questions
as the basis of comparison and, if so, would he undertake to give to the House his own records as to what our strike experience is in relation to industrial countries that are our competitors and trading partners?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I know the department has looked into this area at various times from some indication of how we are doing relative to other countries. I do not think we do this on a continuing basis, but I will check and find out when last we made any comparative findings and advise the hon. member of them.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At any time after the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce authorized the significant financial assistance given to Microsystems International, did the department become concerned that management of Microsystems and the management of Bell Northern, which were exerting great influence on Microsystems, was falling into the hands of former employees of I.T. & T. of the United States; and if they did have this concern, did they express this concern to those companies?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such concern on the part of the department.



MICROSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL-INQUIRY WHETHER DEPARTMENT MONITORED EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS

Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce assisted Microsystems to the tune of $36.7 million by way of grants and loans, most of which has been lost, did the minister or officials of his department authorize or have in place a monitoring system backed up by accountants, auditors or other financial experts to see that the public funds committed by his department were being properly and wisely spent?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there has been a regular review of the spending with respect to government moneys regarding I.T. & C. and this particular company. I can tell the hon. member that we have been in negotiation with the company subsequent to its decision to close down, and we are very hopeful that we will be able to repatriate the loan of $6.7 million. We also feel that there is a very good chance that the technology which the company has developed over a period of years will be made available to Canadian companies in the future.



MANPOWER


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to the question addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, the minister replied that with the increase in the funding of money for students there would be an expansion of the OPY program. It is my understanding that the OFY program has been completed. Has the minister some new program in mind, or is he going to provide money to municipalities in order that the problem of unemployed students can be resolved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will reexamine my answer yesterday I think he will find I answered that precisely. I cannot elaborate further at this stage.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Could the minister tell the House whether the Treasury Board intends to review its guidelines concerning federal employees who are training for the Olympic Games which will take place in Montreal in 1976?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, following the representations of members and particularly of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, it was decided to give athletes who are working for the federal government a three-month leave with pay, which will enable them to get well pre pared and thus win as many medals as possible at the Olympics.



FINANCE


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent analyses indicating some difficulties with the position of the Minister of Finance that high wage rates are pricing Canadian goods out of the market, will the minister include as an appendix to the budget an analysis of comparative unit labour costs over the past five years among OECD countries, including Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as has been said earlier to one of the members,
June 19, 1975

we will have appendices relating to these subjects, but whether that particular one is included I will have to check.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had his officials look at a United States Bureau of Labour report which indicates that compensation received by Canadian workers, that is wages and fringe benefits, presently stands at 82 per cent of that received by American workers, a situation which contradicts the minister's own recent statement and supports the Minister of Labour's contention that he is perpetrating a myth?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be producing the figures on Monday night and they will speak for themselves.



BANK ACT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would take the House into his confidence by indicating what steps have been taken to organize a revision of the Bank Act, considering that it has to be in position by January 1, 1977? Is it the government's intention to proceed by way of a private bill, a white paper, or is the minister really going to respond to these needs? Will he agree that by the time a Royal commission into banking could report, and so forth, we would not be in a position to catch up with our banking needs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with various associations representing national institutions across the country suggesting to them that they get in their briefs regarding revisions to the Act. One would hope we will have a draft bill ready by the middle of next year, allowing for hearings on that bill before the final bill is presented before parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not agree that since the early 1960's when the Porter Commission was set up and presented its report, which formed the basis for the revisions of 1967, Canada's economic and commercial needs have moved ahead much faster, and it is imperative that we again have a fundamental understanding of Canada's banking and credit institution needs so that some more effective control can be gained over Canada's financial institutions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think a good parliamentary hearing will bring good results.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE



DATE OF DECISION TO REPLACE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT- POSSIBILITY OF POSTPONEMENT OF PROGRAM TO REPLACE LONG-RANGE PATROL AIRCRAFT

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence stated outside the House today that a decision on the replacement fighter plane would have to be made within a year. Can he inform the House what has taken place to make him think he can make this important decision in one year, bearing in mind that a succession of Liberal governments have been unable to make a decision on the long-range patrol aircraft in over six years?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that if we are to replace our fighter aircraft in the early 1980's we will have to make a decision within a year.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, does this new and surprising priority for a fighter replacement indicate that the fighter replacement program might supersede the LRPA replacement program?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance in his budgetary speech of February 19, 1973, stated he intended to initiate an examination of our capital cost allowance system and that the review would be completed by the end of 1974. Will the minister indicate whether this review has been completed, and whether he intends to table a report on this matter before Monday?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, certain of the provisions were already reviewed in the report that was tabled a week or so ago.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister consider limited tactical nuclear weapons as military hardware within currently accepted limits of a limited war?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me to speculate on a future war, I would suppose that if tactical weapons are used there is a great danger of escalation, indeed. I see the hon. member nods his head in agreement. He might be pleased to remember that the Canadian force in Europe was denuclearized a few years ago under the direction of

June 19, 1975
Oral Questions
this government, a move that NATO is now studying, perhaps with a view of imitating our lead.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern the Prime Minister has regarding nuclear weapons, particularly limited tactical nuclear weapons, will he consider taking an active role in initiating talks to consider the limitation and control of limited tactical nuclear weapons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat that after Canada gave the lead in thinking and acting in this field, the NATO countries, particularly in the committee on nuclear weapons, began examination of this very question. Of course, they know what Canada thinks and has done about this, and they are consulting our Ambassador to NATO frequently. I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that I take another form of lead or action.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, since it has been a week since we have seen the Solicitor General, could the Prime Minister tell us where and how he is? Would he also tell us whether he has had a chance to get an answer to the question put to him a week ago today by the hon. member for Peace River in order to clarify a discrepancy in an answer the Solicitor General gave as to whether the authorities were aware that the hostages were going to try to break out of the penitentiary in British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, regarding the health and wellbeing of the Solicitor General, I am sad to report that he is quite ill, indeed, and I do not know whether he will be in the House for several days yet. On the second part of the question, it seems to me that this is the very question which is being answered at the public hearings now taking place in British Columbia. If I was informed correctly, I understand that the answer to the question of the hon. member has been given, that there was some knowledge that there was going to be a move by the hostages and the authorities tried to dissuade them from making that move at that time. I do not have this from the Solicitor General. I believe I read it in the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member could follow the hearings in the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that I can read the newspapers, actually almost as well as, I guess, the Prime Minister, and I try to do that with all the limitations we have.


An hon. Member:: And that's doubtful.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Quite separate and apart from reading the newspapers about matters affecting the Solicitor General, will the Prime Minister tell the House just who might be able to answer some other questions that remain unanswered but very topical, in particular with reference to a story a week ago in Montreal about the Mafia drug movement in the Montreal airport area, the allegation that 60 some employees were involved, and the fact that investigating RCMP officers were out of the country; have they returned, have they been talked to, and what was the reason for this expose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The acting minister is of course the Minister of Justice. It would be helpful if the hon. member gave us notice a little in advance, which would permit the acting minister to provide the answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Two weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not two weeks, perhaps two hours, if that is not too much to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being the last allotted day in the supply period to end this month, the House, of course, will go through the usual procedure tonight at 9.45 to put the question on the subject matter of the debate today and, following that, to consider the supply bill. Difficulties have arisen in that process in the past and suggestions have been made as a result of which I asked earlier today that the House leaders consider the possibility of an earlier distribution of the supply bill.
With their blessing, I am authorized to put to the House the suggestion-with the unanimous consent of the House, of course, which is the only way it can be done-that the supply bill which will be given to the House for consideration through all stages at ten o'clock tonight, and which obviously must be in readiness before that time, be distributed to hon. members at eight o'clock without prejudice to any of the steps that might intervene. May I take it that, with the unanimous consent of the House, that step can be taken at ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order, with your indulgence, regarding what I might call a complaint which I made to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) the other day with regard to some delay in the delivery of mail to my home in Halifax and which stayed there for some time. I want to inform the Postmaster General, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the mailman who regularly delivers mail to my home called today at breakfast time with a full explanation as to what had happened. I simply want to say to the Postmaster General that I appreciate the courtesy of that public servant, and since I made the complaint in public I felt I would like to say this in public also.
June 19, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the public servant is typical of most employees in the postal service. I must confess', also, that I did not come across any underwear with runs in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week, and as far ahead as he can possibly see.


Mr. Sharp:: The business for today is, of course, well known. This is the final allotted day. We will be following that debate with the estimates and the appropriations bill, as Your Honour indicated in your suggestion. Tomorrow we will call Bill C-63 dealing with Olympic trade marks and coins, Bill S-15, Bill S-17 and, I hope, Bill C-2.
On Monday afternoon we will be considering the motion on the reference to the committee of the matter dealing with the national capital area. The budget will be presented in the evening. With regard to the budget presentation, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I will request Your Honour to designate the necessary order of the day. Tuesday is St. Jean Baptiste day, when we will not sit, and on Wednesday we will begin the budget debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to make this comment. I hope that tomorrow will not be a non-productive day in dealing with Bill C-63. I trust that the House will be able to obtain information, if necessary, with regard to the facts which prompted the bringing forward by the government of Bill C-63 so that the debate tomorrow will not be wasted.
I ask the government House leader whether the Minister of Finance has cleared his crystal ball sufficiently to be able to tell us today if hidden in the rhetoric of the budget there will be any little nugget that will need to be embodied in legislation before the House recesses for the summer.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have talked this over with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I think it is his hope that some of the budget bills, if not all of them, will receive approval in principle.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I do not think the facts were disclosed as they should have been. There seems to be a contradiction between the information given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the closure of the Goose Bay air force base and the information that was received by the provincial government. True, there may have been
Business of the House
information for some time that the base was going to be closed, as there was information on the closure of many U.S. bases in Newfoundland, but certainly the imminence and effects of the closure of this base were not known to the provincial government.
I feel that the minister is not disclosing the true facts, because certainly there is evidence that the U.S. consulate in St. John's , Newfoundland, is closed to officials of the provincial government. They were advised not to disclose any information with regard to the closure of that base which affects not only the area in question but, indeed, many other parts of the province of Newfoundland. I believe the minister can clear up that matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I might say a word on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, perhaps just to clarify the situation. I understand the hon. member referred to the conversation of the Premier of Newfoundland with me in my office. I should make it clear that when he telephoned me he had heard the news on the CBC that the base was closing imminently, and it was the object of his concern that suddenly it was closing down; not that it was going to close down in the future, but that it was closing down so suddenly. I confess that I have the same concern. I said I had not heard of that imminent closure.
Of course, I knew that some years ago we had had notice from the Americans that they were going to pull out, but we convinced them to stay longer, with certain arrangements; with MOT taking over the management, and so on. These meetings of the committee composed of officials of his own government were going on. So I believe there is a misunderstanding so far as premier Moores and myself are concerned. He telephoned me, having been distressed by the news he had just heard that the closure was imminent, and I was able to reassure him on that.
As to the future course of events, I can only repeat what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said earlier. There is a committee, the premier's government is involved in it, and we are trying to make sure that if the Americans do withdraw-something which we cannot prevent-there will be a minimum of adverse effects on us.


Mr. Whelan:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some days ago reference was made to aspersions cast on meat inspectors with regard to their not taking care of meat stamps and meat stamps being forged. I would like to report to the House, as I promised, that is was reported to my officials in late November and early December. Our legal officers immediately made inquiries and reported to the attorney general of the province of Quebec. Charges were laid, the man was prosecuted in January of 1975 and fined $3,000. His meat was confiscated. I might report that there was nothing wrong with the meat. He thought it was better for him to have the "Canada Approved" stamp so he could sell the meat better, but there was nothing wrong with the meat in his facilities when the inspection took place.

June 19, 1975
Law Reform


MULTICULTURALISM
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, two reports pertaining to multiculturalism; the first annual report of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, and the non-official language study.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, a report on my recent visit to West Africa.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT BILL
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House that the Department of Justice is commencing preparation of a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill. There are a number of unique features in both the nature of the proposed bill and the method by which we propose to develop its content. I will be commenting upon these later. However, I would like to start by pointing to some of the reasons we are proposing such a bill.
It is possible for law reform to proceed on a number of levels. Law reform can occur simply by the modification of procedures used in administering laws. It can also occur through judicial decisions. It is important that law reform not proceed in a narrow and shortsighted way and that its broadest ramifications be kept constantly in view. It is important that appropriate policies responsive to the needs of our citizens be embodied in legislation. Much of our discussion in this chamber revolves around the appropriateness of various policies in meeting these needs. In my opinion, law reform should proceed on all of these planes simultaneously. Naturally, it will proceed at varying rates at these different levels since each has its own mechanisms of acceleration and restraint.
But it is also important that law reform proceed at another level, it is important that our legislation be constantly pruned and trimmed, shorn of anachronisms and inconsistencies, and changed in areas of obvious inadequacy where there can be no disagreement amongst reasonable persons about the need for modification or the form such modification should take. Surprisingly enough, it is this kind of law reform which has in some ways fallen behind. One reason is that pressure upon House time often precludes amendments to a bill being introduced until 
major amendments occur. The housekeeping changes for a particular statute will then be included in a larger bill. When the bill is debated, the housekeeping changes usually receive quick approval from all parties. Meanwhile, desirable housekeeping changes for other statutes which would in all likelihood also receive quick approval from all parties must remain dormant for a number of years until their particular statute is ripe for amendments of a major nature.
We propose, therefore, to provide a vehicle for proceeding with legislation of a non-controversial character. I stress the phrase "non-controversial" since it will be the main criterion by which proposals for inclusion in the bill will be assessed. Determination of the criterion will not be difficult to establish. A proposal would become controversial as soon as one of the parties expressed opposition to it. In such a situation, the proposal would be rejected and would no longer be considered for inclusion in the bill.
In other words, the bill will only include provisions about which we can reach quick and easy agreement. Proposals for inclusion in the bill will be invited from every member of the House and we will welcome all of these for consideration. In addition, we propose to make a comprehensive examination of federal statutes and to invite members of the bar, judges and others who are directly affected by federal legislation to offer proposals for inclusion in the bill.
I envisage a completely open process in developing the bill. I see the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs playing a particularly active role in this connection, and Department of Justice officials would be fully accessible to the committee. Indeed, after consideration and approval of the subject matter by the, cabinet, we propose to refer the subject matter of the bill to this committee for final approval before the bill is introduced.
I am sure that most hon. members can think of obviously desirable changes in legislation which they would like to see. The work of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments might well generate suggestions with respect to some of the regulation-making powers. Any admend-ments at all could be included provided they can meet the test of being non-controversial as described previously. Money clauses would not as a rule be included.
We would hope to see the first bill introduced within a year and to see subsequent bills of this nature on an annual basis.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation is I think an exciting experience, controversy being the very basis of our parliamentary system. That does not prevent one from witnessing frequent examples of co-operation and goodwill in Parliament.
This bill will give members of all parties in the House an opportunity to participate in the improvement of Canadian legislation in a direct and non-partisan way. Its sucess will depend on the co-operation of each and everyone. I am sure this mechanism will be a true service to the Canadian people and I am anxious 'to discuss it in more detail with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
June 19, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize opposition spokesmen perhaps hon. members would give consideration to the following. In the ordinary course which has developed around such statements, there is a short question period. Today is an allotted day and I am reluctant to take too much time on that kind of activity from the very important motion of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter). In addition, this is a statement about impending legislation and policy associated with it. It may be that hon. members would feel satisfied simply to respond with an opposition statement and to leave aside the question period on this particular statement. If it is agreed, perhaps we could proceed in that way.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that it will not take me
1.000	words to say that the official opposition will be glad to assist the minister and the government in the task of housekeeping. I counted the minister's words. They were
1.000	words of puffery, with great respect to him. I have respect for the quality of most utterances by the minister, but I do not think this is one of his better statements.
There is an addition to the press release, on the front page, saying that the bill will include a number of unique features. We fasten our seat belts and learn that as long as nothing is controversial, the minister will refer the bill to the House. I would like the minister to test the House on its good will. On page 4 he uses the expression "co-operation and good will in parliament". The minister might be surprised, for instance, at the reaction if he brought in bail reform, reform of the Criminal Code regarding rape, an amendment to section 613 dealing with the substitution by courts of appeal of verdicts which juries have rendered, and so on. I think he would be surprised at the amount of co-operation and support he would receive from the official opposition if these reforms were introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: We are asked to wait for a year to see the results of the minister's housekeeping. I think we can survive the year.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I also have grave doubts whether the minister should have taken the time of the House to make this announcement and to impinge upon the time of a motion by the opposition. About five years ago the Law Reform Commission was set up to recommend changes in the law, but we have not seen any legislation resulting from the many studies and reports the commission has made. It is time the people of Canada were provided with legislation of substance to deal with some of the important matters confronting us today: the questions of gun control, abortion, capital punishment, and new approaches taken to conviction and sentence with regard to people who have been convicted. These are some of the issues and I would have been happy if the minister had said he will introduce legislation with regard to them.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has told the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that before he introduces the new young offenders bill he will circulate it to the members of the committee, and it seems to me that
Law Reform
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on various occasions in the last few months has said he intends to bring forth an omnibus bill with regard to amendments to the Criminal Code. I think he should take the same approach as the Solicitor General and at this time circulate proposed amendments concerning the subjects with which he hopes to deal.
I hope that he will deal with gun control, abortion and capital punishment. These are vital issues affecting the Canadian people. To come forth this afternoon with a housekeeping bill on which he says his department is working and hopes to prepare within a year is a very disappointing statement by the minister. Surely we can all agree that housekeeping amendments are necessary and it is necessary to have the input of judges, lawyers and others who are directly affected by it. I am certain he will get co-operation with respect to that type of legislation.


