1988-05-06

[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-CANADA-FRANCE FISHING DISPUTE Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate) moved:
That this House deplore the unlawful arrest of a Canadian fishing vessel by the Government of France in area 3PS off the coast of Newfoundland; and
That this House condemn the Government for its failure to protect the Canadian fishing industry and its continuing inability to resolve the Canada-France fishing dispute.
He said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning a fishing vessel left a Canadian port to go fishing off the coast of Canada. There were five crew members aboard. Three of them were from Grand Le Pierre, Newfoundland, and two were from Port aux Basques. It was a good day for fishing. They had a licence to fish in area 3PS off the south coast of Newfoundland. The only restriction on their licence was that they were not permitted to fish in Fortune Bay.
Restrictions on the south coast of Newfoundland have been placed on Canadian fishermen by the Government of Canada. For the first time, long liners from the north coast and northeast coast of Newfoundland are forbidden to have licences to fish off the coast of Newfoundland, along the south coast.
The fishery off the south coast of Newfoundland has been drastically overfished. It was not overfished by Canadian fishermen from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. It was not overfished by any of these fishermen, but it was overfished and continues to be overfished today by gigantic 300-foot factory freezer trawlers that are not from Canada at all. They are from France. They are from St. Malo. They are not even from St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Under the Conservative Government, Canadian fishermen have been restricted from fishing activity along the south coast of Newfoundland and out into the Atlantic Ocean. A Canadian fishing boat from Fogo Island and La Scie on the northeast coast no longer are permitted to have a licence to fish off the
south coast of Newfoundland. They can have a permit for a week or sometimes a month, but no longer a licence.
There is one classification of vessel that is not restricted at all, whether it is 10 feet long, 100 feet long, or 1,000 feet long. As long as that vessel is from France, it can fish all it wants for as long as it wants without interference.
Willie Bolt, Captain of the Maritimer, left port yesterday morning with his licence, after being kicked out of Fortune Bay by the Government of Canada. He went fishing where his licence permitted, only to be arrested by the Government of France.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I do not know of any of the 20,000 inshore fishermen who are rich. I do not know one inshore fisherman in Newfoundland who is making as much money as a Member of Parliament or as the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland, or even as the head of his union. I do not know one. Yet these are primary producers who contribute more to the economy of the country than do politicians or lawyers. They have been relegated to poverty on the coastline of Newfoundland, more so in the past few years than ever before.
Willie Bolt and his crew have had two bad years in the fishery off the south coast of Newfoundland. Today he sits in St. Pierre. The Government says: "Well, you're free to go but you are not allowed to leave the island".
The French metropolitan fleet today at this very moment is fishing in an area outside of this so-called 12-mile territorial zone. The Department of External Affairs was notified last evening by the Government of France. As a matter of fact, when the tow-line was put on the boat, it was notified that that vessel was going to be arrested. Why? Because they were violating the 12-mile territorial sea of the Government of France. If that is a declaration by the Government of France that there is a 12-mile territorial sea, then the other area is no longer disputed. They cannot have it both ways.
The French metropolitan fleet today has its large enormous vessels out there taking everything from the ocean, further destroying the incomes of Newfoundlanders such as Willie Bolt and his four member crew.
How did we get to this situation today? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister in charge of free trade all point back to a 1972 agreement in which they
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1988
Supply
claim the French are given rights to fish in Canadian waters. They have repeated this in the Chamber time and time again.
I want to put on the record what is in this 1972 agreement, its exact wording. The exact wording is:
Article 2-to recognize the right of French nationals to fish in these waters subject to possible measures for the conservation of resources, including the establishment of quotas.
The quota for the French fleet in Canadian waters this year is 6,000 tonnes. The Government of France says: "We will catch 26,000 tonnes". The Government of France notified the Government of Canada that it wants 50,000 tonnes for next year-more than the entire total allowable catch for every country in the world, including Canada, off the coast of Newfoundland.
I am going to now tell you, Mr. Speaker, why we are in the situation that we are in today, why the Canadian Government is seen around the world as being pushovers, and why the Government of France could direct a French naval vessel to arrest a Newfoundland fishing vessel yesterday afternoon. It is not the act of arresting that is so serious. That is not the serious part. The serious part is that this is another action in a long line of actions that has destroyed the Newfoundland fishery.
I will read for you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the Government of Canada, where we got where we are today by simply referring to a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) written by none other than the Minister of Fisheries who is sitting in his place today and who is going to have to listen to his words now that were written on June 24, 1986. I quote:
My Dear Prime Minister:
I am writing to advise you of the political and economic opportunity related to future French fishing quotas in Canadian waters.
He goes on and gets down to this sentence:
The issue involves the weighing of the domestic perspective against general bilateral relations with France.
He concludes his letter in this way:
I want to assure you that my goal throughout will be to manage our fisheries discussions with the French in a manner that does not jeopardize the cordial relationship between Canada and France-
Mr. Siddon:: Read the rest of the letter.


Mr. Baker:: Now I will read from another letter. It is from the Prime Minister, and I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if these are marked "Cabinet documents". They were given to me openly.


Thomas Edward Siddon: And taken out of context. Read the whole letter.


George Baker: I am going to read for you, Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister responded to the Minister of Fisheries:
Dear Colleague:
I agree that in dealing with this sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one hand the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and on the other our bilateral relations with France.
There was a period before I started that sentence and there is a period after. Here is another sentence.
I am therefore pleased that you will be consulting with your colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs-
Well, he did. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in an outrageous, disgusting manner then wrote to the Mayors in France. Here is a letter to the Assistant Delegated to Maritime Affairs, St. Malo, France. M. L. Perouas. It states:
The Prime Minister asked me to thank you for your letter-
This was in French, and I am reading an English translation.
-of December 23, 1985, in which you made known to him your concerns about the rights to fish by French vessels, and especially those from St. Malo, in Canadian waters.
They knew that their rights were coming to an end in Canadian waters because the former Government had said they were going to come to an end. They were concerned and they wrote to the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State went on to state:
This period is soon coming to an end in conformity with what was agreed to between France and Canada in 1972. None-the-less, as in the past, vessels registered in St. Malo in another distant water French port will continue to fish in the Canadian zone of 200 miles outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence and outside the territorial sea ... 1 can assure you without hesitation that Canada has not abandoned the people of St. Malo, especially because-we attach a great value to the friendship we have with them. It is because of this that these people will be able to continue to fish Canadian waters in 1986 and well beyond that.
He states in Canadian waters-that is exactly what has happened. There was a decision to allow the Government of France to send in its gigantic trawlers to employ thousands of people in France with fish taken off the coast of Newfoundland. There it was. There was nothing in the 1972 agreement because that ended. There was the Government of Canada saying to the Mayors in France: "We will allow you to fish, although the 1972 agreement has come to an end". There it is in black and white. If you want to read it in French, Mr. Speaker, you can. If you want to read it in English, Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing.
Today we have another chapter in the book of the destruction and the insults to Canadian fishermen by the Government of France and the Government of Canada. All eyes will now be on the Government of Canada. What will its reaction be? Was it not enough that the Government of France turned around through diplomatic decisions and refused permission to the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland to land in St. Pierre on a courtesy trip? Was it by accident that the Government of France tricked this Government into actually supporting in the United Nations the appointment of the French negotiator in the fish talks to the World Court that will sit in judgment of this very question in the future?