Otto Emil Lang: That is what I have asked for.


John Gilbert: The simple test the minister puts with regard to the "non-controversial" aspect-that is, if it is non-controversial he will put it in the legislation some time later-is a cop-out with regard to his duties and obligations. The minister has to deal with some of the problems Canadian people are facing today. Instead of saying, "I am going to bring forth a housekeeping bill", he should say, "I am going to bring forth amendements to the Criminal Code". He should take the same approach as the Solicitor General and circulate the bill, so that people directly affected by it can study it during the summer and be ready for debate in the fall. That would be a better approach.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the Minister of Justice. I think he is capable of better things, and this is certainly not worthy of him.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wasting the time of the House. In a lengthy statement he merely says that in about a year one or more bills will be tabled concerning a penal reform.
Then, we will make our comments in a year, Mr. Speaker. But in the meantime I do not really understand what kind of game the minister is playing this afternoon. What is exactly his purpose? It is probably a publicity game. He is likely emulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare but his statement is not overly impressive. Indeed I thank him for not sending me a copy, as usual. The minister is a man who fiddles about, or sends his statements to other parties but forgets Social Crediters. So I thank him once again, Mr. Speaker, for forgetting us. In any case, considering what his statement was worth, I think he did well in not wasting his time to send us a copy.

June 19, 1975
Order Paper Questions


FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT, CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING POSSESSION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN CONTROLLED DRUGS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-19 (from the Senate) to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-27 (from the Senate) to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['1. $3,101,000.\n2. (a) $1,340,000. (b) Nil. (c) $560,000. (d) $1,201,000.', 'June 19, 1975\nNational Resources']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa,
June 19, 1975
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the nineteenth day of June at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be sir,
Your obedient servant, Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following 
questions will be answered today: 2,301, 2,315, 2,449, 2,488, 2,489, 2,490, 2,556 and 2,580.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Since October 1974, when 22 modifications were performed by Air Canada on its DC-9 aircraft, how many occurrences of depressurization have been experienced?
2.	Did aircrafts 735 and 732 suffer depressurizations on Feburary 11, 1975?
3.	What are the pertinent details of these and any other depressurization incidents since October 1974?
4.	Was investigation of a depressurization problem the reason for aircraft 751 being grounded during April 1975?
5.	Will further modifications be made on DC-9s or any other Air Canada aircraft to correct depressurization problems?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Between November 1, 1974 and April 29, 1975, four pressurization decreases occurred. During this period, the company's 53 DC-9s completed 66,508 flights, for a rate of one incident for every 16,700 flights.
2.	No.
3.	The four incidents resulted from a leaking seal in a door, icing in the water separators, an electrical switch problem and a sticky bearing. Action was taken to correct all discovered faults in order to prevent recurrence. The rapid descent and other procedures were carried out correctly and, with the exception of problems causing pressure loss, all back-up systems functioned as designed. At no time was oxygen not available when required and no passenger suffered injury or any ill effects.
4.	No. However, maintenance work was performed on aircraft 751 in April, because, while pressurization at ground level could be initiated manually, there was a problem with the automatic operation.
5.	See response to question No. 1,098. In addition, every effort is expended to determine causes of pressurization problems and to devise new design changes, operating procedures and maintenance practices to improve the pressure control system reliability.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of any members of families of the Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers who have held passes at any time on Air Canada since April 20, 1968 and, in each case, on how many occasions have such passes been used?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Records of passes issued by Air Canada are retained for only two years following the year of pass issuance, in accordance with Canadian government requirements. Records for the years 1973 and 1974 are currently held by the airline. A list is attached of family members of cabinet ministers who were issued individual member passes during 1973, 1974.
June 19, 1975

The wife and children of the Prime Minister hold term or annual passes with no restriction on the number of times they may be used. It would be a difficult task, requiring an inordinate amount of clerical time for searching, to determine the number of occasions these passes have been used. Trip passes are rarely returned for cancellation and it is usually assumed that they have been used.
May 15, 1975
Pass issues-family Members of Cabinet Ministers: Mrs. R. K. Andras, Mrs. W. Allmand, Mrs. S. R. Basford, Mrs. J. Buchanan, Mrs. J. Chretien, Mrs. B. Danson, Mrs. J. E. Dube, Mrs. H. Faulkner, Mrs. A. W. Gillespie, Mrs. H. Gray, Mrs. S. Haidasz, Mrs. D. Jamieson, Mrs. J. Jerome, Mrs. O. E. Lang, Mrs. J. Marchand, Mrs. P. Martin, Mrs. J. Munro, Mrs. D. MacDonald, Mrs. B. Mackasey, Mme. A. Ouellet, Mrs. G. Pelletier, Mr. M. Sauve, Mrs. R. Stanbury, Mrs. E. Whelan.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the best Department of Transport estimate of the total cost of icebreaking services for the Ports of the St. Lawrence since April 1, 1965, and who bore such costs?


Jean Marchand: The
best Ministry of Transport estimate for these services for the period April 1, 1969 to the present is $8,600,000. (Basic estimating data does not exist for the years prior to 1969). The Ministry of Transport bears these costs.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Does the proposed sale of CN hotels, once a deal has been consummated, need parliamentary approval?
2.	Will the Minister of Transport give the Canadian public full assurance that no decision regarding the sale of CN hotels will be reached and acted upon while Parliament is in recess?


Jean Marchand: 1. Section 31 of the Canadian National Railways Act authorizes the National Company with the approval of the Governor-in-Council to dispose of shares which it holds in the capital stock of a hotel company. Parliamentary approval is not required.
2. There is currently no sale of CN hotels being proposed and hence I am unable to give any assurances about when a decision might be taken.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Regarding the proposed sale of CN hotels to the consortium of CNR, Air Canada, Hilton and Trizec, what share of the total Canadian hotel market would be concentrated in this consortium?
2.	Are there sufficient justifications for Crown corporations to own and operate, either wholly or in part, areas (in this case hotels) which are fully served by the private sector and, if so, what are such justifications?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Is it more economical and efficient to allow hotel chains to competitively bid for travel packaging, i.e., sales of combined air tickets and and hotel accommodation than have Air Canada own hotels in whole or in part?
4.	Is the transaction consistent with Canadian policy on foreign ownership?
5.	Was the transaction open to public tender and (a) if not (i) for what reason (ii) are there several Canadian hotel chains which could provide the same services as Hilton (b) if so (i) who submitted a tender (ii) what was the amount of each bid?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. CN is not proceeding with the proposed arrangements regarding its hotels.
2 to 5. Not applicable.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What are the CN and Air Canada obligations to guarantee room utilization to the consortium of CNR, Air Canada, Trizec and Hilton?
2.	What will be the status of CN hotels left outside the merger?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. CN is not proceeding with the proposed arrangements regarding its hotels.


Mr. Cossitt: In regard to tolls announced this year by the government for canals under jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has the government given consideration to permitting Senior Citizens to use such canals toll free and (a) if so, with what result (b) if not, will the government give consideration to such a move?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a) Yes. Charge is for the vessel, not for crew or passengers. No special consideration will be given for different age of owner or operator, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Supply and Services for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. $3,101,000.
2. (a) $1,340,000. (b) Nil. (c) $560,000. (d) $1,201,000.

June 19, 1975
National Resources



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Walter C. Carter: That this House declares that Canada has a special right to manage and harvest the living resources on and over its continental shelf and slope and must act immediately to assert her right to manage and control those resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should point out at the outset that the motion was drafted in such a way as to not question the confidence of the government. It is not a no confidence motion but, rather, seeks the views of members of the House of Commons on a very important matter.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today involved what is without a doubt the single most important issue facing a large segment of the population of the country, particularly those living in the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. For the people of my province it is a matter of survival, because despite its ups and downs the fishing industry continues to be the most important factor in the economy of Newfoundland and exerts by far the greatest influence on the social and economic fabric of our communities and our people. The province of Newfoundland is not alone in that regard. The fishing industry is equally important to other regions of this country. I am sure my colleagues from the other regions will be outlining in some detail the importance of the industry to their respective provinces in the course of this debate.
The fishery resources upon which our fishermen on both the east and west coasts depend are not only important for their economic survival but also their way of life, which is being seriously threatened and indeed is facing total collapse unless immediate action is taken by this government. Given the fact that this situation and the resultant social and economic problems are a direct result of overfishing on the part of foreign fishing fleets operating off our coasts, it is imperative that Canada immediately begin, in a determined and meaningful way, the process of exercising sovereign rights over our continental shelf for the purpose of enabling this country to properly manage, harvest and rehabilitate our fishery resources.
Surely by this time, Madam Speaker, with all the scientific data that is available and with the rapid decline in fish landings despite our increased effort and capability, this government must realize the need for immediate action. It must realize, too, that attempts to regulate international fisheries by international law have been notoriously long drawn-out and singulary unsuccessful. The Geneva Law of the Sea conference was a devastating example of the weakness of such a conference for the solution of international fisheries problems of a pressing nature. We were optimistic, to say the least, to expect 150 countries, each with dozens of individual concerns, to agree to a single treaty containing over 300 separate articles and covering such a wide range of issues.
We must recognize, also, that most nations of the world are not compelled, as Canada is, to an early solution of Law of the Sea problems. They do not have to contend

with a rapidly declining fishery, and for the most part they have no other vital marine interests which urgently require protection by a new legal regime such as that sought by Canada at the Geneva conference.
We must bear in mind the failure of past Law of the Sea Conferences to negotiate a meaningful treaty. Madam Speaker, there is no guarantee, therefore, that even a further session in 1976 will necessarily end in the signing of a treaty. Even if it did, its ratification, the passage of necessary legislation, establishment of management mechanism and even a rapid phase-down of foreign fishing effort would add years to a process which by that time would have lost its rationale because of the long past decline of fish stocks, fishermen and the social fabric of our coastal fishing communities.
It is obvious, therefore, that if we are to avert the total collapse of this country's fishing industry, of the very social and economic existence of a large number of our people, unilateral action is the only option open to this government. Such action would provide a clearcut indication of Canada's determination to manage, control and rehabilitate, where necessary, our fish stocks. I ask this question, Madam Speaker: What other course of action is open to us? The Geneva Law of the Sea Conference and other similar conferences dating back to 1958 failed miserably in attempts to achieve a solution of this problem. We are running out of time; our fish stocks are being dangerously depleted.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet ought to study the history of the fisheries of Newfoundland and learn how our ancestors fared in international fishery matters. I think it would be instructive if they could learn the progress Newfoundland made in asserting and defending her rights to the marine resources around her coast. All these rights were acquired through unilateral action.
Newfoundland made her first initiative to protect her fisheries in 1857; she made that initiative in the international arena just two years after the colony had been granted responsible government. Faced with an English government which persisted in paying more attention to that country's good relations with more powerful and prestigious European countries than to Newfoundland's interest-and Newfoundland's interest lay in resisting the claims of certain countries to fishing rights off Newfoundland's coast-the Newfoundland legislature of that time passed a resolution similar to the one we are debating here today. At the same time it condemned the actions of the English government for trading off Newfoundland's territorial and maritime rights without the consent of the legislature.
In the end, the English government backed down and admitted that "the rights enjoyed by the colony of Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their consent." Subsequently, in the latter part of the nineteenth century when dealing with American, Canadian and French vessels fishing inside her territorial waters, Newfoundland pulled no punches. The famous Bait Act, the equivalent of closing the ports today to foreign vessels, and our fishing regulations generally were enforced with a
June 19, 1975

severity which made the hair stand on the heads of English diplomats and did little to endear Newfoundland to the ballroom sets of London and other European capitals.
In 1904 the fisheries protection service of Newfoundland had under its jurisdiction five cruisers. These, equipped with the necessary hardware, set out to enforce our country's fishing regulations-and enforce them they did. The record shows that in one year, seven foreign fishing vessels were arrested and convicted for offences such as fishing within our territorial waters, throwing fish offal overboard on the fishing grounds, and larceny of a fleet's herring nets and gear. I ask, what action has this country taken to protect our marine resources? What action has this country, with a population exceeding 20 million people, taken? Consider what Newfoundland, with a population of a mere 250,000 people, did 75 years ago. The people of the province acted out of conviction and put their money where their mouth was, as it were.
A few years later, in 1910, a special international arbitration board established between England and the United States confirmed that Newfoundland and Canada were justified in using headland to headland base lines from which to measure their territorial seas. England later succeeded in persuading Canada to forgo the headland to headland concept and, instead, to accept a ten-mile maximum for closing lines across her bays. This, of course, was a complete distortion of the arbitration board's ruling and in the case of Newfoundland would have reduced drastically the area under Newfoundland's control. Newfoundland, consequently, refused to accept the proposition put forward and, subsequently, declared unilaterally her right to establish a headland to headland base line which continued up to confederation and was agreed to by Canada when Newfoundland entered confederation in 1949.
So you see, Madam Speaker, we eastern Canadians, among whom I include Newfoundlanders, never took too kindly to having our fishery resources plundered by foreign nations. What is more important, our people were prepared to fight for and defend our rights to those resources before confederation. Of course, after confederation that responsibility was vested in the Canadian government. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is interested in Newfie jokes, let him try that one on for size. The real lesson, Madam Speaker, lies not in nostalgia; it lies in recognizing that a people's will, a will to stand strong, united and determined against the encroachments of major powers once protected our vital interests. It can do this again.
This government's willingness or otherwise to protect our fish stocks must be looked at in the context of how economically weak regions of this country are treated generally. Obviously, fishing rights are irrelevant to the maintenance of the economic and social fabric of our more wealthy landlocked provinces. As these provinces hold the balance of power politically and economically, is it any wonder that Ottawa has failed to appreciate our problems and refuses to act in our better interests?
Newfoundlanders have not forgotten the lesssons of the past. They have not forgotten what happened when we were a colony of Great Britain, when that country sacrificed our fisheries because it was unwilling to prejudice its international relations with other more powerful and pre-
National Resources
stigious European countries. If these words have a familiar ring, the reason is that it has become increasingly obvious that the present government has adopted a similar attitude. Our fishermen would be naive indeed if they did not recognize the real reason for the government's unwillingness to take unilateral action and protect their livelihood and way of life. Unfortunately, our government are more concerned with maintaining their Mr. Clean image abroad, their Mr. Nice Guy image, than with solving the problems of our fishermen.
There are times when government members talk really tough-times like a few weeks before an election. For example, at a Liberal rally in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, on June 24, 1974, a mere 14 days before the July 8 federal election, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)-the member for that great fishing constituency, Burin-Burgeo-got really tough. Apparently he was willing to take on all the ICNAF countries and all other countries which fish off our coasts, singlehandedly, and whip the daylights out of them. Let me quote what he said at that meeting:
Canada unilaterally will take control of the continental shelf off its coasts if current Law of the Sea negotiations do not go mostly her way.
The minister, then wearing the hat of a candidate seeking re-election in Burin-Burgeo, which happens to be more dependent on the fishery than any other federal constituency in Canada, went on to say:
Canada does not want to enter the Law of the Sea conference in Caracas with a big stick. If it all comes apart at the seams we simply can't leave matters as they stand.
The minister concluded his speech by saying:
Canada must have control over fisheries on the continental shelf and if Canada cannot negotiate control over the shelf and their immense fishery resources, it will have no choice but to take unilateral action.
I should mention as well that the Prime Minister attended the same rally in Cornerbrook on that day. His great contribution to the problem facing our fishermen and to alleviating their anxiety for the future was an assurance that the Law of the Sea conference would accept the Canadian position, that of a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone. I ought to mention that the conference in which the Prime Minister expressed such overwhelming confidence was the one which was held in Caracas in 1974. That conference failed to produce a treaty. Since then another conference has been held in Geneva and it, too, failed to negotiate a convention for the protection of our marine resources.
The question we have to ask ourselves, particularly those of us who live in the Atlantic area or on the west coast of this country, is: How much longer can we wait? How many more conferences must, we have before the Prime Minister, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) get the message and act to protect our fishing industry and our fishermen?
This government is obviously hung up on conferences. There have been conferences since 1958. Already plans are being made for another conference in New York in 1976. We are rapidly developing an elite corps of conference-

June 19, 1975
National Resources
goers. Maybe it can be arranged to have the New York conference coincide with the World Series.


James Aloysius McGrath: At least something would be
accomplished.


Walter C. Carter: If this keeps up, we will have more conference-goers than we will have fishermen. The latest conference, the one in which the government is now asking the fishermen to place their faith and hopes, is the ICNAF conference currently being held in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleague, the Minister of State (Fisheries), have courageously instructed their officials attending the meeting that Canada will settle for nothing less than a 40 per cent reduction in the fishing effort of the 14 member nations of ICNAF. Failing to agree to such a proposition will result, they say, in the closing of our east coast ports to all foreign fishing ships.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that they are asking for a 40 per cent reduction in the fishing effort and not in the fish quotas and, as I will point out later, therein lies the gimmick. The minister's threat to close our east coast ports must have caused some sleepless nights in the countries concerned, particularly in Russia, Poland and East and West Germany, all of which are major plunderers of our marine resources and have been guilty of violating the existing ICNAF quotas. Ships operated by these countries have no real need to visit our ports because they can be fully serviced at sea. As far as the other countries are concerned, it would simply be a matter of diverting their fishing ships to the French- islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon where they would be welcomed with open arms.
Now a word about the ICNAF meetings and our government's demand for a 40 per cent reduction in the fishing effort of the member nations. I am sure the Minister of State (Fisheries) realizes that even if the ICNAF meeting does produce an agreement for a 40 per cent reduction in effort, it is quite conceivable that such an agreement would not lessen by one pound the quantity of fish caught in the ICNAF fishing zone. This government has proven itself incapable of adequately policing the ICNAF quotas. Not long ago the minister told the committee that the Russians were caught violating their agreed quotas on caplin. I think the minister was being quite conservative when he said their quotas were exceeded by a small number. I was told by a reliable source that they exceeded their quotas by five times. This is the type of thing that is going on in the ICNAF areas. It is certainly one we have to guard against.
If the government is incapable of policing the ICNAF quotas where men can physically go on board a ship and see the amount of fish in the holds, how can we expect them to properly police an agreement to reduce a fishing effort? It would mean men on every ship, working around the clock counting nets, counting the hours they are in the water, counting the number of times they are hauled, assessing the workload of the crew members and the amount of effort they are putting into their work. It would be an impossible task. I do not think the Minister of State (Fisheries) and his colleagues are serious about it. Such a proposition is ridiculous because it would be impossible to enforce.

I shall outline, for the record, the situation as it now exists with respect to fishing activity in the ICNAF convention areas by its member nations. These are official Government of Canada statistics. In 1960, Canada's total groundfish catch was 723,000 metric tons, as opposed to
885,000	metric tons in 1973; an increase of 22.4 per cent. The same year, Russia's total catch was 258,000 metric tons, and in 1973 1,354,000 metric tons, which is an increase of 424.8 per cent. In 1960, the United States caught 477,000 metric tons, against 971,000 metric tons in 1973; an increase of 103.6 per cent. Spain, in 1960, took 177,000 metric tons and in 1973 its catch had amounted to 238,000 metric tons; an increase of 34.5 per cent. In 1960, Poland caught 4,000 metric tons and in 1973 their catches amounted to 267,000 metric tons, which is an increase of 6,575 per cent. The increases in the catches of the other member nations of the ICNAF convention are equally as glaring as those to which I have referred.
To sum up, the grand total of groundfish caught in the ICNAF area in 1973 is exactly double the tonnage caught in 1960. I should point out, also, that in 1974 the total fish landings in Newfoundland, under all headings, was less than one-half that in 1969, just five years earlier, despite our increased fishing effort and capability. Is it any wonder that we have lost faith in ICNAF and in this government?
The fishermen of this country are facing a bleak future. Their means of survival are being plundered by foreign interests and their government continues to treat the problem with total indifference. Newfoundland's representative to the Law of the Sea conference, Mr. Cabot Martin, has very appropriately summed up the situation in which we now find ourselves. Canadian fishermen, he said, should ask themselves why the dangers of unilateralism are acceptable to Ottawa when it comes to saving polar bears, but not when it comes to the very survival of our fishing areas as communities. Of course, the same can be said with regard to seals. The government is more interested in preserving our seal heads and, to some extent, taking unilateral action than in taking action to protect a way of life enjoyed by a large number of Canadians in the Atlantic area and on the west coast of this country.
As far as Newfoundland is concerned, we are at the crossroads in our history as a province of Canada. Our people are not content to remain poor relatives of the Upper Canadian-oriented bureaucracy. They will no longer be satisfied with just the provision of the necessary public services and other fringe benefits doled out by Ottawa to the weaker provinces. We did not relinquish 400 years of independence to become an economically deprived province of Canada. We demand that the central bureaucracy go much further than just keeping us alive. We demand the right to be given the means to develop our natural resources and preserve our society and our way of life according to our own priorities. If we are denied that right, the question which will inevitably follow is: Has confederation been worth while?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the House
June 19, 1975

and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) that I certainly accept his general objective and good intentions in putting his motion before the House today. The objective which members of the House are determined to achieve is that Canada be able to exercise exclusive and effective management rights over the living resources off its coasts. With this objective in mind, I certainly share the purposes of the hon. member.
I also share his appreciation of the serious situation which exists in our fisheries, particularly off the east coast. We have not attempted-I certainly have not attempted, nor has the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc)-to gloss over the fact that there is overfishing by foreign fleets or that this overfishing has resulted in a reduction in the level of stocks traditionally harvested by Canadian fishermen, for instance, cod, haddock and herring.
The hon. member has talked about the fishermen of his province. I could talk about the fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia. There is a rich fishery in Nova Scotia. It is not as rich as that of Newfoundland, but a large number of the citizens of that province depend upon the fishery and many of the most picturesque and appealing communities rely for their existence on a viable fishing industry. So we are all agreed as to the importance of this issue.
We know that the decline in stocks has resulted in financial hardship for fishing operators, for fishermen and for the industry as a whole. In response to the facts the hon. member has been putting before us this afternoon, we have taken measures-exceptional measures, in my view- to alleviate the hardship which has been caused, making available, for example, subsidies totalling $80 million. I am sure that in the course of this debate my colleague the Minister of State for Fisheries and others on this side of the House will be drawing attention to what the government has been doing to support the fishermen of the Atlantic coast.
Having reached this stage in my speech, I am afraid I begin to differ from the hon. member for St. John's West. I invite hon. members to read the motion we are asked to support. It states:
-this House declares that Canada has a special right to manage and harvest the living resources on and over its continental shelf and slope and must act immediately to assert her right to manage and control those resources.
The motion calls for the exercise of a special right over the living resources on and over the continental shelf and slope. Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion is seriously flawed and I cannot understand how an hon. member from British Columbia, such as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) whose name appears as seconder of the motion, could support it. In limiting our fishing zones to the continental shelf, as the motion does, the hon. member is limiting our claim on the Pacific coast to 60 or 70 miles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is precisely what the motion is saying. If it were adopted, the House of Commons would be saying: As far as the Pacific fisheries are concerned, we are content with exercising rights to the edge of the continental shelf or slope. Mr. Speaker, this measures only
National Resources
60 or 70 miles. We believe, and our position has been clearly stated at the Law of the Sea conference where we are pressing for a 200-mile fishing zone-


James Aloysius McGrath: What is so special about 200 miles?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is much better than 60 or 70 miles for the fishermen of the Pacific coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Adoption of this motion by the House would cause serious difficulties for our negotiators at any future international conferences. It would cause serious difficulty in the field of policy because we would be saying: As far as the Pacific Coast is concerned we are satisfied with exercising special rights only for 60 miles or so.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: High school stuff!


Mr. Breau:: It is a high school motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is the motion which the House of Commons is being asked to declare to the world. I wonder how the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich could ever go back to his fishermen and say, "In your case I settled for jurisdiction extending 60 or 70 miles, though the Canadian position at the present time at the Law of the Sea conference represents at least a search for a 200-mile economic zone, with certain preferential rights related to the species of fish which exist immediately beyond the 200-mile economic zone itself.".


James Aloysius McGrath: What about the continental shelf?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When it comes to the east coast, the hon. member has done the very opposite of what he has proposed for the west coast. We have been arguing at the Law of the Sea conference-and we understood that we were supported in this argument by members on the other side of the House-that a 200-mile economic zone is our objective and that we would seek exclusive management rights for species that exist within the boundary of 200 miles. That has been the policy we have put forward.
The Canadian parliament is now being asked to tell the world that we are seeking not only a 200-mile zone plus the exclusive management rights to which I have referred, but also jurisdiction on the high seas to 400 miles and 600 miles. I wonder whether members on the other side of the House have seriously considered the effect this kind of resolution would have on the position that has been taken by Canadian negotiators at the Law of the Sea conference up to the present time.
As it is written, it is not difficult for me or for any member of the House to vote against the motion. I would think that unless hon. members opposite want to create great difficulties and wrong impressions they ought, after the debate has taken place, to agree to withdraw the motion and not have a large group of their party support this kind of distortion of what up to the present has been Canadian policy. I did not write the motion but I have read it, and what I have said to the House is what its

June 19, 1975
National Resources
words mean. I have to deal with the motion, not with what is in the mind of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
Apart from these defects existing in the motion, the hon. member is asking for unilateral action now for establishing a zone of 600 miles on the Atlantic coast and 70 miles on the Pacific coast. If I may put that incredible proposition aside, let me turn to a more achievable objective, namely, unilateral action to achieve the 200-miles economic zone itself. What are the implications of that particular action at the present time? First of all, Canada would have to enforce, at short notice, its new jurisdiction against the fleets of other nations. Hon. members know that international law as it presently stands gives all states, including these other nations, the right to harvest freely the living resources of the high seas; that is, in the area immediately beyond the territorial sea of a coastal state.
At the present time, under international law-we are trying vigorously at the Law of the Sea conference to change the present international law-a coastal state has no right to an exclusive fishing zone beyond its territorial sea. We are totally dissatisfied with that international law governing the fisheries and we are doing, and will continue to do, our utmost to change it. It is clear that, in the absence of detailed negotiations and agreements with other member states now fishing in these waters, to declare unilateral action today would involve us in serious confrontation. The hon. member has no assurance, unless these negotiations do take place and mutual accommodations are reached, that vessels would recognize our declaration instead of preferring to recognize existing international law.
I realize the attractiveness of making resounding statements about taking unilateral action now, but I also believe it is necessary to explain to the fishermen what the implications may be in the long run and to explain to them that there are hazards in this direction as well. It may be that after careful analysis it is decided that unilateral action may not bring results any faster than working through the multilateral approach that we have worked within and which we have regarded as the preferred solution.
Then I ask hon. members to reflect on two other points. By voting for unilateral action, this House votes for unilateral action today. What effect would that have on Canada's objective of reaching agreement at the Law of the Sea conference on the coastal states' preferential rights to the living resources in the area of and beyond the 200 miles? If we change the hon. member's motion to make it conform to a more realistic objective, namely, a 200-mile economic zone, and if we declare it today through this parliament, what effect would that have on the preferential rights that we are seeking for those species that exist adjacent to the boundaries of the 200 miles?
What effect would it have, I ask the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, on the special regime that we have been seeking for salmon, a special regime giving the state of origin exclusive management rights and imposing a ban on high seas fishing of these species? We know perfectly well that that particular regime for salmon, so vital on the Pacific and on the Atlantic, can only come about as a result of a multilateral treaty. Would we be justified today, without negotiation, without consultation with any 
other member state, in jeopardizing the objective that we are patiently reaching in our negotiations of establishing a regime for the salmon?
It should be obvious to hon. members that the state of origin by itself, without the agreement of other interested parties, would be powerless to exercise effective control over salmon throughout its migratory range. That has been one of the constant concerns that I have had in considering the prospect of unilateral action. What will it do for the 200-mile zone? What will it do for preferential rights adjacent to the 200-mile economic zone? What will it do for the salmon? In proposing such unilateral action we cannot overlook other important objectives that Canada has in mind at the Law of the Sea conference. The continental margin and the protection of the marine environment, all of these are part of the total package which Canada is seeking. What effect would unilateral action today have on these other objectives? It seems to me that we have to consider all these facts before we launch forward and follow the well intentioned advice of the hon. member for St. John's West.
We have been working at the Law of the Sea conference and I disagree entirely with the hon. member's analysis of that conference. I believe that while it has not resulted in instant international law on fisheries, it has made great achievements. Our fisheries objectives at that conference are well known. They are, first of all exclusive management rights to the coastal state over the living resources within the 200-mile zone, preferential rights over stocks occurring in the area immediately beyond the 200-mile limit, and exclusive management rights over salmon stocks throughout their migratory range. These objectives were not put into international law at the last Law of the Sea conference but it did result in the production of a negotiating text in which these issues went very far in in reflecting Canadian interests.
Yesterday the minister from Norway was in Ottawa. Mr. Evensen and his group were very active at the conference, under his leadership, in working on a fisheries text and other texts. It is a fact that his work and his texts have almost totally been reflected in the single negotiating text. This is a negotiating text, not a settlement and not a negotiated text; but it is of interest to us that the main objectives of Canada have been achieved, with the exception that the preferential rights we are seeking for species adjacent to the 200-mile economic zone have been dealt with only vaguely.
I was particularly delighted, when the text was tabled, to see how the regime for salmon had been reflected in that text. This text would recognize the primary responsibility and interest of the state of origin in respect of salmon spawned in its rivers. There again, the state of origin would be entitled to set the total allowable catch for its salmon stocks. Still another provision would prohibit fishing for salmon beyond the 200-mile limit, with allowances made for some accommodation of existing high seas fisheries. As the hon. member knows, such fisheries have been conducted only by Japan which has taken some mainly of U.S. and U.S.S.R. origin both within and beyond 200 miles from land. In addition to that, the single text would close the door to new states interested in fishing
June 19, 1975

salmon in the high seas beyond 200 miles. Finally, the salmon article of the single negotiating text would enjoin an adjacent state in whose exclusive 200-mile fishing zone salmon would migrate to agree with the state of origin on conservation and management measures.
I have already stated that the single negotiating text does not adequately reflect our objective in respect of coastal state preferential rights over fish stocks occurring immediately adjacent to the 200-mile limit. In putting these points before the House, I think we have every reason to register satisfaction with the degree of progress made in the fisheries situation itself. If we could translate these objectives immediately into international law, this subject certainly would not be debated today.
We are now faced with a number of points the government must deal with before it can possibly implement the declaration of unilateral action. First of all, we have to consult with other countries such as Norway and the United States which may be interested in working along with us in achieving fisheries objectives. That is essential. It is essential, also, for us to assess fully the results of the efforts being made by the Minister of State for Fisheries at the ICNAF conference. Canada has taken bold initiatives at this conference with a view to seeking agreement on a substantial reduction of foreign fishing effort of groundfish stocks, with appropriate reductions in quota allocations to foreign fishing fleets.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is only a scientific conference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a scientific conference with very important implications for reaching our objectives. In fact, in reply to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), let me tell him that I was advised by fisheries representatives that if we could achieve our objectives at ICNAF, the concern for immediate unilateral action would be considerably reduced, if not eliminated. We have had a final meeting in Edinburgh, and I listened this morning to Dr. Needier telling us it is now proposed to have an additional meeting in September to follow up the ICNAF studies.
Finally, there is the question of the fishing fleets which are now fishing in these waters-waters which are high seas and in which they may fish under present international law. It seems to me it would be prudent for Canada to assess very carefully the attitude of these countries and to conduct negotiations with them before we accepted a motion such as the one put forward today by the hon. member for St. John's West. I would prefer to administer a long-term policy that would get results in fisheries rather than yield to pressure to declare unilateral action instantaneously, the benefits of which may not arrive for quite some time unless the ground work is carefully laid.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member but I think the wording of his motion, if accepted, would get us into great difficulties. The hon. member's motion would treat the west coast differently from the east coast: it would declare a jurisdiction of 60 or 70 miles off the west coast and a jurisdiction of 400 to 600 miles for fisheries off the Atlantic coast. If accepted, this would cause us great difficulty and would distort beyond recognition present Canadian policy which has been accepted on all sides of the House.
National Resources
Furthermore, there are other steps we have to take in conjunction with continuing sessions on the Law of the Sea. One step is the ICNAF operation, another is consultation with states fishing in our waters and another is consultation with states like Norway which have similar fisheries objectives.
I want to conclude by saying, as I said at the Law of the Sea conference at Caracas and again at Geneva, that there is a point at which Canada would consider, as one of its options, a unilateral declaration. We have always maintained that as one of our options. We continue to maintain it, but we think to take it today would be against Canada's best interests.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I make a point of participating for a few moments in this debate on the motion relating to fisheries.
The motion we are now discussing provides us with the opportunity to express our views on that matter, which is of utmost importance. Furthermore, it is nothing new that members of this House ask the government to apply a policy serving the interests of our country and fishermen.
Madam Speaker, the principle underlying the motion before the House today is to provide Canada with a special legislation enabling us to manage and develop marine wildlife and flora resources in the waters of our continental shelf and slopes, and also to allow this country to take immediate action to assert its right to manage and control those resources.
It is quite obvious that a country like ours that has immense openings on the Pacific and the Atlantic needs legislation that can guarantee not only autonomy but also-and this is extremely important-respect for our fishing rights along its coasts so it will be really possible to apply them. So we must take the necessary steps to protect our resources because in face of their depletion one cannot remain quiet or indifferent. As a matter of fact, the motion now before us deals with a question that has been of tremendous importance for a very long time already, particularly for the economic life and the well-being of the Canadian people.
More than ever in the past the question of the use of sea resources is crucial, considering the recent discoveries that allow to assess in part the tremendous possibilities represented by the potential development of oil and other minerals that lie at the bottom of the ocean. In that respect I am more convinced than ever following a recent visit in the territories of northern Canada about the wealth of resources in the subsoil and even in the sea, resources that have remained undeveloped but are there nevertheless for all Canadians.
I was very surprised to discover the immense and tremendous resources that accumulate with the permission and under the authority of the government and also with the participation of the various companies interested in carrying out research and making greater use of the resources in those territories.
Of course, there as in all other fields of economic activity, countries do not all enjoy the same natural advantages
29S76-25