May 6, 1988

I see my time is fast running out, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by saying that the people of Canada are now looking at what the Government of Canada is going to do. The fishermen of Canada are totally fed up with the inaction of the Government. They are wondering what happened since 1984. What happened to cause the Government of France to announce unilaterally enormous quotas out to 200 miles in the so-called disputed zone, and to send over gigantic factory freezer trawlers to catch that fish?
The Government of Canada also approved licences for Canadian factory freezer trawlers. The Newfoundland Government approved the inshore middle distance fleet of over 100 foot boats, and 20,000 inshore fishermen with little boats were looking and saying: "What is going on? We have been forsaken by the Government of Canada. We have been forsaken by the Government of Newfoundland. Who speaks for the inshore fishermen today in Atlantic Canada?" They are poor people, Mr. Speaker, who contribute more to this economy than people in St. John's in the Government, or in any other Government.
We are now awaiting the response of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). Today these Ministers were quoted in the media as saying that this Canadian boat yesterday "was arrested in French waters". In French waters! Were the fish they were catching French fish? What is going on here? Our cabinet Ministers say for all of Canada to hear "These are French waters". Even the ordinary fishermen of eastern Canada know that we have had what is called mutual forbearance, if one wants to talk in legal terms, for 200 years. That means there are no lines drawn. Yesterday little fishing boats from St. Pierre were fishing on the shoreline of Newfoundland. If one wanted to extend a 12-mile zone around St. Pierre, one would be seizing a portion of Newfoundland. In some places it is not 12 miles away from St. Pierre.
It is the craziest, most ridiculous thing that I have ever seen sent to the Government of Canada by the Government of France yesterday afternoon at 3 p.m. It stated that the fishing boat was violating the 12-mile territorial sea around the nation of France off the east coast of Canada.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what was the response of the Government of Canada? When it was informed of this just at the time the rope was being put on the boat, the Government asked the RCMP to phone the wives and the families of the crew members to tell them what was happening. At 7 p.m. last night the RCMP officers said: "They will be arrested when they arrive on shore in St. Pierre; they are being towed into port by a French naval vessel. We were asked to pass that along to you. It will take three hours to tow them into port". That, Mr. Speaker, was the sole and only response of Members of the Government of Canada to the declaration by the Government of France. They did not even object to the Government of France. They sat in their offices here in Ottawa and held meetings. They sat in their offices and asked:
Supply
"What's the most recent report from the Coast Guard and the RCMP helicopter?" They did one further thing, Mr. Speaker. They gave orders that the honorary Consul General in St. Pierre should be on the wharf at 7 p.m. and report on the condition of the crew members.


Mr. Tobin:: What a pile of wimps. All the backbone of a jellyfish.


Mr. Foster:: Send in Joe.


George Baker: As I say, Mr. Speaker, it all goes back to letters written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the Prime Minister who wants to be known around the world as somebody who wants to be loved and needs to be loved by everybody. The Secretary of State for External Affairs put it in writing. "We will not forsake the people. We will not abandon the people of St. Malo". No, Mr. Speaker, they did not abandon the people St. Malo, but they have abandoned the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: That was a fine, dramatic performance, Mr. Speaker, which accomplished nothing. Nevertheless, we may as well try to elucidate a fact or two while the hon. gentleman is present. I have a couple of questions. For example, I want to know whether the Hon. Member realizes-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have questions for us? You have more nerve than a toothache.


John Carnell Crosbie: I just want to expose the depths of their ignorance, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Hon. Member if he realizes that it was in December, 1971, that the Government of Canada recognized a 12-mile limit for France around St. Pierre and Miquelon. Does the Hon. Member realize that France proclaimed this 12-mile territorial limit around St. Pierre and Miquelon in 1971, and that Canada never objected. The then Liberal Government did not object in 1971. It did not object in 1972, 1973, 1974, nor did it object in 1975, 1976, 1977, or 1978, Mr. Speaker. All those years it never objected. It did not object in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, or 1984.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And they didn't arrest us in all those years.


John Carnell Crosbie: So, if Canada has recognized that France has a 12-mile limit around St. Pierre and Miquelon, and that these are territorial waters of France, the Liberal Government of Canada recognized that from 1971 until it was turned out of office in 1984. It appears that the Newfoundland vessel taken in tow yesterday and under the control of St. Pierre and Miquelon was within a 12-mile zone. It is not in the area known as the disputed part of 3PS.
I am wondering whether the Hon. Member knows that, or whether he simply conveniently forgets the fact that there is a 12-mile territorial limit around St. Pierre and Miquelon, a

May 6, 1988
Supply
territorial limit that was recognized by his Government, a past Liberal Government. Does he realize that he was a member of this House and a part of that Government from 1972 onward, and that for every day that he was a member of that Government, he was recognizing this 12-mile limit?
He cannot now very well get up in this House and pretend that the 12-mile territorial limit around St. Pierre and Miquelon does not exist. He was among those who permitted it to exist. Past Governments of which he was a member permitted that territorial limit to exist.


Ms. Copps:: That is ridiculous. An apologist for the French Government. Ridiculous.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it is a very serious point of order. Members of this House have the right to expect that, when they engage in debate and ask questions, they will get answers from a representative of the Government of Canada, and not a representative of the Government of France.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made a point, but not a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Minister to continue.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the second point-


An Hon. Member:: Do you support Mitterrand or Chirac?


An Hon. Member:: He probably supports Le Pen.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the rules provide for a 10-minute period in which one can ask questions or make comments on any speech made by Members of this House, thereby enabling any remarks to be put to the test. The Liberals do not like this rule used on them, given the great abyss of ignorance that exists in that Party. They are very skilled in the use of the stiletto and the dirk in the back of their Leader, but they are not skilled in answering questions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on. Tell us about Brian Peckford.


An Hon. Member:: What was it you said about Joe Clark, after the leadership campaign?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the second part of my question has to do with whether or not the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker), who has just concluded a dramatic presentation-and I congratulate him on that. He is the Marlon Brando of the Liberal ranks. Method acting is his forte-realizes that, in many bays about Newfoundland, there are gear conflicts, conflicts as between the inshore fishermen, a group he claims to represent, a group that he claims to love so much. It is a conflict between those who use fixed gear and
those who use mobile gear. In other words, some can move around, setting their gear where they wish, whereas others among them have fixed gear. The gear is set once, and it is fixed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You should be ashamed of yourself.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has drawn certain lines in the bays of Newfoundland to protect the fixed gear inshore fisherman, who does not want his gear destroyed by the mobile fishing sector.
Does the Hon. Member know that there is a line drawn in Fortune Bay to protect the inshore fixed gear fleet, with the mobile gear fleet having to fish outside of that line? Does the Hon. Member realize that that situation exists, and does he realize that, when he attacks that, he is attacking the very fixed gear inshore fishermen he pretends to love and vows to protect?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Now we shall hear from a spokesman for the people of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: The people of Canada shall now speak. Vive le Canada.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear a member of the Cabinet say that I was a part of the Government of 1972, especially given the fact that I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1974.


An Hon. Member:: It seems like 1972.


An Hon. Member:: Never let the facts stand in the way of a good allegation, Mr. Crosbie.


George Baker: Perhaps it is an indication that the Minister wants to backdate my pension to 1972.
The Minister, in asking the question he does, is ignorant of a couple of facts. If, as he claims, there has been a 12-mile zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon, Canadian fishermen could not fish within that 12-mile zone. As well, it would mean that there would be a territorial sea going out 12 miles around St. Pierre and Miquelon, which would mean that, when one goes on to the beach at the foot of the Burin Peninsula, one is on French soil. It also means that the French would own at least one mile of the forested area on the very tip of the Burin Peninsula. That would be French territory.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pull up your socks, John.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the distance between Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon, varies, in locations, from 11 miles to 14 miles. That was the only area that was ever in dispute, or a semblance dispute, off the Newfoundland coast. There was no 12-mile zone, because physically it was impossible.
May 6, 1988

In legal terms, within the Department of Justice, one would find someone describing the arrangement, as I did, as "mutual forbearance"; but, they drew a line from either coast to separate St. Pierre and Miquelon from the mainland of Newfoundland. "Mutual forbearance" meant an understanding that boats from St. Pierre and Miquelon could go on the Canadian side, and Canadian boats could go on the St. Pierre and Miquelon side.
That is why, in those areas where the fishery is better on the Newfoundland side, the boats from St. Pierre and Miquelon go on the Newfoundland side; and where the fishery is better on the St. Pierre and Miquelon side, Newfoundland boats put their gear down on the St. Pierre and Miquelon side.
There was never any such thing as a 12-mile zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon. If there were, we would not be into the problem we are into today. One cannot argue that there is a 12-mile territorial sea around St. Pierre and Miquelon and be arguing that there is a disputed zone out 200 miles.


An Hon. Member:: You tell him, George.


George Baker: What has happened here is that the Government of Canada has again caved in. A vessel has been arrested, and this Government is not going to object. Instead, it is going to now try to justify the arrest of a Canadian vessel off the coast of Newfoundland.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unbelievable.


George Baker: There is no Cabinet order by which something can be done about it. This area is now referred to as French waters. No longer is it a disputed zone, but French waters. The Government of France, according to the Government of Canada, now has a 12-mile territorial sea around St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Why do they not put that on the licences of Canadian fishermen; why do they not outline on the licence what the restrictions are? Why not note on the licence that the territorial restriction applies, not only to the coastline of Newfoundland, but the coastline around St. Pierre and Miquelon? Were they to do so, half of the boats could not leave port.
What has been justified in the backrooms of the Department of External Affairs over the last 12 hours will not be accepted by the Canadian public. We are going to get to the briefing notes that are being used today in Question Period; we are not going to let this drop. The fishermen of Canada will know who is speaking up for them, and it is not the Government of Canada. It is the Government of Canada that should be speaking up; it is the Government of Canada that should be objecting to the Government of France.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would-
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired. I will recognize the Hon. Minister if he is rising on debate. Is the Hon. Minister rising on debate?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Now we will get the truth.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, before getting into-


An Hon. Member:: Where is the Minister of Fisheries?


An Hon. Member:: He is cowering behind the curtain.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He cannot hide behind John all of his life- although he does cast a large enough shadow that a lot of people could hide behind it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the present situation, I wish to refer to the treaty of March 27, 1972, a treaty negotiated by the Liberal Government of the day.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) referred to the boundary between St. Pierre and Miquelon and the Province of Newfoundland, or the territorial waters thereof, and expressed the view that a 12-mile limit could not be recognized because of the fact that, in certain places, there is not 12 miles of sea between the two coastlines.
That is dealt with in the Liberal-negotiated treaty of March 27, 1972, a treaty which has given Canada so much difficulty ever since. It is this treaty which is the cause of our present problems. Under that treaty, the Liberal Government gave France the right to fish in Canadian waters, subject to our determining quotas.
In Article 8 of that treaty, it is stated that the line defined in the annex to the present agreement determines, in the area between Newfoundland and the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, the territorial waters of Canada and of the zones submitted to the fisheries jurisdiction of France, zones submitted to the fisheries jurisdiction of France by the then Liberal Government.
In the annex there is a document attached which shows that the equidistance principle applies between the Burin Peninsula and St. Pierre and Miquelon. I will show you, Mr. Speaker, the equidistance line in a diagram which is attached to this Liberal treaty. Here is Grand Miquelon and here is the equidistance line. Here is Brunette Island, the Burin Peninsula and Fortune Bay. Of course, the previous Government recognized France as having a 12-mile territorial boundary around St. Pierre and Miquelon. Where there is not 12 miles between St. Pierre and Miquelon and the mainland of Newfoundland, the equidistance principle applies, as was agreed to by the Liberal Government of the day.
First, with respect to yesterday's events, this action on the part of France in taking under French control the fishing

May 6, 1988
Supply
vessel Mari timer is a deliberate provocation, as it must be considered to be.
Under the 1972 treaty small fishing vessels of both countries can fish in each country's territorial waters. We are dealing here with inshore fishermen with small boats, 65-foot longlin-ers and under. There are some 200 Newfoundland inshore fishermen who fish from time to time in the zone that might be called the territorial waters off St. Pierre and Miquelon. There are 20 or 30 St. Pierre and Miquelon boats which fish in the Canadian territorial waters. We have never required the small inshore fishermen from St. Pierre and Miquelon to get licences to do that nor has France ever required our vessels to be licensed to fish in these waters. Yesterday, without any notice or warning to Canada at all, the French authorities took action to arrest or to take under their control the Newfoundland fishing vessel Maritimer which was fishing in those waters, as has been the custom. This is, and can only be described as, a deliberate provocation.
Some 10 or 12 days ago the representatives in St. Pierre and Miquelon sent a 200-foot trawler with camera crews, media, a senator and other politicians on board into Canadian waters in a deliberate attempt to get publicity and to challenge Canada's jurisdiction well into the Canadian area, about 50 miles I think it was, off the coast of St. John's West. They were arrested as they had to be and have been charged as they should have been. There is no comparison between that particular event and the action of France yesterday.
As a result of France's actions yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and I met. We have directed our representative, Mr. Fortier, who was to have a meeting today with the French representative, Mr. Puyssochet, in connection with trying to establish a process of mediation to try to bring to a successful conclusion this fisheries dispute, not to proceed with any session in connection with mediation-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Big deal!