June 19, 1975
National Resources
such as access to the sea and the existence of coastal areas. I admit quite readily for my part that our country is particularly well off. Indeed, in the east we have access to the Atlantic ocean, in the west the Pacific ocean, and in the north we touch the Arctic ocean, and that is fantastic.
Madam Speaker, we are quite aware of all our advantages. We also know that Canada has a very long coastal area that surrounds the country on three sides. For that reason, we are particularly concerned by the problem raised by the motion introduced this afternoon. The problem of sovereignty of a country over its surrounding coastal areas is not new. However, it is certain that the discovery of enormous mineral resources as well as the outstanding increase in the demand for sea products such as fish, for example, make it urgent to determine a course of conduct that will have to be accepted not only by Canada but also by all countries of the international community.
Madam Speaker, last March my colleague the member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) had the honour to attend the Law of the Sea Conference held in Geneva. I wish to point out that he gave us a report on that conference which was a very stimulating and rewarding experience.
According to some delegates, that conference was considered as the most important since the one held in San Francisco where the charter of the United Nations was drafted. The object of the last conference was to try to develop a marine constitution acceptable to all countries as a binding treaty. The problems discussed were quite complex. Among various issues discussed was the width of the continental shelf over which a coastal state would have sovereign rights for the exploration and development of resources and reference was also made to the delimitation of the marine ground which does not come under national jurisdiction and must ultimately be used for pacific purposes as the common inheritance of mankind.
We thought and still think that the best way to ensure a judicious use of ocean resources in the best interest of the world population would be a basic reform of maritime law that would give to the country full sovereignty over a zone extending 200 miles from its coasts and sometimes even to the limits of the continental shelf, depending on the location.
I sincerely believe that this is the only approach offering actual guarantees regarding the safeguard of sea resources. And the fact of giving to every coastal state the responsibility for, the sovereignty over and the property of resources in a zone extending 200 miles from the coasts is the only way to ensure good management and good allocation of those resources.
I for one think that if coastal zones belonged to everybody, in fact they would belong to no one and such a decision could result in an irrational pillage of resources. On the other hand, if every nation had full control over a coastal zone extending 200 miles offshore, each one of these nations would then have the responsibility to protect, develop and ensure good use of the resources under its jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, I entirely understand the fear of the countries without coastal zones and that do not have

access to the sea, but I firmly believe that the interest of those countries lies, like for the others, in a responsible use of sea resources. On the other hand, it is undeniable that such a responsible use of resources is only possible if they are under national jurisdiction. Some countries might be worried by this position, but it is not difficult to set their mind at ease because I sincerely believe that they just have to recall the usual generosity of Canada towards them.
To claim that our country has contributed more than any other to the progress of developing countries with regard to natural resources and their use is in no way pretentious. Madam Speaker, as far as foreign aid is concerned, Canada ranks among the first in the world through the amounts of money it has given to help underdeveloped countries. CIDA's latest budget proves it. If we extend our jurisdiction over our coastal waters to a distance of 200 miles offshore, we will then be able to guarantee the protection and the reasonable use of the tremendous resources placed under our control, because, above all else, we will want to manage those resources justly, fairly, not only from the Canadian point of view, but also from that of the countries which can benefit from the advantages of that untold wealth which, if it is protected, conserved and well developed, can be of benefit to all humanity.
Madam Speaker, I am not saying anything new when I say that it is only since the period between the two world wars that a start has been made in the formulation of concepts that reflect the fundamental economic interests of the states endowed with coastal waters with regard to the fishing rights on the continental shelf; for the last 300 years, the law of the sea had reflected solely colonial, military and commercial interests. It became obvious that international law was growing less and less adapted to the problems and needs created out of technological progress. This seems fairly obvious to me when we allude, for instance, to the marine environment; when we speak of it, we must consider not only water pollution but also the fishing industry.
I remember well, Madam Speaker, when, at the time of a conference attended by the Canadian members of parliament and the members of the French National Assembly, the important matter of the pollution of the Arctic ocean was made the topic of a detailed study and the adoption of very serious resolutions through which interested countries were asked to take part in a comprehensive study, with a view to avoiding water pollution in that vast territory, which shows once more how important this question is. That is why I feel our neighbour to the south and all the countries in the vicinity of this vast territory would be well advised to support our country in its efforts to preserve this immense territory which I think will serve future generations as a very important reserve for drinking water and fish products.
If there is something we must realize, it is that only since Canada has taken a number of initiatives in the area of environmental protection of the sea has the law of the sea finally taken these matters into account. As a matter of fact, it is quite easy to see that the freedom of the high seas concept has been abused to such a point that it condones excessive fishing as well as pollution.
June 19, 1975

Well, we should not live in these vast territories as though no human beings were to live there after us. We must realize that there will be future generations and that it is our duty to adopt legislation to protect these vast territories which, if we do our job well and assume our responsibilities, will serve future generations as an immense reserve of various products to meet their needs. This way we shall be protecting the general interests of our country and not those of a limited few, following guidelines which should help protect the interest of the community.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we should have, as a coastal state, the right to defend our interests in this area. We all know that fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is forbidden to foreign fleets and that many other steps and initiatives have been taken by the government, as evidence of its interest in fisheries. Parliament also should support the efforts which are made now to assure more thorough and complete supervision over this area.
The interest shown by the government in that field seems very normal to me if we think that the fishing industry is vitally important on our east and west coasts, not only economically but also socially and humanly. It is anyway for the Canadian people, since a great many Canadians depend on this industry for their living, either in the fishing or the marketing field. The fishing industry creates many jobs across Canada, and at the same time enables Canadians to add fish to their diet, which is highly recommended by medical authorities. It is also a sector of the Canadian economy which has to be protected and developed if we want fishermen to have a reasonable income which will allow them to face the future with confidence.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I urge the government to do its utmost to guarantee the full protection and recognition of the richness of marine life in Canada. Those are the remarks I wanted to make sincerely, during the discussion of this motion, to support strongly, as a Canadian and as a responsible parliamentarian, the effort that is being made and that will have to be made in the future to protect this industry and our coasts from the invasion of foreign countries.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) for bringing forward this motion. We in this party think it is timely and appropriate that action be taken now; we believe that delay is causing serious harm to the disposition of the ICNAF conference and continuing harm to the protection of fisheries on the east coast.
I will be proposing an amendment to the motion to cover the point raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on the question of the 200-mile zone on the west coast. It is understandable that the motion reads the way it does because of the intense interest in the problems of the east coast fisheries.


Herb Breau: Because the Tories can't draft a motion.
National Resources


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I can understand the wording of the motion as it is, but the point is valid that it does not cover the 200-mile zone respecting the west coast fisheries; my amendment will cover that point.
On the subject of a unilateral declaration, the first charge that those of us who support it have to answer is that it is a departure from Canada's traditional role as a broker in international affairs and a departure from her traditional support of international agreements. In fact, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. At the Law of the Sea conference, two-thirds of all states and 90 per cent of the world's population agreed with Canada's position on the 200-mile zone. The unilateral declaration does not harm the consensus; in fact it will confirm what has become an accepted economic zone around the world.
The major reason for moving into a unilateral declaration now is that the depletion of the east coast fishing stock has been a great tragedy to people on that coast. I am not going to go into the depressing figures for the east coast fishery, but one example is that the herring catch is down by 90 per cent. As the minister of fisheries has said many times, fishermen cannot eat negotiating texts. Herring fishermen cannot wait forever for these stocks to be protected. I hope the minister will see fit to back his fine words with action.
The criticism from the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that because of the sensitivity of the ICNAF conference and the delicate negotiations taking place, to move now would disturb those negotiations. In fact, I would suggest the reverse is true. You do not go into a poker game without all your cards. There is no reason why we should not move now, to support the position taken by the negotiator at the conference so that the countries concerned will know that Canada means business. I suggest that such caution at the ICNAF conference lessens our chances of getting the 40 per cent reduction which we seek. In fact, I would suggest that Canada's position will defeat the efforts of her representatives at the conference. There is every reason to believe we would be in a better position to save those stocks if we moved on a unilateral declaration.
International law on the subject of economic zones has always been developed in stages, by custom. We can go back to the case of the old Norwegian coast, which was probably the beginning of changes in boundaries in the world's oceans, when she decided the straight base line concept was the one she wished to adopt in order to define her territorial sea. Since then there have been the examples of Iceland and Peru. Each time there has been a declaration of this sort, I believe that international law has been advanced. The action taken by those countries has helped Canada to be successful in developing a consensus for the 200-mile zone. Surely we should go the last step; there is no reason why we should wait.
I want to deal with a problem raised by some of my friends who are world federalists, that Canada has somehow departed from her traditional role of support for world bodies. Dr. John Logue has described Canada's position as a moral monstrosity in terms of a unilateral declaration. That kind of elitist attitude, telling the group of 77 what is best for them, does no service at all to internationalism. In fact, it is the people in the developing
29576-25)4

June 19, 1975
National Resources
world who have supported Canada's concept of the 200-mile zone. They understand their own position and do not need to be lectured by someone like Dr. Logue. Countries of the Third World understand their own development and do not need to rely on some nebulous formula for the future.
I am not critical of Canada's conduct at the Law of the Sea conference, Madam Speaker. It is an enormous task to get 150 countries to agree to redraw the world's boundaries. The argument that we do not yet have a unilateral declaration does not destroy our success in developing a consensus; in fact, it encourages the consensus to be even more consolidated when the conference resumes in New York. Another aspect of the question of timing is the situation in the United States. Their Magnusson bill is still in the Senate and I believe it is supported by a legislator named Leggatt-obviously a very progressive legislator!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The United States is on the verge of moving to its economic zone. From my conversations with United States legislators I have been given to understand that the legislation should be in place by next fall and that they have sufficient votes in the House to override a presidential veto. I suppose Canada's position will then be: We can make our declaration now that the United States has again given the lead. I am asking that Canada show some leadership and not wait for the United States and Mexico to move on the economic zone. If we show leadership now, we will come out of the conference in much better shape.
I now want to say a few words about the west coast fishery. The largest salmon fishing river in the world runs through my riding. I might say that fishermen on the west coast are pleased at the development of the consensus concerning the 200-mile limit. It is interesting to note that fishermen on the west coast and on the east coast, despite all their differences, agree in their support for this motion-a motion which I propose to amend in a minute. Despite the differences in the fisheries, despite the difficulties involving high seas salmon fishing, the fishermen who actually work in the boats and pull in the fish see no merit in delaying any longer a unilateral declaration.
Some may argue that we risk losing salmon on the high seas unless a treaty is signed, but I submit that the risk is minimal. The treaty with the Japanese is such that almost no Canadian salmon are presently being taken by the Japanese. A unilateral declaration will satisfy and confirm the position of our fishermen, especially on the west coast. They think a 200-mile zone will do more to protect salmon than almost anything else even though they go out beyond the 200-mile zone. We are satisfied that Canada has enough levers on the high seas to protect high seas salmon even without an international treaty.
I want to say a word about the salmon enhancement program on the west coast. I have been a member of parliament since 1972, and it seems to me that every spring we hear the announcement concerning the salmon enhancement program. One looks forward to it much as one looks forward to the daffodils every year. We hear the

announcement concerning the salmon enhancement program, but unfortunately, like the daffodils, that promise seems to wither quickly and no action is taken on it. Perhaps the minister is following the old dictum: never carry out a political promise because you will lose it for the next election. Another dictum is: never spoil a good political promise with action.
I recall the previous minister of fisheries announcing the enhancement program. The figures quoted rise progressively, but I suppose that is owing to inflation. I do not suppose we shall see the latest estimated number of salmon in those spawning beds. I should like to see more action to develop our fisheries, action which the government has promised for a long time and to which our fishermen have been looking forward for a long time. The enhancement program makes for good press releases. Unfortunately, the press has a short memory; it forgets what was said last season about the enhancement program. If the Vancouver Sun people would read what happened last time the enhancement program was announced, they would see that this is not a new idea, that it is the same announcement each time and covers the same enhancement program. It is time to implement that excellent program which has been mentioned by this minister and his predecessor. It should be implemented regardless of the state of Canada-U.S. treaty negotiations. We cannot wait any longer to increase our salmon stocks.
If I may touch on the Law of the Sea concerning salmon, there are severe weaknesses in the unified draft treaty. I am talking about the one on which negotiations will be based at the New York conference. I hope the minister and his officials will take cognizance of these weaknesses. Article 54 (3)(b), which may be an attempt to limit high seas fishing, says:
The state of origin shall co-operate in minimizing economic dislocation in such other states fishing these stocks, taking into account the normal catch and the mode of operations-
On the surface, this looks like an attempt to keep the quantity of our salmon which foreign fleets catch about the same as it is now; it is an attempt to keep matters in their present position. I hope the minister's officials will look at the meaning of "economic dislocation." If the catch of some other species goes down, a country like Japan could well argue that it can increase the pressure on our salmon stocks to avoid economic dislocation. That is my tentative interpretation and I hope it is wrong. But I submit that the article as presently drafted leaves a serious loophole. The other part of the negotiated draft treaty which gives me concern is subparagraph (c) of article 54(3), which says:
States referred to in subparagraph (b), participating by agreement with the state of origin in measures to renew anadromous stocks, particularly by expenditures for that purpose, shall be given special consideration by the state of origin in the harvesting of stocks originating in its rivers.
I hope our negotiators remember the investment the United States made many years ago in Hell's Gate canyon. On the basis of . this investment the United States has been holding up negotiations for a long time. They want to make sure they get their proper share of the Fraser River catch. If this article is left as it is in the treaty, it will be thrown back at us every year in our negotiations with the United States. They will say, "We are simply confirming
June 19, 1975

the position that any foreign country which invests in Canadian fisheries is entitled forever to a share of those stocks." That is complete nonsense. The few dollars which the United States invested in Hell's Gate canyon many years ago represent about the best investment that country ever made, in terms of return. As I said, there is nothing wrong with a unilateral declaration now. The motion is timely. It will help us in our negotiations both on the east coast and on the west coast. It will help us with the U.S. salmon negotiations which as we know have been deferred for one year.
I wish to propose an amendment to the motion before the House in order to deal with the question raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I raised this matter some time ago, by way of a motion under Standing Order 43, clearly calling for a 200-mile economic zone, or a zone out to the edge of the continental shelf, whichever is the greater. The intention was to protect our fisheries. With that in mind, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the word "slope", the following words:
or to the extent of a 200-mile economic zone, whichever is the
greater.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) for bringing forward this motion. I am delighted with the amendment which has come forward.


An hon. Member:: I'll bet you are.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, before anyone else intervenes, let me say to this House that I was at first shocked, then ashamed, subsequently disgusted and finally completely disappointed to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) descend to the depths of petty political ridicule. I say this because we brought forward the motion for two reasons, and they are significant. One is that this is an important motion for all of Canada, and the other is that it should haye all-party support.
We sought to frame a motion which could gather in all parties so that the government would know it had support from all sides of this House. The minister knows full well that the acceptance of this motion would not preclude action out to the 200-mile limit. He should be ashamed to suggest anything else. We simplified the motion so as to get within our net, if I can put it that way, the necessary minimum of jurisdiction and the widest possible support. To suggest otherwise is unworthy of a minister of the Crown.
The minister mentioned unilateral action. We deliberately avoided the word "unilateral". Wait until you hear what I am prepared to say, not what I had to prepare after hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We deliberately avoided the word "unilateral" in order to show the government that it could count on the support of this House for some of its actions. We used the term "assert". It was chosen as a means of urging the government to back up its claims with enforcement capability. As I look at this, the ministry of fisheries wants the support
National Resources
of this House, because I do not think the government is giving it the full support it needs. Our argument is that we are not preparing now, as we ought to be, to enforce what we are claiming.
In his comments the minister seemed to operate on the theory that the incorporation or inclusion of a right or claim in a convention such as the claim to ownership of the salmon has the same value as automatic recognition by all nations in this world of that right or claim. The minister ought to know better than that. If I may be permitted to descend for a moment to the depths of political commentary which marked the minister's comments, I would say that to hold such a belief is a measure of the short length of time the minister has held his present office. The minister ought to know better. He knows that ICNAF is not being observed. Why does he think that because there is a right or claim in an international convention, the rest of the world is going to recognize it? They won't. You have to back it up. That is what we are trying to say. I hope the government wants the support of the House in that effort.
Conventions have to be supported with an adequate enforcement arsenal. That is the import of our motion today. These are areas of action where, surely, multi-party support is needed. Why do certain ministers strive without let-up to destroy or undermine that support by making a speech such as we heard today? It makes me see even more clearly the distinction I have always felt had to be made between a politician and a parliamentarian. The executive does not have a monopoly on the line to truth. They are, unless they are supremely ignorant and arrogant, capable of learning from others and being supported in some of their actions by other parties in this House. Is it because the executive wants full, entire and sole credit for any move it brings forward, any progress on the front being assailed? I wish to return to the comments I have prepared to show the support we are prepared to give the government in some of its activities.

Before continuing my comments on the issue of fisheries, which is so important for the Canadian economy, the welfare of several thousands of Canadians and the responsibilities of Canada in this area, I would like to express the gratitude of the Canadian people to the team of negotiators in Caracas and Geneva who, under the leadership of the eminent leader of the delegation, ambassador Allan Beesley, did such a good job in outlining the elements of maritime rights which are essential if Canada is to play its role in international affairs as concerns maritime problems.
The two conferences did not produce a drafted agreement which would only have had to be ratified. However, because of the negotiating ability so amply demonstrated by Mr. Beesley and his team, nothing was lost and much was gained in the sense that the credibility of Canada's position as concerns its claim is still intact. It was even possible to protect an ulterior position, which will allow us to establish jointly, or unilaterally in certain circumstances, conservation controls over certain parts of the continental shelf extending beyond the 200-nautical-mile zone which is generally recognized as the area of jurisdiction of coastal nations in certain respects. We are therefore grateful to Mr. Beesley and his team who have

June 19, 1975
National Resources
worked untiringly in our best interests, and I sincerely thank him for this.