John Carnell Crosbie: -as we are going to suspend any meetings in connection with the mediation process until this matter is resolved to our satisfaction.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How about the Airbus?


John Carnell Crosbie: I might tell the House that we have received a telex from the Premier of Newfoundland expressing Newfoundland's outrage at the actions taken by France. In the final paragraph, he said that "the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador commends the Government of Canada for the swift action taken by the Right Hon. Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs, in suspending the mediation talks scheduled for later this week between the two countries. The Government in Newfoundland cannot support any resumption of these talks until the full implications of France's actions have been determined".
That is the motion that should be before the House today, not this partisan, silly, frivolous motion put by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. We should have a motion commending the Government for the swift action that was taken, just as the Government of Newfoundland has commended us for our swift action.
I want to advise the House that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has called in the Ambassador to France-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Which ambassador?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to hear the Hon. Minister's speech, if I may.


John Carnell Crosbie: We can imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal caucus is like when challenging their leader if this is the kind of noise we have to listen to when we are speaking in this chamber.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has called in the French ambassador to protest this provocation by France. Of course, the process of mediation will not go forward until this matter is settled to our satisfaction and until we know exactly what France is going to do with respect to the fishing situation in this area that lies between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland. Once we know just what France's position is and after the French presidential election is over on Sunday, we will see what then happens in that particular situation.
This is an extremely deplorable action taken by France. I can only outline for the House and deal with the resolution before the House. The resolution asks the House to:
-condemn the Government for its failure to protect the Canadian fishing
industry and its continuing inability to resolve the Canadian-France Fishing
dispute.
It takes two sides to resolve a dispute. I will outline briefly for the House the steps that we have taken. In the negotiations for the last year or year and a half, we have taken a series of firm steps to try to resolve the dispute with France. We have been unable to resolve it because the Government of France does not respond and is not prepared to accept any reasonable suggestions for the settlement of this dispute. We have followed a step-by-step approach to increase pressure against the French overfishing in the disputed area 3PS. By the way, this incident yesterday did not take place in the disputed zone of 3PS.
In February, 1977, we closed Canadian ports to French fishing vessels. That prevented any diversion of French vessels to Canadian ports for supplies, repairs, or refuelling. Closing the Canadian ports also makes it more difficult for vessels from St. Pierre and Miquelon to operate because they do not have their usual quick repair facilities in Canada. That is part of the action that we have taken to protect the Canadian fishing industry to try to induce France to be reasonable and to settle this dispute. That was a clear signal to the French about our commitment to conservation. We closed the ports because
May 6, 1988

of French overfishing in the disputed zone of 3PS. We have no authority to stop France's overfishing there, but the French have for the last several years overfished in the area to the extent of something like 20,000 tonnes during one year.
As a next step, we refused to allow the Burgeo Bank, which is a major fishing ground off the south coast of Newfoundland, to be used by France. During the summer of 1987 we closed the remainder of area 3PS outside the disputed zone, which is known as the western gullies, to French vessels. We no longer permit them to fish there. Those areas closed off include other valuable fishing grounds on which the French have depended heavily in the past. This was to show our displeasure at France's overfishing in the disputed area which we cannot control.
On October 9, France broke off negotiations with us on both the compromis. We want to get the question of the territorial boundaries and economic zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon and between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada to an international tribunal. France refuses unless we agree to give the French certain fish quotas in Canadian waters over the next three or four years. That is what the dispute is about. France broke off negotiations with us in both those areas. We then told France at the end of the year that there would be no quotas granted to the French in Canadian waters- none-in 1988 in the absence of an agreement on sending this boundary dispute to adjudication and in the absence of an agreement on the question of quotas. Our position has remained firm ever since. How juvenile and silly is this resolution to try to condemn the Government for its failure to protect the Canadian fishing industry in light of the steps that we have taken.
We are operating under the provisions of a 1972 treaty entered into by the very people who filed this motion here this morning and who put Canada and Canadian fishermen into this regrettable situation off the east coast of Canada. These are the people who gave the French the right to fish in Canadian waters. The Government of Canada has to set quotas each year for that purpose. This is where the French get their rights from, this Liberal treaty of 1972.
Of course, there may well be a question of whether or not French actions are making this treaty unworkable. That is another question that we will be coming to in due course. However, the very people who caused this problem are the people who are now here with their crocodile tears, going on about the incident that happened yesterday.
The author of the motion, having had his 20 minutes of histrionics in the Chamber, has disappeared somewhere. I suppose he is out before the television cameras or gone somewhere. I did not get the chance to ask this question of him. Perhaps he could tell us now. He claimed yesterday that there was a fisheries patrol vessel in the area when this happened. This is in Hansard of yesterday on page 15188. In fact, there was no Fisheries patrol vessel in the area.
Supply
Then the Hon. Member claimed that there was an RCMP helicopter that flew over and a fixed-wing aircraft belonging to the Coast Guard. We would like to have some evidence of that, particularly due to the fact that there was heavy fog in the St. John's area yesterday.
What we heard from the Member from Gander is what we usually hear from him, a lot of braggadocio, a bilious bunkum, a blithering blatherskiting, that is all we have heard from the Hon. Member. We heard not a scintilla, not a suggestion as to how this dispute could be settled. Not one reasonable suggestion was made as to how we could get France to agree to a reasonable settlement that will protect Canadian fishermen.
We heard not a word of apology for the fact that from 1974 to 1984, he was in the House completely silent, not a word came from his mouth with reference to what was happening in the fishing areas off the east coast of Canada. We did not hear a word when in 1981, his Government gave the European Economic Community 9,500 tonnes of northern cod to take every year. That agreement expired at the end of last year and we have not renewed it.
We hear not a word of apology for the damage that was done to the Canadian fishery by that agreement with the European Economic Community providing 9,500 tonnes of cod a year, not even a crocodile tear from the hon. gnome from Gander who has now disappeared, doing his Hunchback of Notre Dame act somewhere else, I suppose, on the premises. He outdoes Charles Laughton when it comes to theatrical productions.
The Hon. Member was very positive in his statements, positive being-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who speaks for Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) reminds me of something Ambrose Bierce said: she is always very positive, meaning she is always mistaken at the top of her voice.
What action is being taken? This vessel is in St. Pierre and Miquelon.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Come on, John, you're usually better than that. Settle down, baby.