I will give this government credit for pursuing these goals at Caracas, Geneva and elsewhere and supporting the untiring efforts of the Beesley team. However, I draw the line at the point which separates what we are prepared to seek or claim and what we are prepared to do to secure and defend. This is where we part company. If in the first area, that of claiming, the government has been active, the government has been negligent to the point of endangering our resources in the area of backing up those claims with an adequate policing and enforcing mechanism. No one can deny the importance of this second or implementation phase.
It is my impression that the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) is not as fully supported as he ought to be by his cabinet colleagues. It is the gap between profession and performance that concerns me. Ministers have said on many occasions in the House, in committee and over the air that we have adequate surveillance and can detect interlopers and poachers. I question even that: we are still awaiting decisions on some matters relating to our long-range patrol aircraft. Let us suppose we do. Who dares suggest that surveillance is to be equated with regulation and effective control? Surveillance merely means, in either of Canada's official languages, watching over-"veiller sur", "to stay up overnight," if you wish, "in order to watch over".
We have surveillance capability provided we get a replacement for the long-range patrol aircraft. We also have Telesat. We have it from the air, or from the stratosphere. However, I contend surveillance is not enough; there must be a real capability to track, pursue and if necessary to arrest those who refuse to observe the law, whether Canadian or international. This is the point the government seems unable to grasp. Is anyone here suggesting we ought to let the regime of lawlessness or disregard and disrespect for the law, which unfortunately now pervades dry land, be extended to the seas over which we are claiming jurisdiction? The government's performance suggests as much, because it steadfastly refuses to back up its claims with the means of enforcing its mandate over those claims once attained.
This neglect of enforcement capability is manifest in the failure of the government to establish and maintain a seagoing force commensurate with the area over which we hope to obtain jurisdiction. This was true of the 3-mile limit, it was true when the 12-mile limit was proclaimed, and it is frighteningly truer still when a 200-mile limit is in prospect. It might be interesting for the government to get some notion of the growth of Canada's responsibilities under these three limits. It is probably known in absolute terms; in fact, I produced such figures during an earlier debate in the House. But the growth rate has never been matched by an enforcement rate. Moving from the 3-mile limit to the 12-mile limit more or less quadrupled the areas over which we assumed jurisdiction and responsibility for control. The step from 12 miles to 200 miles increases the

area by 16 times. Is there any matching 16 times the enforcement capability? None that I can see.
These are substantial increases if looked upon by other comparative means, that is to say, in comparison to our present territorial land mass, where Canada's writ runs. We would be increasing our area of responsibility in the following way: on the Atlantic coast, out 200 miles, we would be increasing it by 15 per cent of our present land mass; on the Pacific coast by 4 per cent, and in the Arctic by 13 per cent; in all, by a total of 32 per cent-these figures are approximate to within a decimal point or so- or one-third more than our present land mass over which we are expected to exercise jurisdiction.
Also, it must be effective jurisdiction. We cannot rely on documents to enforce the law; they do not enforce it on land and they certainly will not do so at sea. If we go beyond 200 miles to the edge of the continental shelf on the east coast, the ultimate claim we are making, we will be adding another 9 per cent to our land mass in jurisdiction; in the Arctic another 3 per cent. In all, these extensions of the area over which Canada is seeking jurisdiction would amount to 45 per cent of our present land mass. Yet we are doing nothing, as far as I can see, to match that increase with enforcement machinery.
We have been told by government spokesmen that there is really no need to worry about policing the seas; that once a convention has been concluded and ratified it will be self-policing. This, of course, is utter nonsense. Canada will have 16 times as much space to play in, but so, of course, will the poachers. They will be able to nip in, say, to 190 miles, conscious that we have nothing afloat which is not of a purely military character which could sail 190 miles out from our shore in time to apprehend poachers.
What do we find in terms of matching this extension in our area of responsibility with enforcement capability? I have heard there are to be three patrol vessels built for the fisheries. They may even be on the stocks already. But we have failed to take the steps required to endow our military forces with the power they need to carry out this enforcement task as a matter of course. I am not speaking of special patrols. When these vessels are on patrol they should be able to act quickly to carry out a fisheries or a pollution control operation at the behest, maybe, of Tele-sat or one of the Argus flights which has detected something and alerted a nearby naval vessel.
As far as I can discern, the government has taken no steps whatever to confer upon our naval commanders a task of this sort, though they are anxious to undertake duties of this kind, tasks which would be meaningful in Canadian terms-and what task could be more meaningful in Canadian terms that the protection of the claim we have made over extended jurisdiction? Nothing has been done to give our naval commanders the authority they need for all time, not just on specific occasions.
There will always be those who are ready to fish closer to land or take a species which is forbidden, as long as nobody is watching. Unfortunately, this is the nature of man, and let us not forget that fishermen are very human and that the fishermen from other nations are perhaps just a little more human in this respect than we would like them to be. We need ocean going vessels capable of highspeed interception at long range with crews not only
June 19, 1975

always at the ready but fully trained in all aspects of their assignment and legally furnished with powers of search and arrest. This is a tall order, but I see no real signs that the government is even gearing up to meet these new and widely enlarged responsibilities in research and in antipollution activity as well as fisheries. I may say I find it incredible that the government should not respond more emphatically to the requirements of the fishermen. This is an important industry on both coasts and, in light of the world food shortage, it is of ever increasing importance. That is why we have brought forward this motion today.
My comments so far have been of a general nature. To set matters in their proper perspective, let me say that on the west coast there are four or five important and apparently unrelated matters which, looked at properly and together, have a direct effect on the size of the salmon catch and what Canada's share of it should be. Some of these matters are technical and unchanging; others are of human creation and therefore changeable, or at least subject to human considerations and capable of being accommodated to the human will.
Mr. Speaker, I have the impression I shall not be able to get to the end of my seven or eight considerations. I will therefore reserve them for another occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-26, an act respecting Alliance Security and Investigation, Ltd., to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Carter:
That this House declares that Canada has a special right to manage and harvest the living resources on and over its continental shelf and slope and must act immediately to assert her right to manage and control those resources
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a very long record of speaking in this House except to answer questions, so if I am out of order in time please do not hesitate to call me back. I should like to quote, for the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter), from the French Saint-Exupery: [Translation]
"We may differ on the message which results from our reasonings, but not on the goals; they are always the same."
National Resources

In case the translator did not get that right away, let me say that we differ in method but I do not believe we really differ as to what I am sure our goal must be, which is Canada's jurisdiction over the living resources off our coasts. It is to this end that we are bending so much effort.
I want to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for recognizing the efforts of our delegation, and who has spoken so generously. Perhaps he, more than anybody else, can understand the sacrifice required of those officials who are away from home for many weeks many times during the year, and who work as hard on the cocktail circuit as they do when writing their briefs, because to them every minute is a moment of work. So once again I thank the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: I wish to disagree with some hon. members who have said that the wealth of the fisheries is important on the east coast, or important on the west coast. The fisheries are important for Canada as a whole nation. I feel completely free to say that my cabinet colleagues who do not have fisheries in their own responsibilities or ridings recognize that it is important not only to the fishermen but it is part of the wealth not only of this country but also of the world when we think about the protein source that it involves. In fact, it is in recognition of this importance that we came to the rescue of the fisheries last fall and again this spring, and we are now putting together longer term solutions through a reorganization of the fishery which I will be presenting soon to my colleagues.
It is an easy-I was going to say demagogic but I will not; it is an easy temptation to make the fishermen of this country believe that all their problems would go away if only we had unilaterally or multilaterally-attained jurisdiction. The problems would not all go away. We have had crises in the fishing fisheries cyclically over the years which had very little to do with the fact that foreign fleets have been off our shores. I agree that part of our real problem now is due to excessive foreign fishing, and this is one of the reasons we have taken a hard line at ICNAF and elsewhere. But it would be very naive to make our fishermen believe that we did not make some mistakes ourselves in the areas that we manage. I am thinking of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, among other areas, where the pressure is not from international fleets but in many cases from a lack of discipline in managing our own affairs.
Let me comment on some of the things said by the hon. member for St. John's West. The figures he used for 1974 suffered from one distortion; he forgot to say there was a strike in Newfoundland. The present figures show also that there was a strike in Newfoundland in 1975. But despite this, I agree there has been excessive overfishing. As for the comment by Mr. Martin, I am sure he is a responsible man but he must have been misinformed by the press report, because we were saving not only the polar bear but the Arctic which is environmentally the most fragile part of our country.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich waxed considerably indignant and I say this with all the respect and affection that I have for him, when he discovered that my

June 19, 1975
National Resources
colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) had caught in. his net something that the opposition obviously did not expect, namely, a fault in the motion. But it is to this motion that we must address ourselves, and to the amendment brought in, in good grace and good haste.
Extraordinary opposition solidarity was displayed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I must say that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich showed such great support and solidarity that any idea I had that there were rifts in the Conservative caucus have gone out of the window. Because if he were able to second that motion and to support it when he saw the flaw that it contained, I must say I am very much impressed by his sense of solidarity.
When he says to us that we are being political, I would invite him to read more carefully the speech of the hon. member for St. John's West. He obviously read the motion before it was given to us yesterday morning, and if he is appealing to us to take an all-party position, then surely the least we should have had was a copy of that motion for a little longer than 24 or 36 hours. Surely there could have been an approach to bring about unanimity in the House, a suggestion asking us to support strongly the efforts of our delegation and of the government and many members of the opposition who were valued and useful advisers to our delegations in Geneva and Caracas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member for St. John's West had wanted to have unanimity, surely he would have consulted us. I might have been able to support a motion drafted by the hon. member for St. John's West because, as I have said, I too want Canada to have exclusive management rights over the living resources off our coasts. I might say the hon. member has not even approached me yet to sign his famous petition with which he is going from village to village in Newfoundland. I hope that in his pilgrimage he is also taking the time to learn of some of the things we are doing in Newfoundland to improve the quality of the fish through our incentive program of 2lA cents for first-quality fish. I have been informed by my inspection branch that this is bringing about a minor miracle. Never before has such good quality fish been delivered to the plants. I hope the hon. member for St. John's West has time to look at this situation. These are some of the positive steps we have taken to benefit the fishery.
I want to apologize on behalf of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs; he could not be present during this debate since he has left for Japan. I also want to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for his support, especially his suggestion regarding the consumption of fish across Canada. Fish is good for our health, and when I grew up we were told that it was good for our brains. The House could pass a unanimous resolution if it wanted to do something useful for the fishermen, possibly to return to the meatless Friday.
May I say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster. He talked about daffodils. I want to tell him the daffodils are good and strong, and that the salmon enhancement program will go ahead. We

have the active and good co-operation of the government of British Columbia, which is working with us in identifying the best streams-and I want to say that publicly. However, I find it difficult to agree completely with the hon. member for New Westminster when he tells me that unilateralism would protect the salmon on the west coast.
I wonder what plebiscite there has been among the fishermen in the hon. member's native province, because I happen to have been there recently and I know some of them are very worried and concerned. It has been a very difficult task to have salmon referred to in the unified text we now have. This has been the result of extraordinary efforts on the part of our delegation and everyone concerned. To give that away lightly, until I have other evidence, and until we have talked to those nations which are putting pressure upon our salmon stocks on the high seas, would appear to me to be the height of irresponsibility.
I would agree with the goals, the aims, and the objectives of the hon. member for St. John's West. In other words, I assume that his objectives are not merely political, but rather are directed at the protection of Canadian fisheries and the whole range of industries dependent on the fisheries. Unfortunately the phrasing of his motion makes it very difficult for me to support, and obviously would achieve little, if anything. It would be of no help to Canadian fisheries or Canadian fishermen, or to Canada's fisheries negotiators. I am not sure it would be of much help to the opposition, but I am not responsible for their concern. My concern as the Minister of State (Fisheries) is to go beyond meaningless statements of generalities. I have said before that fish stocks cannot be rebuilt on negotiating texts, and they cannot be rebuilt on motions either.
The motion before us is unrealistic and ill-considered because it does not take into account both state practice and the emerging consensus at the Law of the Sea Conference which indicates overwhelming support for the 200-mile limit for the exclusive fisheries rights of the coastal state. It has not been easy to bring about the recognition of the 200-mile limit, a recognition which is on the verge of being formalized in international law.
It would be unwise to go against our own achievement, as suggested in the motion of the hon. member. It would also be unwise simply to ignore the international legitimacy that now attaches to the 200-mile limit. It would be unwise for Canada to isolate itself even from other coastal states and assert a unilateral claim over the whole of the fisheries resources of the continental shelf and beyond 200 miles. To do so would be to fly in the face of our supporters and opponents alike. Any action we take to protect Canadian fisheries must be effective action. Even unilateral action does not mean acting against the views of the majority of states and attempting to impose the views of one country upon all countries. Unilateral action of this kind has never been successful.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West is also unrealistic in that it ignores what the government has already done and is doing for Canadian fisheries. Indeed it suggests we have done nothing, and hence
June 19, 1975

should begin to act immediately. Let me say that immediately is not soon enough. If we had waited until the present time to act we would have been quite irresponsible. That is why we began years ago. Following the failure of the 1958 and 1960 Conferences on the Law of the Sea to resolve the problem of fisheries jurisdiction, the government unilaterally extended Canada's fishing limit to 12 miles. That was done in 1970, and not in the period from 1957 to 1962 when the party opposite sat on the treasury benches.
Today that does not seem like a great accomplishment. At the time, however, the fishing industry attached great importance to the 12-mile limit, and it was internationally controversial. We acted to implement it after having exhausted all possibilities of agreement, and soon we found that even countries which had opposed us were doing the same thing.
Subsequently, in 1970, my predecessor went still further and closed the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait as exclusive Canadian fishing zones. We negotiated phasing-out agreements with the countries concerned, and as a result important foreign operations off our coasts are already coming to an end. This was effective action covering an area as great as would be a 200-mile limit for many countries. At the same time, however, this did not lead to a cod war or to a challenge before the International Court of Justice, as did Iceland's latest efforts to extend its fisheries jurisdiction unilaterally.
We have not taken a back seat to anyone, and I do not believe we need take lessons from anyone in this field. We have been leaders, not followers, and the reason we have succeeded is that we have always gone that extra mile, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich understands so well. We have gone that extra mile toward obtaining international agreement before striking out on our own. We have always taken into account not only our own interests but those of other countries. We have not done this because we are boy scouts but because we are realists, and because we wanted to succeed, and we did succeed.
In more recent years Canada has continued to be among the leaders of those countries pressing for a still further extension of fisheries jurisdiction at the Law of the Sea Conference. We have already gained overwhelming recognition for the concept of the 200-mile limit. It is only a matter of time before this concept becomes incorporated in international law.
However, we do not believe there is time to wait for the concept to be incorporated in treaty law before acting upon it. At this very moment the Canadian delegation at ICNAF is pressing for a reduction of foreign fishing fleet effort by some 40 per cent, for lower total allowable catches of stocks whose levels of abundance have very seriously declined, and for a 100 per cent preference for Canadian fishermen in the harvest of certain stocks of particular importance to us.
These proposals in fact anticipate the results of the Law of the Sea Conference. They are an immediate assertion of Canada's right to manage and control its coastal fisheries resources. If the other member states of ICNAF are not completely blind to reality, then our proposals will be accepted. On the other hand, if certain members of ICNAF
National Resources
refuse to co-operate with Canada in the orderly development of a new coastal fisheries regime, then Canada will be obliged to consider other means of protecting its legitimate interests.
I am well aware of the fishing industry's views on the past performance of ICNAF. Nevertheless, Canada's accomplishments within ICNAF should not be under rated. Only four short years ago the foreign fleets off our east coast operated with virtually no restrictions. At that time Canada had no capability for effective surveillance of foreign fishing activity. Now virtually every stock of commercial importance-almost 60 in all-is under quota control, and Canadian shares of such quotas have steadily increased. These are the concrete, practical results achieved by the government.
Furthermore, in 1974 a start was made to reduce quotas below estimated maximum sustained yield levels, and Canadian patrol vessels conducted almost 300 boardings of foreign fishing craft. These operations have put the foreign fleets on their mettle, and in a number of cases have resulted in improved adherence to agreed ICNAF regulations.
Unfortunately our increased surveillance has also established beyond doubt that certain countries are violating these agreed regulations with complete disregard for their international treaty obligations. We are not going to tolerate such behaviour. We will use every means available to put a stop to it. The distant-water fishing countries cannot argue on the one hand that fisheries management must be based on international agreements and, on the other hand, act contrary to such agreements.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that we must go to the Senate in a few moments, perhaps the minister might be permitted to finish his remarks, and then I will continue the debate at eight o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This can only be done with the consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roméo LeBlanc: May I offer my thanks to the hon. member for his courtesy.
Those people in Atlantic Canada who clamour for the government to take action against foreign fleets cannot at the same time complain that we should not take such action as closing our ports to foreign fishing vessels because this might temporarily affect certain commercial interests. I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that there is one man who has understood this and who has supported my position on this. I am referring to the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland. I hope he will tell his reasons for doing so to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who was accusing me of posturing the other day. I also hope he will have an occasion to explain to the editorial writers in some of the eastern press that they cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
6934