John Carnell Crosbie: Officials of External Affairs intervened here to assist the fishermen involved. Apparently-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Send in the French subs.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They're already there.


John Carnell Crosbie: The French have asked for a bond in order to release the vessel and that will be attended to. The French Ambassador has been called in and a protest delivered, and a protest has already been delivered to the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France in France. We have postponed

May 6, 1988
until this matter is resolved satisfactorily the mediation process. These are the steps we have taken.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's disgusting.


John Carnell Crosbie: We know that the Liberal Members are not interested in the facts. They are not interested in trying to help the fishermen of eastern Canada or of Newfoundland. They are only here to try to score cheap political points and to holler and call out and interject when someone else has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Methinks he doth protest too much.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would like to put on the record the following facts so that there is no false feeling of sympathy on the part of any person in Canada in connection with the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. I would like to remind Hon. Members that there are 28,000 commercial fishermen in Newfoundland. There are only 176 fishermen in St. Pierre and Miquelon. In the period 1972 to 1985, the average groundfish landings in St. Pierre and Miquelon from within and without the disputed zone including the part not in dispute, 3PS, only approximated 6,250 metric tons per year. Yet they are looking now for something in the order of 50,000 metric tonnes per year and they have taken in excess of 26,000 tonnes in the disputed zone in the last several years.
We should note that in St. Pierre and Miquelon, cod landings in 1987, per fisherman, totalled 99 tonnes while, per fisherman on the South Coast of Newfoundland, the catch averaged only 10 tonnes. On a province-wide basis, each Newfoundland fishermen catches about 18 tonnes of fish of various species a year. The St. Pierre and Miquelon fishermen catch about 122 tonnes a year.
Let us not have anyone here in Canada feeling sorry for the poor fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. We should feel sorry for them because they are represented by a Government that apparently does not consider their interest to be of the first priority as we do.
The fishermen we need to be concerned about are our own Canadian fishermen whose catches on average are much lower than the catches of the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. That is worth remembering when there are theatrical events such as the sending of a trawler with French politicians on board.
I suppose the next thing I would imagine the Liberal Caucus might do is send John Turner out in a 65-foot dragger off St. Pierre and Miquelon and challenge the French authority. That might solve their leadership problem right there.
We have here a motion that is completely misconceived. It is only designed to give the mover a chance to speak in the House in a theatrical manner. It is completely misplaced in trying to condemn the Government for the failure to protect the Canadian fishing industry while the record of the last four years shows the Government putting the Canadian fishing industry first, defending it, advancing its cause, hampered and
with our hands tied behind our backs, handcuffed by arrangements entered into by the previous Liberal Government and confirmed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was the Prime Minister of Canada for those few brief weeks in the summer of 1984. There was an exchange of notes in July of 1984 dealing with the question of mutual restraint by both parties when their fishermen are fishing in the disputed area of 3PS.
We do not have to vote on this motion. It is a pity that we do not, because it is one of the most ill-conceived, weakest, most jejune of motions that has ever been put before the House. If there was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it is this motion moved by the very people who, for the years from 1972 onward, did nothing to protect the Canadian fishing industry. They gave away our rights to the French, to the European Economic Community, to Germany, to Spain, to Portugal and to every other nation. They failed to take steps to adequately enforce the 200-mile limit, the various steps we have taken since which have improved the situation immeasurably.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why don't you read the dictionary for the next minute? You're afraid of a question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not need to read the dictionary. Here are some of the steps we have taken. This is a tremendous document. The measures we have initiated include increased fines and the arming of patrol vessels. The Hon. Liberals opposite were afraid to do that. They did not arm patrol vessels.
There has been the placing of fishery observers on all foreign fishing vessels and greater aerial observation including the addition of a twin-engine helicopter to our surveillance capability. Yet we have this ridiculous, silly and in fact misleading and damaging resolution which should be changed so that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is congratulated by the House for the swift action he has taken.
OO)
I would urge all Hon. Members, if we have a vote, to throw this motion completely out of the House.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in my short time in Parliament I have never seen such a pathetic, weak, and spineless response to yet another insult not just to the people of Newfoundland, not just to the small boat fishermen in Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province, with the highest unemployment rate, but an insult to the
May 6, 1988

integrity of the Government of Canada. Here we have standing before us a Minister who has not the good sense to know that as a Minister of the Crown he has been insulted once again.
The Minister can go back to the treaty of 1972, he can go back to the treaty of 1872, he can go back to the treaty of 1772, the fact of the matter is that 24 hours ago a Newfoundland vessel, which makes it a Canadian vessel, was illegally arrested by French authorities. The Government of France-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the Hon. Member's time has expired.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, today is Canada-Lebanon Day. Four years ago the Government of Canada so designated May 6 to honour the significant contributions to Canada of Canadians of Lebanese descent.
There are over 200,000 Lebanese Canadians, 20,000 in my city of Ottawa alone, many of whose families have been here for over 100 years.
Last night I was proud to join several hundred members of Ottawa's Lebanese-Canadian community in welcoming the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other federal Ministers to the local Canada-Lebanon Day celebrations. This is the first time that a Prime Minister has attended such an event. I join him and all Members of the House in applauding Canadians of Lebanese descent for their immeasurable contributions to Canada. We all hope and pray for a return of peace to Lebanon and the early re-establishment of the Canadian Embassy in Beirut.



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a notable National Forest Week. A number of events have focused the importance of our forests to Canadians, their importance in employment, in production, in exports, and in aesthetic and ecological terms.
The Canadian Institute of Forestry deserves much credit for its emphasis on these matters. I take pride in recognizing the leadership of Dr. Jim Kayle, President of the Institute, and one of my constituents as former Director of the School of Forestry at Lakehead University. I also want to express appreciation to yourself, Mr. Speaker, for focusing attention on forestry by
means of the reception and luncheon you hosted on Wednesday.
We need equally vigorous action by the Government of Canada. We need a full Department of Forestry for a most important resource and industry. We need increased spending on reforestation and research. We need to ensure that Canadians will have forests to enjoy in perpetuity, and the varied employment that our forests offer. New Democrats anticipate the opportunity to create such a federal Department of Forestry.