June 19, 1975
National Resources


Roméo LeBlanc: If we are to secure an effective and comprehensive protection for the broad range of interests of Canadian fisheries, we have to take into account the fact that a simple, unilateral extension of jurisdiction will not protect our $100 million west coast salmon fisheries and our threatened Atlantic salmon fisheries. We must continue our efforts to reach international agreement on fisheries problems at the Law of the Sea Conference, in ICNAF and other international fisheries commissions, and through bilateral negotiations and such discussions as those I had yesterday with the minister of fisheries from Norway. These efforts are not incompatible with other forms of action that may prove necessary.
There is a limit not only to our patience but to the ability of the stocks and of our fishing industry to survive under present conditions. Unilateral action is one of the options open to us. Even unilateral action, however, requires negotiations if it is to be effective and successful, as it was when Canada moved unilaterally in 1964 and 1970.
I believe that in all public discussions of this question, especially with groups of fishermen, there is a responsibility to tell them that even if we were given jurisdiction tomorrow morning, and even if we declared unilateral jurisdiction, foreign fleets would not all disappear as if by magic. That is misleading and it is demagoguery.
We cannot guarantee instant results no matter what course we take, but I am confident that we can bring about timely results. No government has done more than ours in the way of both national and international action for the protection of coastal fisheries and coastal fishermen. We know that the future of our coastal communities is linked with our fisheries. We shall not only protect that future but make it better than ever. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for its patience and tolerance.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate today in this debate on fisheries and on problems that relate directly and indirectly to the fishing industry. This also gives me an opportunity to endorse the unanimous request of the provincial legislature in my own province of Nova Scotia that the federal government unilaterally declare jurisdiction over the 200 mile fishing zone along the coast.
During the recent Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva I was privileged to serve for a few weeks as an adviser to the Canadian delegation. I found this to be a very stimulating and informative experience. This particular conference was the biggest in the history of the world. Some 146 delegations participated at the conference, and from personal discussions I held with the deputy ministers of fisheries for the U.S.S.R., Norway, and Denmark I found that the conference was regarded as the most important gathering since the San Francisco Conference at which the UN charter was drafted.
Basically the conference attempted to develop a constitution which would be accepted by all states as a binding treaty obligation. It went far beyond merely codifying existing concepts. What the conference tried to do was to alter radically the traditional or classical legal concepts on
[Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent).)
which the Law of the Sea had been founded for the past 300 years.
The subject matter of the conference was very wide ranging, and the issues were incredibly complex. They involved highly sensitive military questions, extremely important economic considerations, as well as far reaching social implications flowing from some of the new concepts being developed. Oil alone, for example, and the search for it, illustrates the importance we attach to two questions. One is the breadth of the continental shelf over which a coastal state would have sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of the resources, and the second is the delimitation of the area of the sea bed beyond national jurisdiction to be reserved for purely peaceful purposes, as well as for the common heritage of mankind. I point out these two items as being very important.
The legal regime, and the international machinery that will need to be established for the rational management of future resources, could affect the thinking of peoples and of governments on the whole problem of the rational utilization of increasingly scarce international resources.
The pre-existing Law of the Sea, and indeed the whole of the international law, has been based on two simple principles, one being the sovereignty of states, and the other, freedom on the high seas.
The economic zone, or the 200 mile concept as recently proposed, is a radical new approach which permits some elements of the regime of the high seas, such as freedom of navigation, but partakes also of some of the rights included in the concept of sovereignty. In my opinion, this is a matter of some regret.
As the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) stated when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on May 26:
The Geneva session of the Law of the Sea Conference did not, unfortunately, give us the new international convention that Canada, and Canadian fishermen especially, have been seeking for many years ... Perhaps the most significant development at the Geneva session was the emergence of a single negotiating text on which the conference can base its work at the next session to be held early in 1976. This text in no way represents an agreement. It does, however, provide the conference with a valuable aid to negotiation that should facilitate its progress.
This is simply not good enough. Mr. Speaker, may we adjourn to go to the other place?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be able to continue his remarks at eight o'clock.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
June 19, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber. And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-32, An Act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade.-Chapter No. 47.
Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.-Chapter No. 48.
Bill C-5, An Act to establish the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission, to amend the Broadcasting Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions.-Chapter No. 49.
Bill C-33, An Act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states.-Chapter No. 50.
Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.-Chapter No. 51.
Bill S-20, An Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act.-Chapter No. 52.
Bill C-3, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1967 to 1975.-Chapter No. 53.
Bill C-19, An Act to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada.- Chapter No. 54.
Bill C-37, An Act to provide for the control of dumping of wastes and other substances in the ocean.-Chapter No. 55.
Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act.-Chapter No. 56.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.07 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Carter:
That this House declares that Canada has a special right to manage and harvest the living resources on and over its continental shelf and slope and must act immediately to assert her right to manage and control those resources.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, just before the House rose at six o'clock I had begun my speech. I had placed on record something the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on May 26. He said, in part:
National Resources
Perhaps the most significant development at the Geneva session was the emergence of a single negotiating text on which the conference can base its work at the next session to be held early in 1976. This text in no way represents an agreement. It does, however, provide the conference with a valuable aid to negotiation that should facilitate its progress.
In my view, Madam Speaker, this is simply not good enough. Our fishermen and all those connected with the industry have heard this excuse, this old record played ever since 1958. "Don't despair" says the minister; "Hang in there; wait until we have another conference. Maybe, just maybe, we can get some of these problems resolved next year, at the next conference, or two, or maybe three." In the meantime every foreign nation under the sun appears to be taking advantage of our fisheries resources and raping, pillaging, and plundering our stocks, until many of our species are now below what is called the sustainable yield level.
In my opinion the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) must share the blame equally for the fact that the Geneva conference did not produce any written agreement or definite solutions to the many problems facing the Canadian fishing industry. I say this not out of disrespect for the hard working team from the Department of External Affairs which presented Canada's position at the conference, under the capable direction of our ambassador to Austria, Mr. A. Beesley. From my observations, those people were aggressive and diligent in the performance of their duties. But I point out that they all work at the civil service level, and decisions were to be made at the conference at the political level. Other nations, especially Russia, which has the largest fishing fleet operating on our continental shelf, recognized this fact. They sent their top civil servants and top political representatives to the conference, where they stayed from the beginning to the end.
There is absolutely no reason why at least one of the three ministers I mentioned could not have been at the Law of the Sea conference from the day it started until it closed. Their presence would have served to notify all the nations of the world that Canada, when presenting its position, was making a serious and determined attempt to establish the point that we believe that the coastal state must have exclusive management of offshore resources, at least out to the 200-mile limit. It must have the right to set the allowable catch, and the right to reserve to itself as much of that catch as it has the capacity to take.
Instead of attending constantly at the most important conference held since the beginning of mankind-I actually believe that, because since the beginning of history nations have fought to control the sea and the conference had to do with who would control over two thirds of the world's surface-the ministers condescended to drop in from time to time, when it was convenient to them. This laissez-faire attitude cost our fishermen and nation dearly in lost prestige and in lack of agreement on many controversial points.
The attitude of some delegates was, "Surely Canada is not serious in its presentation, not serious in its claims to all the continental shelf off its shores, because there are no cabinet ministers at the conference to back up her claims." Madam Speaker, if the government was sincere in its
29576-26/4

June 19, 1975
National Resources
efforts on behalf of our fishermen, one or more of the three cabinet ministers I mentioned would have attended at Geneva at all times, to persuade, to argue, to convince, to reason and, if necessary, to fight for the rights of our fishermen.
I say this because of what we have at stake. We have the second largest coastline in the world, washed by three oceans, the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Pacific. Our country has a direct interest in the wise management of the seas. As one of the world's principal coastal states we have a particular interest in that 20 per cent ribbon of the total sea area which extends over our continental shelf and margin. As a coastal state we should have special opportunities as well as special obligations. We have more to lose than any other country in the world if, for example, our marine environment is contaminated by pollution or if our living resources are depleted by over fishing.
We do not seek these rights purely out of self-interest. As Canadians, we want the world's shipping to move as freely as possible, not only into and out of Canadian ports but everywhere on the world's oceans. However, we are very concerned about the biological consequences of pollution and about over fishing, matters which, as things stand today, are beyond the control of the coastal state. These are matters which should be of concern not only to coastal states and to Canada; they should concern all nations.
I happen to be one of those who believe that through wise management of our nearby waters we can protect a vital world interest. We can protect the world's peoples from the dire consequences which are bound to ensue if we continue on our present course and if we fail to treat the world's seas as an area to be managed and protected. The concept of the freedom of the high seas has been abused by all nations, to the point that it has become a freedom to over fish and a licence to pollute. It has served the interests of the few, under the guise of a principle which purports to protect the interests of everyone. In my opinion the coastal state must be given the power to protect its interest on those questions.
When making these claims Canadians at times are accused of being very acquisitive. However, may I point out that if our approach were adopted, all the new coastal rights would be paralleled by the acceptance of new duties and obligations.
Moreover, if there is concern about peoples of the world benefiting from the concepts I am proposing, I would point out that the vast majority of the world's people, well over 90 per cent, reside in the coastal states. Coastal states form the largest part of the international community. It is the coastal states which will undoubtedly benefit from the wise management of our marine resources.
Our efforts today should be both environmental and economic. We must know exactly how far our continental shelf or margin extends seaward. We must pay more attention to where the fish stocks are, and where they spend most of their natural lives. We have not done this in the past, which accounts for the failure of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries to protect our own Canadian interest.

We have drawn grids and numbered them one, two, three, four, five and six, and 1A, 2G, 3P, 4V, 5Z and 6C, without first consulting the fishermen or the fish. Now, the fish are not aware of our artificial lines and the fish know no international boundaries. However, our fishermen, especially along the south shore of Nova Scotia, are well aware of the government's grid system. While countries signatory to the ICNAF arrangements have fished on our continental shelf, our own fishermen have been fined and forced, not into a bootlegging as they did many years ago, but into what I call a "fishlegging" operation, in order to earn sufficient money to provide for their families and pay off their loans annually to the provincial loan board, their first and primary obligation.
I would be the first to agree that we should be concerned about conservation and the wise management of all our precious marine resources. However, I say to the government and the minister that charity begins at home, a point the minister would do well to take into consideration. It is unfair and unjust to apply strictly the conservation rules and regulations to Canadian fisherman when you do not have the power to enforce the same rules upon the nationals of other countries who are destroying our fish stocks. This is the kind of thing for which the minister and the government are responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: According to the reports of our surveillance officials, the number of fishing vessels in the ICNAF areas off the east coast ranged from a high of 1,000 to a low of 300 in the month of December. Of this fleet, 502 belonged to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 100 belonged to Poland and the balance was split up among Canada and other ICNAF fishing countries. Obviously we are being over run and over fished on our own doorstep.
I recognize that the most satisfactory way to arrive at international law is by negotiation and agreement among nations, but it is not the only way. We can take unilateral action to extend our area of fisheries jurisdiction to the continental margin or 200 miles, whichever is farthest, pending the final outcome of the next Law of the Sea Conference. If the conference accepts our stand, there will be no problem. If it does not, we will have indicated to the world that, in Canada's view, the sovereign rights of coastal states, as defined under the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and confirmed by the International Court of Justice, already extend and should be maintained out to the limits of the continental margin.
This action would not only ensure protection for our fisheries resources, but it would also ensure Canadian ownership for the oil, gas, and mineral resources on our continental shelf. It would also ensure Canadian regulation of all scientific research in this area. It is up to us as Canadians, and it is up to the government to give leadership on this issue.
Time is of the essence if we are to save the fish processing industry and the fish stocks upon which the industry and our coastal communities depend from total and irreparable hardship. Let's face it, unless we take action to conserve our marine resources there will be no fish for anyone, and when there are no fish there is nothing to negotiate.
June 19, 1975

Sometimes it is said we are all the same. However, I think maritimers are a little different. We have a kinship with the west. We like to look at the wide open spaces.


An hon. Member:: And a kinship with New Brunswick.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, we have a kinship with New Brunswick because it is a maritime province as well. I suppose you need to be a maritimer to really understand the vicious circumstances presently plaguing the fishing industry. We have declining catches of practically all species, and rising industry costs on everything required by the industry from paint to rope to maintenance and fuel oil. We have poor markets and prices which cost the established companies millions of dollars last year. This threatened the jobs of 35,000 fishermen as well as the jobs of thousands of plant workers and their dependents who live in the region.
In order to stave off immediate disaster the federal government gave the industry two financial transfusions recently, bringing the total aid since last fall to something like $85 million. This band-aid has been helpful, but I say to the minister in all seriousness that it is no solution to our long-term problems and it has been inadequate to cover the real need. In fact the aid provided compares almost exactly to the increase in collecting our income taxes by the Department of National Revenue from 1974 to 1975.
I have tried to rationalize why the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) went to the Law of the Sea Conference. The only rationalization I can see is that the cost of collecting our taxes reached the same amount that was provided to Atlantic Canada in the past few months. It was the least amount the government could give considering the population in the four Atlantic provinces; Newfoundland, 546,000; Prince Edward Island, 118,000; Nova Scotia, 818,000; New Brunswick, 670,000. There are 2,152,000 people in that area of Canada, all of whom are dependent, either entirely or in part, on this important fishing industry. These are facts I would like the minister to consider when talking about the aid being provided to our area.
In closing I would ask the minister, when convenient, to tell this House where some of the money is going. What consultants have been hired by the Fisheries and Marine Service of the Department of the Environment in the last two years? It would certainly be of interest to this House if we knew their names, qualifications, salaries, duties, the length of their employment, and whether tenders were called for these positions before they were hired or whether they were appointed for some other reason. This is important because the fishermen, certainly those in my constituency, are starting to question the regulations and the various moves being made by the department which have a serious effect upon their livelihood. In their opinion we can drift along with a few landlubbers on the payroll, but it would appear that our fisheries department is starting to flounder and sink from the wrong advice from the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time. This was obvious when fishermen from Atlantic Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and gave their views on subsidy regulations, fishing licences, the construction of slipways and docks, and export regulations.
National Resources
It is also my understanding that the minister began reorganizing his department some nine months ago. Since that time all we have heard are rumours concerning this reorganization. One rumour is that the industrial development branch will be established outside Ottawa. Another is that certain changes are to be made in senior advisory personnel. What are the changes to be made? The rumours are not surprising in light of the statement made by the Minister of the Environment at the inauguration of the Captain Bernier Laboratories at Longueuil on May 28, 1975, when she said, and I quote:
Precise instructions have been given so that Environment Canada will favour the participation of French-speaking candidates in terms both of quality and number in all relevant competitions aimed at filling positions at the middle and upper management levels in the scientific, professional and technical fields.
Whatever happened to the bilingual regulations as laid down by the government? Does this new regulation mean that if employees are required by the minister's department in the scientific, professional, and technical fields they will not be acceptable if they are unilingual English even if they are willing to take French lessons in order to qualify? If this is so, it may well be possible that a highly qualified English-speaking scientist whose services might be invaluable to Canada and the fishing industry would be ignored by the government simply because he did not speak both languages when applying for employment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I was interrupted, Madam Speaker, and I wonder if I might have agreement to finish my remarks. I shall not take longer than two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Surely the statement I have quoted demands clarification for, if implemented, it will mean the government is placing a higher priority on the ability to speak French than on the scientific, professional, or technical knowledge acquired over the years by Canadians willing to serve their country in the public service.
In the light of these disturbing views which have been expressed, I believe it is vitally important that the Minister of State (Fisheries) should give us some indication of the status of his department's reorganization plans, because it is obvious to the fishermen and to the fishing industry that as long as there is chaos in the wheelhouse, with three ministers giving directions-the Minister of the Environment, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of State for Fisheries-there will be no firm policy laid down by the government at a time when leadership is urgently required by this vitally important primary industry.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to rise, but the type of question asked by the hon. member is very important and I believe an answer must be put on the record.

June 19, 1975
National Resources


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but since he has already spoken on the motion before us, he cannot do so a second time. However, if he wishes to answer a question, he may do so.

Is there unanimous consent that the minister be allowed to answer a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roméo LeBlanc: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. member whether the precise instruction he was quoting comes from the Fisheries and Marine Services for which I am responsible. If that is the case I can tell him quite plainly that no such advice or no such order was given to me.
What I would say to the House, however, and what I intend to say tomorrow when I visit the riding of my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Breau), is that in both Halifax and Ottawa I am so lacking in French-speaking capacity in certain sections of the department that I have a real problem finding officials in certain fields to accompany me. This is not because of bad will on the part of anyone. It is because Quebec, as everybody knows, is not very much involved in the federal responsibility for fisheries; the province is in a different situation vis-a-vis fisheries, and for this reason the normal transfer of officials from regional to federal levels does not take place.
I certainly wish to serve the fishermen and the industry. In the maritimes many of the people concerned are Francophones and we do not have the capacity to serve them in their own language. This I intend to do. But in no way will we discriminate against anyone on the basis of language but, rather, on the basis of need.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I have a minute in which to respond to the hon. minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Only by unanimous consent, the hon. member's time having expired. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: To answer the minister's question, I was quoting from a speech by the Hon. Jeanne Sauve, Minister of the Environment, at the inauguration of the Captain Bernier Laboratories at Longueuil, on May 28, 1975.1 have put her statement on record. She said that precise instructions had been given so that Environment Canada will favour the participation of French-speaking candidates both in terms of quality and numbers in all relevant competitions aimed at filling positions at the middle and upper management levels in the scientific, professional, and technical field.


Herb Breau: What's wrong with that?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What's wrong with it? I am not anti-French, Madam Speaker. I am simply pointing out that someone might be well trained in the scientific, technical, or professional field and be interested in working for the federal government, but his application would be rejected in the

light of the statement by the Minister of the Environment even though he had indicated a willingness to learn French.


Herb Breau: That is not what the instruction said.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You were not listening. As a maritimer you should listen a little more closely.