VILLE DE VANIER'S CULTURAL AND SPORTS GALA

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to draw the attention of Hon. Members to an important event held annually at Ville de Vanier which acts as an important stimulus for our young people.
On April 30 this year, the sixth sports and cultural awards gala of Ville de Vanier was held, with Andre Morin, who is very involved in community projects and a man of great determination and open-mindedness, as honorary president.
The purpose of the gala is to set up a special fund to help young people in the community, while recognizing individual achievements in sports and culture.
All this would not be possible, Mr. Speaker, without the involvement, sustained efforts, creativity, experience and mutual support of many volunteers who shared a common goal and who were committed to making this an unforgettable event.
My sincere congratulations to Nicole B. Morency, president of the gala corporation, to Rachel Francoeur, president of the organizing committee and to all volunteers who worked together to make this an outstanding community event.



OPERATION RALEIGH


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, this summer a very special event called Operation Raleigh is scheduled to take place in Canada's North. It is a three-month trek through the Northwest Territories, involving 24 youths

May 6, 1988
who will be conducting scientific research as well as performing community service.
Perhaps what makes this trip so special is the fact that young people aged 17 to 24 from over 20 countries will be participating in the program. They will be working side by side in a survival program, learning about Canada's northern wildlife, ecology, and culture. The only Canadian leader of this group is one of my constituents, Mr. Patrick Coppinger. Mr. Coppinger is a four-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces and was chosen for this position because of his military and leadership skills.
Each participant is required to raise a substantial amount of money from the community to fund participation in the program. When they return from their three-month odyssey they will be giving speeches and presentations on their experience to community groups, schools, and companies.
On behalf of all Members of Parliament I would like to commend Mr. Coppinger and the many other individuals involved in this worthwhile project, and wish them luck on their journey.



ABORTION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to an article which recently appeared in one of our national newspapers entitled "Life-and-death issue". The subtitle reads: "Netherlands expected to approve bill providing euthanasia defence". It says:
After 15 years of sometimes bitter public debate, it seems likely The Netherlands will soon become the first Western country to legalize mercy killing.
Unless there is a new, unexpected outburst of opposition, legislation to permit euthanasia will be approved by the Dutch Parliament within the next few months.
Although there is no prescribed method of death, the consensus in the Dutch medical community is that it would be carried out by injection-ensuring a painless and quick death.
In connection with this article I fear a liberalized attitude toward abortion. If we as a nation do not have respect for the life of the unborn, is public acceptance of euthanasia the next step? Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote to protect the lives of the unborn when legislation is introduced in the House of Commons.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, later this month we will be acknowledging the special needs of the handicapped by designating a special week. However, there is an urgent situation which cannot wait for that designation.
Our society is slowly starting to make advances in the area of rights for the handicapped. Much time and effort have been spent in removing the obstacles to travel for those with impairments.
Although the National Transportation Act provides that carriers must be fair to handicapped travellers, there are no provisions allowing for regulation of air terminals administered by Transport Canada. Last February 24 the Minister of State for Transport confirmed the Government's commitment to the introduction of amendments to the Act to ensure that air terminals are accessible to handicapped people. She promised that the amendments would be passed "before the summer". The Minister said she would "do the impossible" to ensure that this was done.
To date there have been no amendments introduced. I encourage the Minister to get on with it. It is no good to ensure that the handicapped will be allowed to fly if they cannot get to the planes.



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are nearing the end of 1988 National Forest Week which has afforded an excellent opportunity to take time to appreciate all the good things our forests provide.
In British Columbia forestry is the number one industry employing almost 300,000 people, directly and indirectly. The federal Government recognizes the importance of this industry and we are currently investing $300 million with the province in the Canada-British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement. This program has led to an unprecedented level of reforestation. We are also ensuring that important export markets are maintained and expanded.
Our forests in B.C. produce over $6 billion worth of exports destined for the U.S. With the removal of tariff barriers under the free trade agreement, the B.C. forest industry will become even more competitive, and the door will be open to more value added processing of forest products. Free trade will further promote the good health of our vital forest industry.
May 6, 1988



FISHERIES


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) beat a hasty retreat after the spectacle that we saw this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure where the Hon. Member is going, but Statements by Members are not traditionally to be used for any personal attack. However, I will hear the rest of the statement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is not a personal attack, Mr. Speaker, it is an attack on the Government of Canada. I came here this morning expecting to hear government Members, especially one from Newfoundland, stand up and fight for Canada and defend our interests.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Read the "blues"!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Instead I saw a Canadian government official acting as an apologist for the French Government. He should have had the Marseillaise playing in the background. He was practically handing out literature for the French election coming up this weekend. My question is this. Who is speaking for Canada? It is the Liberal Party; it is the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). We are going to fight for Canadian fishermen, not those limp wimps over there who flop down every time the French Government and the French vessels come into Canadian waters. We have to get rid of the Government because we need someone who speaks for Canada.



MEGAPROJECTS-USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians ought to be free to decide themselves on an individual basis whether or not they would care to invest their money in petroleum megaprojects such as Hibernia, Terra Nova, OSLO, the Husky Upgrader, or Amauligak.
It is both economically and morally wrong for the state to take their money under threat of force by way of taxation and make that decision on their behalf.
Which, if any, of these projects go ahead should be determined solely by market forces.
Not only would it be a wrongful and wasteful use of taxpayers' money if tax dollars were to be put into one of these
projects, it would also mean that the Government would be favouring one area of Canada at the expense of another, contrary to the natural workings of the market-place.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 1945, Canada, along with other nations, passed the International Labour Organization Convention concerning the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize.
Many times in the House we have risen to condemn the actions of either the federal Government or a provincial Government, especially in Alberta, with regard to their neglect of that Convention. Today I want to stand in this House and speak against the actions of the Government of Poland which has deliberately ignored this Convention and has refused to recognize the workers' right to free association, and has refused to negotiate with the legitimate trade union body in that country.
I call upon Canadians from coast to coast to express their solidarity with the workers in that country, and say that the Government must listen to the workers there as well as in Canada.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate nationally has fallen to 7.7 per cent and in the National Capital Region to 5.2 per cent, the lowest in many years.
In terms of job creation, small businesses were responsible for 81 per cent of the 1.2 million new jobs created recently. This trend is continuing.
The Government has taken several initiatives to assist small business. For example, the 1987 federal small business corporate tax rate of 15 per cent will be reduced to 12 per cent effective July 1 this year.
The federal Government has given tax incentives to Canadians to invest in small businesses via pension funds and through labour sponsored venture capital funds. The federal Government implemented an action plan to reduce the burden of paper work on small businesses.

May 6, 1988
In addition, the Government improved the opportunities for small businesses to participate in federal government procurement programs. Moreover, the federal Government implemented a $500 million capital gains exemption for investments in the shares of small businesses, and moved up the lending ceiling under the Small Business Loans Act from $1.5 million to $2 million.
Small business is important to Canada. We must recognize that 50 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada in the next five years will be created by the small business community.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government's plan for postal service in rural Canada was spelled out in the fall of 1986. It was to close 5,000 rural post offices and remove 9,200 jobs, most of them held by women.
It is a plan to take away post office employees' jobs and replace them with short-term contracts, to close post offices and replace them with supermailboxes, and cut back on rural routes.
Now that plan will hit the community of Killarney which will be part of the new Algoma constituency, because the postmaster there has signalled her retirement at the end of this month.
The Killarney post office has a vital and important role in that community of some 500 people and for the thousands of tourists who come to visit there every summer. It is important to the senior citizens who depend on it for service, as it is for business because of the relative isolation of the community.
Now that the postmaster has resigned, the post office is to be reduced from a full-time post office with a full-time postmaster to a retail commission outlet and a part-time service only. If no commercial outlet can be found, it will be reduced to superboxes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the summer Olympic Games will give many Canadian athletes the chance to compete with the world's best. Several members of the Canadian Olympic rowing team have been training on the Henley Regatta rowing course in St. Catharines and on the South Niagara rowing course in Welland.
These clubs are working hard to upgrade their courses, not only to ensure that we continue to offer world class facilities to our homegrown and world class rowers, but also in an effort to enhance Toronto's bid for the 1996 Olympics.
The proximity of these facilities to the main Olympic location, and the commitment of the local rowing clubs to maintaining and upgrading the existing courses will certainly contribute to a positive response to the Toronto bid when the 1996 Olympic site is finally chosen.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deplored the abuse of the rights of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War and said: "If there was a Conservative Government I can assure you we would be compensating them". Some three-and-one-half years have now passed and the issue is still not resolved.
In 1986 a Price Waterhouse study commissioned by the National Association of Japanese Canadians evaluated the internees' confiscated property and forgone income at $443 million. The Government offered a paltry $12 million and, yes, it said it would generously throw in an apology.
The time has come for the Government of Canada to settle this whole issue with the Japanese Canadian community.



MENTAL HEALTH WEEK


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind Members of the House and the general public that this is Mental Health Week. For the past 30 years the Canadian Mental Health Association has co-ordinated events to raise national public awareness aimed at reducing the stigma of mental illness and at encouraging community acceptance of those in need of mental health services.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is pleased to collaborate with the CMHA in this worth-while effort to draw attention to the importance of mental health issues. This year's slogan for Mental Health Week is: "Mental Health- Keep it in Mind", and all Canadians are invited to give their full support to the Mental Health Week events that the local branches of the CMHA have planned in their communities.
May 6, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, we all know about the illegal, unlawful arrest of a Newfoundland fishing vessel yesterday by French naval vessels. The Government of France claims that it took the action because the Newfoundland boat "was fishing within the 12-mile territorial sea around St. Pierre and Miquelon".
Fishermen were shocked this morning to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada say: "The boat was in French waters". Will the Minister explain to the House what he meant when he said: "The boat was in French waters"? Does he not realize that if France were to declare and enforce a 12-mile territorial sea around St. Pierre and Miquelon portions of Newfoundland would now belong to France? What does he mean by "French waters"? Are the fish also French?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what I mean by French waters is what is defined as French waters in a treaty signed by Canada in 1972. It is a treaty signed by the Liberal Government of Canada, supported by the Hon. Member.
The question is not the 12-mile limit, the question is the application of the provisions of a Liberal treaty signed in 1972. The Hon. Member may not like what the Liberal Government did then, but that Liberal treaty set out the facts, and those facts cannot be changed now at the whim of the Hon. Member whose Party conceived the treaty, and which he supported himself.


CANADA'S 200-MILE ZONE-REQUEST THAT FRENCH METROPOLITAN FLEET BE ARRESTED
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada recognized that 12-mile zone, why did it not inform the fishermen?
The Government of France in enforcing a 12-mile territorial sea yesterday has virtually scuttled its claim in the so-called disputed zone. I would like to ask the Minister this. Would the Minister now not agree that the waters off the south coast of Newfoundland are no longer in dispute with this enforcement of a 12-mile territorial sea? Therefore, will the Government of Canada now, today, arrest the French metropolitan fleet which is fishing outside the 12-mile territorial sea declared by France but within Canada's 200-mile zone? The Government of France cannot have it both ways.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge the enthusiasm of the Hon. Member and his willingness to allow his
Oral Questions
enthusiasm to try to roll over the facts. I am not prepared to let him roll over the facts.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Roll over, Joe.


John Carnell Crosbie: You're good at stabbing. Go stab your Leader, boys.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is speaking from her seat again.


Mr. Gauthier:: Watch it, Joe. They were after you, too.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He's sitting behind you, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Secretary of State would answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister for International Trade and I stand cheek by cheek and jowl by jowl.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: Explain!


Charles Joseph Clark: The NDP has no sense of history.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nor any sense of humour.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nor any sense of the future.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nor any sense, period.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH FLEET OFF SOUTH COAST OF NEWFOUNDLAND
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland fishermen arrested yesterday have experienced a couple of bad years in the fishery, just like every other inshore fisherman along the south coast of Newfoundland. Boats from the north coast of Newfoundland and the northeast coast of Newfoundland are now restricted off the south coast of Newfoundland because of drastic overfishing. We all know who is guilty of drastically overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland. It is the metropolitan fleet from France.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs does he not realize that Canadians are fed up with this overfishing by the fleet from France, and the Government's inability to solve the problem? When is the Government going to start getting tough with the Government of France where it hurts, pull the plug on the nuclear submarine and put the brakes on the Airbus?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the negotiation is of course an important issue. I think a couple of things should be made clear.

May 6, 1988
Oral Questions
First, what is at issue here in this present bizarre incident is not the 12-mile limit, despite what the Elon. Member has tried to suggest. What is at issue here is the jurisdiction over waters, a jurisdiction that was established by a Liberal treaty in 1972. The Hon. Member should not try to mislead people about the application of the 12-mile limit because that is not what is at issue here.
The second point that has to be made is that this strange incident yesterday involves, among other things-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It's not an incident, it's an insult.


Charles Joseph Clark: -a break in the practice, a practice carried out by both France and Canada, based upon a principle that this dispute between our two nations would not be fought on the back of small fishermen.


Mr. Robichaud:: What do you think they're doing now?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member understands that what is involved here is a small inshore fishing vessel that has been hauled into St. Pierre. It has been the practice of both countries for some time that this dispute should not be fought on the back of small fishermen. The traditional practices protected the small fishermen of both countries. Our position is that those traditional practices should continue.
When we called in the French Ambassador this morning to protest, the French indicated that their position, their policy, has not changed. Naturally, the Government of Canada is supporting the captain of the Maritimer. If bail is set the Government of Canada will make arrangements to meet that bail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Liberal Party does not want to help the captain of the Maritimer. We intend to. We intend to do that as we have throughout the piece. We intend to continue to do that, to protect that captain, and to protect the other inshore fishermen of Canada.