Herb Breau: I listen in both languages, closely.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I understand, but you should listen a little closer. I maintain that the environment services of Canada should not be deprived of someone highly trained in a scientific, professional, or technical field, especially when he is prepared to learn French. I must confess I am confused as to where the authority lies as between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Fisheries, and the Department of External Affairs. But I am saying this type of ruling should be explained fully to the House and the people of Canada in order that we may know, whether we are English or French-speaking, what our rights are under the present government.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Madam Speaker, there once was a distinguished and excellent member of parliament from Toronto who professed to be bored by discussion in this House on fish and wet grain. He is no longer here-


An hon. Member:: That's why!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -and with good reason if he found those things irrelevant to the people of his constituency.
I am sure hon. members who have already taken part in this debate will agree that this is not simply a debate about fisheries. It is about food for mankind, about conservation of the world's resources and the most efficient use we can make of those limited resources for the benefit of humanity. So I rise, not to speak for the fishermen of York-Scarborough but perhaps, if Your Honour will permit the expression, to spread the net wider in this debate and put it into what I believe should be the context of every debate in this House for some time to come, that is to say, a global context.
We have heard a good deal today about the needs of our fishermen and of our economy. There have been a few references to the importance of Canadian policy in this respect in terms of its effect upon the world community. But there has not been sufficient attention to that aspect of the matter, in my opinion.
At a time when roughly half the world is verging on starvation, when there are some 200 million under-nourished children, when some 10 million people, most of them children, will probably die during this year from starvation related illnesses, I think we are obliged to talk about this subject under discussion today in terms that are wider than merely our own benefit and self interest.
I, like other members on this side who have spoken, share the objectives of the mover and seconder of this resolution. Certainly I share the objectives of our negotiators who have worked so hard over many years to provide
June 19, 1975

leadership in the world, in terms of developing a regime of law and progressive management of our resources of the sea. But I differ from the mover of the resolution and the mover of the amendment because I think they are taking a bigger grasp on behalf of Canada than perhaps we can justify.
I note that speakers in favour of the resolution and the amendment are recommending that we claim the greater of the 200 mile zone and the continental shelf. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) pointed out that as far as the east coast is concerned this might involve at least 400 miles. I ask my hon. friends who are proposing a claim of this magnitude whether or not they think it is reasonable, whether or not they think it can be sustained in the international forums where we must argue our case?
We must be careful, Madam Speaker, not to appear, as I believe we have already been accused of appearing, to be engaged in the great sea grab of the twentieth century, a sea grab which might challenge in scope and magnitude the land grabs of the nineteenth century. I hope we will not earn the reputation of being the imperialists of the sea, that we will not appear to the majority of the world less well endowed than we to be demanding too great a share of the world's resources.
Already we must be conscious of the fact that we have more than our share in terms of our population. We are rich beyond imagination compared to most of the people in the world. When I hear that we are asserting jurisdiction over an area equal to something like 45 per cent of our land mass, although this additional territory might be very attractive to us as Canadians, I wonder whether we can justify to the world what surely must seem to be greed, when we have so much and lay claim to so much more.
I say this having full regard to the situation of our coastal peoples, particularly our fishermen and those who depend on them. I think we should negotiate vigorously on their behalf. We certainly do not want their interests to be prejudiced unfairly from any foreign source, but I think our main interest and theirs surely must be as trustees for the resources over which we have control-trustees for all of humanity.
Although we should ensure, as managers of our sovereign territory, that our own people have a fair share of those resources, our prime responsibility must be to work for the rational management of the world's resources. We happen by good fortune to have access to a great many of those resources. According to existing international law we have control over many of them. In development of the Law of the Sea we have brought the world community to a position where we will probably have an acknowledged power of decision over a great deal more territory than that over which we have hitherto exercised control.
I appeal to the members of this House to think of this policy that we are developing on resources of the sea in terms of the global responsibility that we have. Hon. members must be more aware than most of our fellow citizens how the age of plenty and of waste in the world is already past, and how we have now entered the age of scarcity, an age that demands conservation, and sane and rational management of resources.
National Resources
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has put the challenge as the challenge of sharing. Let us look at this subject as part of the challenge to the world of surviving on this planet together, of sharing its resources wisely, of attaining by co-operation among peoples a more just distribution of the world's wealth-a global just society, if you like, just as we are trying to create a just society within our own nation.
The most recent report of the Club of Rome, the second report, "Mankind at the Turning Point", makes it clear that the only way we are going to be successful in tackling the interlocking challenges of population, food, energy, and materials-these pervasive crises that all of us in the world today share-is through global planning and cooperation. That is why I am reluctant to accept the approach inherent in this resolution today. This approach is one which implies that co-operation seems impossible, that we must give up hope of international agreement for rational and co-operative effort on the part of nations of the world to achieve the objectives on which we all agree.
I do not share that pessimism. I do not share that negative approach to international co-operation. Our negotiators at the Conference on the Law of the Sea have achieved great progress, and if we can continue to work with as much conviction, as much dedication, and as much imagination as we have I think we will be able to convince the world of the need to conserve our resources in the way we see as being in our interests as well as the interests of all mankind.
At this point I should like to say a few words about international co-operation because the attitude expressed in this resolution is perhaps symptomatic of a general distrust and disillusionment with government, not only national but international. Just as we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to restore the faith of our constituents in this institution of parliament, we have a responsibility to restore the faith of the people of the world in co-operative international institutions to which we belong, and in which we have put our faith for the solution of world problems in substitution for the old method of war.
It should be stressed that if we are to solve problems through co-operation we must have institutions like the United Nations in which we can pursue those solutions. The United Nations is under attack because so many of us are unhappy about the way in which it has carried on its work, particularly in the last year. I had the privilege of being a Canadian delegate to the United Nations General Assembly last fall, and I shared these frustrations that so many Canadians and others felt about the way the United Nations seemed to be going.
However, we have nothing else as promising as the United Nations to use as a vehicle for this co-operation which is more than ever necessary among the peoples of the world. We should recognize that through the United Nations we have focused the attention of the nations of the world, in a way which we otherwise could not have done, on the problems of population, food, environment, and the sea, and we have made progress. We have made progress that should encourage us that the crises that afflict the world can be attacked through co-operative

June 19, 1975
National Resources
effort, and we should devote increasing effort to achieve co-operative solutions rather than throw up our hands in desperation, relying on unilateral action such as is recommended in this resolution.
Unilateral action, as has been said here today, should be a last resort. It may be a necessary resort. If we do end by relying on unilateral action I hope it will be because we see it being necessary not only in our self-interest but also in the interests of mankind.
I urge that we continue to work, as we have worked at the Law of the Sea Conference, with our global responsibilities in the forefront of our minds. If we do that I think we will also do justice to our own fishermen and our own people.


Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate and I want at the outset to commend my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter), whose motion could not be more timely. I hope I can add a few comments in support of the very excellent approach he has taken in pleading that Canada, through this parliament, should immediately assert its right over the continental shelf and slopes, and thereby save the dying fishing industry before it is too late.
Certainly the motion should commend itself to all members on both sides of this House, because surely it is long past the time when Canada must show some backbone and assure protection of its marine resources with some positive action, instead of by diplomatic message and through idle threats made in speeches that have been taking place over the past decade.
I find it very strange that everyone in Canada at every level of interest, including the provincial governments in those regions that depend on the fishing industry at least in part for their economy, should support the suggestion that Canada should assert itself and take unilateral action, with the exception of the government opposite.
Every last fisherman in this country who depends on representation in this House by members of parliament on both sides wants Canada to take the action necessary to protect the industry which has and can continue to be the means of his livelihood, and wants Canada to assert its rights over our God given resources.
I would venture to say that certainly every member who represents a district with any fisheries prominence would want the government to take immediate action to declare our rights, and will want to vote for this motion. I would even venture to say that the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) would like to support our motion, and hopefully he will along with his colleagues. Unfortunately he is guided by the few wise men of the inner circle, those few wise men who would not know a fish from a piece of tainted meat, and could not care less about what happens to our fishing industry.
Unfortunately the minister is beginning to have the same trouble with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) that the previous minister, Mr. Davies, had with the then Secretary of State for External Affairs. I must say that the present minister deserves every commendation for the manner in which he has tackled his new responsibilities since taking office, and I

respect his sincerity and his attitude, just as I did his predecessor, but I fear he is falling into the same trap with his senior colleagues.
The minister does not know who are his real friends. I would remind him that every member of this House concerned with fisheries is his friend, regardless of which side he sits on. I think this has been reflected in the attitude shown the minister since the session started. He should pay a little more attention to their advice instead of too much attention to the Lucases, the Doucets and the Nee-dlers who continue to guide the fortunes of the fisheries department by remote control, by scientific studies, by charts, and by sitting around in their board rooms making decisions which are meaningless.
The minister has already made thousands of friends among the fishermen in Canada because of his evident sincerity in trying to revitalize the industry, but unless he can convince his colleagues in the cabinet that that is really needed, and unless they can show some guts and take the necessary action, I am afraid the minister will have nothing left to revitalize.
If my figures are correct, we have spent some $80 million in subsidies to fishermen this year alone. Finally we are recognizing the need for making the hundreds of fishing communities more self-sufficient by providing more funds for small craft harbours and more business by supporting quality control in cooling and chilling facilities, by providing boat building assistance, and by initiating licensing programs. But if we do not show some backbone we will have nothing left to control or to cool, because it is obvious that the stocks will be depleted to oblivion.
How much longer will the fishermen in the Atlantic region, where the industry is so vital to the economy, listen to meaningless announcements of the action Canada may take or expects to take at the Law of the Sea conferences or at ICNAF meetings? How much longer are the fishermen of Newfoundland going to wait? They are getting sick and tired of hearing what Canada may do or expects to do. How much longer will they rely on the vague promises that Canada expects full acceptance of its proposals for the 1976 season calling for a 40 per cent reduction in the foreign fishing effort and increased allocations for Canada?
Then we hear the minister say that the meetings are purely scientific and that no one with authority attends them but the scientists. Are the fishermen going to believe his words when he threatens the refusal of our eastern ports to foreign draggers? His predecessor used the same words back in 1973, and the action he took was to commission a study to determine the effects on eastern ports in case we refuse the use of these ports. Where is the study? Probably gathering dust, as are all the rest of the studies.
Fisheries in Newfoundland are the mainstay of that province's economy. Fishermen are trying to exist peacefully, but I cannot assure the minister as to how much longer they will remain peaceful if the government continues to act by diplomatic message and to protest with meaningless words.
June 19, 1975

What will happen, even if we do get agreement on quotas? What happened as a result of the incident in 1973 when the Soviet Union had taken their quota of herring of 48,200 tons on the Georges Bank by July 20? Yet on September 5, 20, and 25, they were still fishing herring in considerable quantities, but no action was taken because our government considered these to be minor incidents. The government asked for a report, and it was not until September 27 when the details were confirmed that the former minister of fisheries made Moscow aware of what was going on, as if they did not already know. A message was sent to the Soviet Atlantic fleet commander to request that he take immediate action to bring the illegal activities to a halt.
Then what happened? On October 3, almost three months later, another Soviet vessel was boarded and found to have 20 tons of herring. There were five other Soviet vessels fishing herring, but they took off to evade boarding. All this was happening at a time when Canadian fishermen were abiding by the quotas set. I wonder what was the outcome of that incident. I say that those nations will continue to ignore any further quotas on which the government might insist and which might be accepted.
I hope the minister will be able to enforce the new quotas. I did not hear anything inspiring in the interview which took place this morning with Dr. Needier, who is still at the Edinburgh conference. Apparently they are not too successful. I ask, if we do get agreement, will the Soviets and other nations abide by the rules, or will they continue to ignore our 12 miles limit and our inadequate patrol force, and destroy our inshore fishermen's gear while nothing else is done other than to ask for reports from regional directors and send polite notes to embassies?
I can tell the minister that the fishermen will not listen much longer. They are becoming more and more discouraged each day and each season. They are sufficiently discouraged as it is with recurring ice conditions which prevent them from having access to the water, and with waiting for our inadequate ice breaker to open up the avenues they require to the fishing zones or to permit them to carry out inshore fishery. When will Canada finally build another ice breaker? Probably it will be ready in two or three years when the fish are all gone.
I do not think it will be much longer before our fishermen, who must survive, start copying the example set by that small nation, Iceland, which insists on her right to survive by forcing agreement to her 50 mile limit. If no agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference is reached, she will extend her limits farther out.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the problems with which our fishermen are faced now, need not have grown to the present proportions if Canada had realized the potential of our fisheries and the value of our fish stocks many years ago. We have reached a stage now at which we are reacting by ad hoc programs, which would have been unnecessary had we realized the potential of our fisheries, as did the foreign nations. We are being outfished, out manoeuvred, outmarketed, and indeed laughed at by the Russians, the Europeans, the Japanese, and even the South Koreans and others who saw the value of our fisheries and whose aim it is to sell in the global markets. Since the
National Resources
early 1960's they began deploying their new distant-water fleets that have either processing or freezing equipment on board, or else are mothered by big factory ships to enable them to remain at sea for months at a time.
Let me give you an example of how we have fallen behind because of the lack of realization and lack of foresight by the present and past governments regarding the value of our fish stocks. In September of 1973 there was convincing proof that the Norwegians were seriously engaged in catching capelin on the Grand Banks. A 585 foot factory ship had been processing capelin since June of that year. The ship, with a crew of 55, was being supplied by ten smaller ships and was capable of loading the finished product aboard cargo boats at sea for delivery to world markets. Russian factory ships had been fishing for capelin two seasons previously.
What was Canada doing in the meantime? In the same year, fish plant operators were doing a survey of the market potential in Japan. In October of that same year, after the fact, came the big announcement by Canada that as a result of the findings of an exploratory survey costing $1.3 million it was learned that there were abundant stocks of capelin sufficient to support a commercial fishery. At that time the Norwegians and Russians were selling in these markets for a couple of years.
I will never understand why Canada did not know that. All we had to do was to ask the Norwegians about the prospective capelin resource. All we had to do was to send Dr. Needier or Mr. Lucas to Norway, throw a cocktail party for a couple of thousand dollars, and they would have had the answers required, instead of spending over $1 million.
What more glaring example is there to illustrate our neglect of our fisheries resource than the increasing value of that resource as food, not only for our own use in Canada but to fulfill our commitments to assist the starving nations of the world? What better example of its value is there at present when Canadians are so reluctant to buy meat because of the meat scandal?
These facts demand that the highest priority be given to getting the maximum value from what we have left, and to extending our fish resources. Not only is there a need for that resource as an available source of nutrition at a reasonable price to the consumer and an available source of food to feed the starving nations, but also as a source of livelihood for the thousands of fishermen whom we must protect, and for whom we must get the maximum price and security by providing them with adequate facilities and obtaining full value for their labour. We must extend every effort to market the product to the advantage of the fishermen, the processors, and the consumers who are increasingly burdened by inflation. One wonders why the fishermen and consumers at the two opposing ends are being affected the most.
I ask the minister again how the thousands of fishermen in Canada can continue to believe him, when on May 26 he stated to the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Forestry the following:
We hope our appeal for co-operation will be heard in ICNAF. We believe that the progress achieved at the Law of the Sea Conference

June 19, 1975
National Resources
should have laid the foundation for co-operation along these lines. Certainly the outcome of the ICNAF meeting will have to be taken into account in the Canadian government's appraisal of the results of the Law of the Sea Conference, as it will have to be taken into account in the determination of any further action that may be necessary to promote the development of the new international fisheries regime that has already made so much headway in the world.
How can I believe these words, when just three days previously I read that France would demand access to traditional fishing waters, and when I read that the French secretary of state for fisheries said that his government accepts the concept of an economic zone for protection of fish stocks, but that his government will not accept any scheme which would forbid French fishermen from working in the coastal waters of another state?
How can I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Dr. Needier or Mr. Lucas, when in the same article I read that a French expert who specializes in marine affairs said that it is unlikely that the Canadian position would be accepted if it meant that the French fishermen would suffer, and when he went on to say that French fishermen have been operating off the Canadian coast for hundreds of years and feel that they have some priority on the fish according to traditional rights?
They are correct in their assumption that there is no doubt that if the industry is to be saved some controls will have to be imposed, but the French are not likely to respond favourably to any scheme which would wall off their traditional fishing waters. They are right when they say that, rather than restricting the French, other nations should be cut off first. As is further stated, a common position could be arrived at with the French nation because Canada cannot expect to take 100 per cent of the catch, and I am sure that a bilateral agreement could be worked out as to management and control.
What I resent most is that the government opposite thinks Canadians, particularly those directly involved, are naive enough to believe that all is well, that all we need is to show a little trust in the capability of the government opposite and that it will make things right.
I have to say that I do not have that belief and trust. I cannot have that belief and trust any more. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I admire for his ability to twist words and to make them seem realistic, can make all the excuses he wishes to convince his colleagues that there is justification in mixing apples and oranges, or smelts and herring, to produce the desired results, but unless he produces some realistic results and acts in the best interest of the fishermen in his province, my province, or in any other province, he had better keep in close touch with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and come up with a contingency plan to avert what will become a crisis if the fishermen of Canada resort to taking action of their own because of the lack of backbone of the government.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been conversations, and I understand that we have agreed that speeches from here on shall be limited to ten minutes.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that that is correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that from here on speeches will be limited to ten minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: by ICNAF countries have tended to stabilize in recent years, total Canadian catches, limited mainly to traditional species, have declined by about one third.
All this is not Canada's doing alone. The expanding development of distant-water fisheries activities has not only preempted the opportunities of Canadian fishermen, but has resulted in excess fishing effort which has driven the stocks to their present low levels. I think this is understood by all hon. members who have spoken today. So a decrease in such distant-water fishing effort is essential to restore the stocks and the balance between resource availability and fishing capacity.
Because our fishery is naturally grown, with independent fishermen and companies fishing because they like it, but also to make money, our fleet has found it hard to compete, especially with east European fleets relatively unconcerned with economics. Our fleet is composed mainly of relatively small vessels without the capacity to move to distant fishing waters and unable to find economic markets for non-traditional species.
In an attempt to compete with foreign fleets the Canadian industry has increased the tonnage of larger Canadian vessels by 2.5 times since 1959, but has achieved only a 30 per cent increase in landings for its efforts.
Many of our fishermen are facing a desperate situation. Were things to go on as they are, communities would disappear. A basic foundation to improving matters is a rebuilding of the stocks to levels where the catch per trip of Canadian vessels can offset the unavoidable and rising costs of putting the vessels to sea. Let me say simply that we will not be able to do this on the basis of the motion presented by the hon. member for St. John's West. This would be fine if our problems could be resolved in a simple way-they cannot. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, they cannot.
We are taking a variety of steps to achieve the objective underlying this motion. We are doing so in the Law of the Sea Conference, in ICNAF, and in other negotiations. We intend to succeed and to ensure a brighter future for our fisheries and our fishermen.
For one thing we intend to make sure that our fishing industry remains, as it is now, under ownership that is overwhelmingly Canadian. We are looking toward other measures such as, in some fisheries, encouraging consolidation of marketing on the basis of restricted export licensing, to achieve greater marketing effectiveness by means of shared expertise, more promotion, and so on. Other possibilities exist to help create a stronger, more diversified industry. We are consulting the industry and fishermen, and know we have a great deal of support for certain courses of action. I hope that the members who have been so strong in supporting meaningless resolutions will be equally ready to lend their help on some of these more mundane matters, through which we may work together to build a strong and stable industry.
With all due respect to the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, both of whom are members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and who made a major contribution to that committee, I must say that the motion has left members from British Columbia, regardless of which side of
National Resources
the House they sit on, faced with the most difficult task of weighing the pros and cons of this motion and its effect on west coast fishing in particular.
I am truly surprised that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich seconded the motion without realizing the serious gap in the west coast position if the motion were accepted. His quick acceptance of the amendment by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was a desperate grasp at reality. The motion he supported is not acceptable to the members from British Columbia on this side of the House.
This motion would impose a very severe penalty upon the west coast fishing industry. What is good for the Altantic coast is not necessarily good for the Pacific coast, and this motion will bear me out.
The boundaries of this motion would assure the Atlantic coast full protection on the continental shelf and slope to the required limit. Such an interpretation would not apply to the Pacific coast, however, as has been said earlier. What it would do is give us a protection zone extending 60 to 70 miles offshore. This is a far cry from the 200 mile limit the government is seeking.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster is not acceptable to my colleagues from the west coast on this side of the House. Unilateral action is not an answer; indeed it is a hindrance to our international aims and commitments. What do the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for New Westminster mean when they say "immediate action"? I believe they mean "unilateral action", Mr. Speaker.
The salmon enhancement program would suffer a drastic setback if this motion were passed. The proposal for hatcheries on the west coast would never come to fruition. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of the fishermen and the industry on the west coast, I must voice disapproval of the motion and the amendment and, when called upon, vote against both.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) rising on a point of order?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to check with you if I could ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This can only be done with unanimous consent. The time of the hon. member was just ending when he completed his remarks. Does the House agree that the hon. member for New Westminster may ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's indication that he would not vote for the amendment, and in view of the fact that voting for the amendment does not necessarily support the question of unilateralism, may I ask what possible objection he has to the 200 mile provision for the economic zone on the west coast? Is there any objection to that and, if there is not, why does he not support the amendment?


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Mr. Speaker, the term used by the hon. member for New Westminster, echoing the hon. member

June 19, 1975
National Resources
for St. John's West, occurred right at the beginning of his comments when he urged "immediate action". He picked up the same part of the motion but he added the amendment which was, "or to the extent of a 200 mile economic zone", but he agreed to "immediate action". To me that spells unilateral action, Mr. Speaker, something with which I disagree.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in my maiden speech in this House I indicated to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) that I would not for a moment attempt to be a captain of his ship but I would stand on board and watch for the shallow waters, reefs, and rocks, and I would give him warning when his ship was in trouble and there was a possibility of running aground.
It is certainly no secret that we have major problems in central Canada. We are suffering from the concept of dual jurisdiction. In the arrangement by the federal government in 1930 the jurisdiction for inland fisheries was transferred from the federal government to the provinces.
The freshwater fishing industry is in a critical state-a deplorable state. Prices are depressed and costs are rising. Fishermen in central Canada are confused. On the one hand provincial jurisdiction takes care of quotas where applicable, and also licensing. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, which is under federal jurisdiction, looks after marketing.
The corporation is several years old. It enshrines a concept of input by fishermen, but there is only one fisherman on the board. To offset that there is an advisory committee consisting of 16 fishermen. One would think their input would be sufficient and meaningful, and that they would have some say in the affairs pertaining to the corporation. I do not believe this is the case, however. A member of that advisory board told me that this is his last year on the committee, that he did not want to go back. He said it does not involve the fishermen as much as it should. They cannot advise the corporation because they do not have access to many of the reports, and their suggestions are not taken into consideration. Then the president of the corporation at the annual meeting said that the talks, meaning the resolutions that were passed at that annual meeting, will not bring about any major policy change.
I suggest that the input of fishermen to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is not significant, in the direction of the corporation. Probably the single, most blatant failure of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation lies in the area of marketing. The whole idea behind the establishment of the corporation was that it would bring about orderly marketing. There was never any talk at the time of the corporation's establishment about the processing facilities which the corporation was also going to run.
I have said before in this chamber that I come from Nova Scotia. Back in Nova Scotia we had the idea that if you wanted to set up a processing plant, the logical place to put it was by the ocean, by the harbour, by the docks where the boats come in and land their fish. That is where you should set up your processing plant.

If you go west you will find huge and beautifully modern processing plants controlled, run, and even owned by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Of course you would expect them to be located by Lake Winnipeg or the other lakes where the catches are made. That is what you would expect; but that is not the case. There is one sitting among the grain elevators, out in the wheat fields of Transcona, and the nearest water to that processing plant is 25 miles away as the birds'fly. And that makes sense to some people! Apparently it makes sense to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) because he continually supports the idea of the plant being there.
But the biggest problem, as I said earlier, has to do with the marketing process. After all the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was set up to market fish in an orderly way. The catch, now that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is involved, has dropped from 70 million pounds to 33 million pounds. There is a simple rule of economics which says that if demand increases and supply diminishes, price rises. But with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation we have the reverse situation. The supply has decreased by 50 per cent, but the price has risen hardly at all.
When we ask the province which deals with matters like licensing what's wrong, it says, "But that is not our problem; that is a problem for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation." The fishermen, who are not great scholars of economics, have to sell their fish to the corporation and want to know why prices are depressed. The corporation says, "It's not really our fault; the problem is that prices are generally depressed in Canada." So, when we come to the federal minister and ask him why Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation prices are depressed in Winnipeg, he says, "It is not really a Canadian problem; the problem is that the darned price of those codfish blocks in Chicago is depressed." I confess that it is remotely conceivable that prices are depressed for that reason. But I tell you I can't make that stick when I go back to the fishermen of my area, to those Icelanders who will catch a fish if there is one to be caught, and tell them that the price of pickerel caught in Lake Winnipeg is depressed because codfish block prices in Chicago are depressed.
That is not the end of the story. I live in North Kildonan and shop at the North Kildonan Safeway. I could shop at other places, but I happen to shop at the Safeway. Every week I check the price of pickerel fillets and, you know, for the last three months pickerel fillets at the North Kildonan Safeway have been selling for $2.99 a pound. Mind you, they are alongside Captain's Choice, Highliner, and fillets of codfish, haddock and lesser species. But there was pickerel, selling for $2.99 a pound. I was excited. I said, "Oh, at long last prices have risen and there will be prosperity the like of which fishermen have never seen."
I jumped in my car and rushed off to Gimli, to participate with those celebrating these tremendously high prices. But when I got there the fishermen said, "This is strange." I learned that the corporation pays the fishermen 60 cents a pound, if they deliver to the corporation. If they do not deliver, the corporation has to take out a little money for transportation, agents, and handling fees, and fishermen could get about 42 cents per pound.
June 19, 1975

Let us suppose that fishermen have a half ton truck, on which they can load fish to take to the corporation 25 miles away. Let me point out that Gimli is not 25 miles from the lake. I was referring to the point closest to the lake. Gimli is an additional 60 miles away. So, in the heat of summer the fishermen load their fish on the half ton truck and take it to the corporation; and you can imagine the state of the fish when it reaches the corporation. The fishermen are paid, at most, 60 cents a pound. Yet there are no middlemen. The corporation does not deal with middlemen. Oh, no, it deals directly with markets.
Why do pickerel fillets sell for $2.99 a pound in the store, when the fishermen were paid only 60 cents? That is what I want to know. Why is there this difference? To me this makes no sense. Perhaps I am using the wrong schoolboy arithmetic. Perhaps there is some great formula which might make sense to a bureaucracy but, to me, it does not add up.
In closing I urge the minister to take action and to introduce a support program for fish landed and delivered to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. If the minister does not act more expeditiously on that matter than I suspect he will act on the substance of the motion now before the House, this entire debate will have been nothing but an exercise in academics.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help noticing the poor draftsmanship of the motion introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) which, if the House were to approve this motion tonight by a majority,-and that is impossible-could place Canada in a delicate, not to say dangerous, position in the current negotiations.
What surprises me, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member for St. John's West or his party did not have recourse to the diplomatic style of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) before asking him to support the motion. In all probability, he was not called upon because we saw him stiffen with indignation this afternoon when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) reminded him of the adverse consequences of passing this motion, should it carry. In spite of all that, I am glad to participate in this debate, representing a population whose subsistance depends, nearly exclusively in certain places, on the fishery industry.
Hon. members who are interested in that facet of our economy are already aware that Canada and this government intend to obtain immediate improvements on the present situation of fisheries in the Atlantic through ICNAF which is now holding important sessions, and they also know that our negotiators made excellent progress at the Conference on the Law of the Sea.
The reports we received show that most countries are now gradually accepting the concept of an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles. Those are concrete facts. May I remind hon. members that the tendency gives early indications that we are rapidly moving toward the jurisdiction we seek over our resources.
Incidentally, about that Conference on the Law of the Sea, I would like to set the record straight about claims by
National Resources
the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who suggested earlier that several delegations at the Conference on the Law of the Sea were represented on a full time basis by ministers. According to the information I have from reliable sources, people who were there on a full time basis, only Norway was represented by ministers during the whole conference. The Soviet Union sent a deputy minister who participated in the conference on a full time basis. He is a government official. A few other delegations from other countries had ministers as representatives but only on a part time basis but never has any country had, on a part time basis, four ministers at the same time, as Canada did for instance. I wanted to make those few corrections, even though I did not have the honour of attending the conference, because the information I was given is correct.
The first Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in 1958-and I think it is fit and proper to review the facts briefly-produced four international conventions, each concerning the use of renewable resources. There were first the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Continguous Zone, the Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, and the International Convention on the Continental Shelf.
However, the 1958 conference did not result in an agreement about two vital, close related points: the extent of territorial waters as well as the nature and the limits of coastal state jurisdiction over fisheries adjacent to the coast.
A second Law of the Sea Conference held in 1960- where Canada played leading part in an effort to extend the rights of coastal states-did not succeed either in resolving those problems. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the agreements of 1958 have been the basis of a conventional law of the sea until now even though common international law or the practice generally accepted on the international scene plays an ever increasing part.
None of the four Geneva conventions has been ratified by the majority of countries. I should say that in 1958 several countries had not yet obtained their independence and that today they hesitate with reason to subscribe to a conventional law system which was established without their participation and which some of them consider imperfect.
Of those four conventions, Canada has ratified only one, the Convention on the Continental Shelf. Even if it recognizes some merit to the other conventions, the Canadian government finds them inadequate to protect the interests of Canada when it comes to safeguarding the marine environment and its renewable resources. So we have used other means to adapt the legislation to current problems: regional agreements like those that paved the way for establishing various international commissions on fishing, bilateral agreements and, if needed-and when the situation was favourable and always within the limits imposed by our adhesion to the world community-unilateral action that contributes to the development of common law.

June 19, 1975
National Resources
Following the failure of the second Law of the Sea Conference and other multilateral efforts to reach an agreement to extend the universally accepted three-mile jurisdiction, Canada adopted in 1964 the baseline system to measure the territorial sea, thus, giving Canadians exclusive fishing rights extending 12 miles from Canadian cape lines, whose sole limitation comes from traditional practices from other coastal states off the Atlantic coasts, practices which are, by the way, progressively excluded.
In 1970, Canada extended over 12 miles, on its territory, complete sovereignty over the 9-mile fishing zone and established a series of closing lines giving Canadians exclusive fishing rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance as well as in its 12-mile territorial sea.
We have, Mr. Speaker, the longest closing lines in the world. One of 100 miles extends between Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Sound on the west coast, others close the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Hudson Bay to all foreign fishermen. Our fishing fleets are gradually gaining exclusive access to some of the most important fish stocks in the world.
The establishment of these closing lines affirms the jurisdiction of Canada over the conservation and the administration of fisheries over an additional territory of 80,000 square miles offshore.
Later, negotiations for phasing out traditional fishing were affected by those actions by Canada, and those negotiations fortunately brought results with all those countries, except the United States. In the latter case, a mutual agreement of fisheries, renegotiated for two years, provides that Canadian and American fishermen will continue to fish up to three miles from the shores of either country.
It is no doubt important, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the House and to Canadian fishermen some of the results due to the establishment by Canada of fisheries closing lines for foreign countries and the efforts we made to suspend gradually the rights of some countries. For example, Britain as well as Norway have left the St. Lawrence. Denmark is still fishing in certain restricted bases which it will leave in less than a year. Portugal will also leave the area in less than a year and Spain in a year. Canada has done all that, Mr. Speaker, by resorting to a policy recognized as firm but reasonable according to traditions in international affairs.
Canada has also taken special steps in 1970 to protect the delicate marine environment of the Arctic. To that effect, it has set up a 100-mile pollution control area. Soon afterwards, a similar antipollution legislation was passed for the exclusive fisheries areas in the St. Lawrence River, Bay of Fundy, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.
As all members know, we have not yet achieved total success within ICNAF. Canadian fishermen on the Atlantic coast have witnessed their fish catches diminish by 40 per cent in recent years. I could pursue my speech, Mr. Speaker, but I can see you are growing impatient. Still I should like to say that the most important factor at the present time, Mr. Speaker, and thus I shall conclude, is

that almost all nations believe that an exclusive economic zone will soon be established.
Canadians especially are all in favour of such a policy. The facts show that even before the present crisis the government and fisheries and marine services officials had taken the initiative with a view to exercising greater control over our coastal waters.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West would not add anything.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with unanimous consent because the hon. member's time has just expired. Does the House give consent to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are other members who want to speak and there is not much time left.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, while I am not from the east coast or the west coast, I do have 363 miles of coastal water bordering my constituency. In addition, inland there are some 50,000 lakes that produce fresh waterfish. They are capable of producing some 30 million pounds of fish annually. The problem of the fresh water commercial fishermen in northern Manitoba is the high cost of transportation. It is jeopardizing our fresh water fishery.
I wish to give some examples of what is happening to the fresh water fishery. The increase in freight rates has completely killed the fishery in northern Manitoba. It has put between 250 and 300 men out of work.


Andrew Hogan: What has this speech got to do with the motion? We had one man up to speak today. They had five.


An hon. Member:: It is our motion.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, this has a lot to do with the motion. I am talking about coastal waters as well-363 miles of coastal water.


An hon. Member:: Hudson Bay.


Cecil Morris Smith: That is right, and Hudson Bay is one of the best potential fisheries in the north. It is literally untapped.
I want to give the House an example of what is happening to the fishermen of Northern Manitoba, and to draw attention to the fact that the freight rates are killing these fishermen. In 1974 continental medium white fish sold for 24 cents a pound less a freight rate of 11.33 cents a pound- the cost of transportation to Winnipeg in this case. It left the fishermen with a return of 12.67 cents a pound. On January 20, 1975, the fish were still selling in the market for 24 cents a pound but freight rates had jumped to 12.18
June 19, 1975

cents. On May 5, with the price unchanged, the freight rate had increased to 14.3 cents. This left the fishermen with 9.7 cents a pound, and amount which made it virtually impossible for them to meet .their commitments.
I was listening to the minister when he spoke of the cents premium paid to the Newfoundland fishermen for top quality fish. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that fish produced in Northern Manitoba is bound to be top quality because we have no secondary industry, as it were, to deal with fish that might be starting to spoil. We are not even recognized as producing some of the world's finest fresh fish.
The minister told us, if I recall correctly, that some $80 million had gone in subsidy to the east coast fishery for the operation of ground fish plants and so on. We do not have this advantage. We must produce good quality fish; if we do not, they have to go into the bush. Earlier this year the minister announced a $300,000 support program for mullet in Manitoba. It was a great thing, and the fishermen were happy about it. However, there were already some three million pounds of mullet in storage in Winnipeg-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion and of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, and for the passage through all stages of any bill based thereon.
The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion



Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, except those items disposed of at earlier sittings, and less the amounts voted in interim supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-64, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1976, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Chretien there upon moved that Bill C-64, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 5-Appropriation charged.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board for clarification of this clause. I know this is not debate and I do not intend to debate, but because of a previous incident on a prior appropriation act I should like to ask the minister if he could give us a firm assurance that clause 5 may be a standard clause or, if not, to give us the precise purpose of clause 5. On the previous occasion we did not get the appropriate explanation, and a precedent was set in this House which should not have been set.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the form of this bill is the same as that of similar bills passed in previous years and does not contain authorization for additional loans; as far as I know, the same formula is used here as in the other circumstances: this I guarantee the House.

Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 20, 1975