REQUEST THAT CANADA STOP NEGOTIATING SUBMARINE AND AIRPLANE PURCHASES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the Minister of Fisheries Minister on August 19, 1986, with respect to this dispute the Prime Minister stated:
I agree that in dealing with this sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one
hand the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and on the
other our bilateral relations with France.
The only treaty that Newfoundlanders are interested in today is the treaty they signed in 1949, the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland. They thought it made them Canadians. They expect that when their interests are challenged that this Government, this Canadian Government, will defend their Canadian interest.
Let us quit beating around the bush. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to stand and say today that as long as this kind of action continues by France, which the Government itself has described as irresponsible, Canada will cease today any further negotiation on the purchase of submarines from France, worth some $12 billion, and will order Air Canada to cease today any further negotiations for $1.5 billion worth of airplanes from France? Will he do that? Or is he saying that Newfoundland is nothing but an impoverished and disposable bargaining chip in our relationship with France? Is that what he is saying?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Liberal Government which signed the 1972 treaty regard Newfoundland as a disposable part of Canada. It may be that Liberal Governments which followed energy policies that were detrimental to the development of Newfoundland regard Newfoundland as a disposable part of Canada. This Government is changing those policies that were prejudicial to Newfoundland. We have done that in other fields. We are doing it now in a negotiation with respect to the fishery, a negotiation which will protect the interest of Canadian fishermen in Newfoundland and elsewhere.
What is at issue now is a bizarre incident to which we have responded. We have responded with a protest to the French Government this morning. We have responded by direct contacts with the captain of the Maritimer. We will continue to support him, and to support the other fishermen of the inshore fishery of Newfoundland throughout this incident and into others should they occur.


FRENCH INSULTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when a nation must stand up to be counted. The Governor General of Canada was insulted in France during her visit last year. The Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland was not allowed, for the first time in decades, to visit St. Pierre last summer. A vessel was arrested yesterday.
I am not one, ordinarily, for standing up and saying that we ought to take dramatic measures.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am not asking for a declaration of war. But I am asking, and asking soberly, and the Liberal Party is asking that the submarine negotiations cease today, the Air Canada Airbus negotiations cease today, and that we stand up for Canada. Will the Secretary of State do that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 
Brian Vincent Tobin: Let you try to find your backbone, Joe Clark. You haven't got one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Simulated simpleton.


Charles Joseph Clark: -on the record.
The Hon. Member referred earlier to two treaties. One was the Terms of Union Newfoundland signed in 1949. In our judgment that was a political decision that we celebrate, but which needs to be accompanied by consistent policies to develop the standard of living and the level of opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what this Government has done consistently.
The other treaty has to do with 1972. The issue in question last night has to do with a definition of French waters that was agreed to by the Liberal Government of Canada in a 1972 treaty signed by the Liberal Government of Canada. That is the reality. If the Hon. Member, a member of the Liberal Party, disagreed with what his Government did then, we should have heard from him then, not several years too late.


U130) RELATIONS BETWEEN NEWFOUNDLANDERS AND CITIZENS OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister knows very well that the relationship between the Canadians who live in Newfoundland and the French citizens who live in St. Pierre and Miquelon has for years been without conflict. They have enjoyed each other's company socially and have worked well together.
The Minister will also know that this action by the French Government in the past 24 hours, if one considers where the action was taken and the size of the vessel under question, is totally unacceptable.
Has the Government of Canada informed the French Government that the very good relationships that have existed between the people of Newfoundland and the French citizens of St. Pierre and Miquelon are the serious matters that are at risk in the short run, and are at risk in the long run?
If the Government has so informed the French Government, have we made it very clear that it has to be held responsible if there is now major conflict between two groups of people who have always been good friends?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we have done this morning is called in the Ambassador to Canada of France and protested to him the action of last night. We have made it clear that our interpretation, an interpretation to our understanding shared by France through several years, has been that it would be allowed that smaller fishermen from St. Pierre and Miquelon would be able to fish in Canadian waters, and smaller fishermen from Newfoundland would be able to fish in French waters. That has been the practice for some time. We believe
Oral Questions
that traditional practice should continue. We have protested the action of France which is inconsistent with that practice.
We intend to continue to support the fishermen of Canada, particularly the small inshore fishermen involved in this dispute.


ROLE OF FRENCH PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the whole international world that is following this incident understands full well that it is the action of a desperate man who is seeking the presidential office in France, who is running well behind the current President of France, and is taking it out on the people of Newfoundland.
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs made it very clear to the present Government of France that mixing serious international obligations for short run political gain at home is the very antithesis of good international relations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we have done, and I repeat this, is protested the matter to the Government of France. The Hon. Member understands the practices of international relations between countries, and that is the manner in which we have proceeded in this case. If the event is not resolved in the next several hours, we will naturally consider what other steps we should be taking.
I think the Hon. Member may also know that meetings were scheduled for this morning between the two negotiators of this larger dispute to discuss a mediation process. At my instruction the Canadian negotiator has suspended those meetings respecting mediation.
I understand the depth of the issues involved here. I have been following this file very closely myself with my colleagues, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and with others. We know the depth of interest of Canadians involved here. We intend to protect those Canadian interests, and we intend to protect them against sudden events that may arise, for whatever reason, in France.
We are proceeding consistently, and we are proceeding in a way that we believe will advance the interests of Canada in terms of the dispute that is now in place, and advance the interests of fishermen in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SPEAK TO HIS FRENCH COUNTERPART
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question for the Minister is this: The Prime Minister of France has made similar decisions and taken similar action in the past. This is not exactly new, coming from this gentleman. Would the Minister speak directly to the Prime Minister of Canada,

May 6, 1988
Oral Questions
to persuade him to speak directly to his friend, the Conservative Prime Minister of France, and ask him to stop these actions which have a very negative impact on Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have done two things today. First of all, on my instructions, our negotiator has suspended talks with the French negotiator about a mediation process.
Second, we have transmitted a letter of protest to the French Ambassador in Canada, indicating the Canadian Government's profound concern about yesterday evening's events.
We do not want to see small businessmen from St. Pierre and Miquelon or Newfoundland victimized for the sake of an election campaign or for any other reason.


NEGOTIATIONS ON PURCHASING AIRPLANES AND SUBMARINES
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. By way of preamble, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not explained why, in talking about the treaty of 1972, he sent a note to the French Government saying that the Conservative Government has given to the French fishing quotas far in excess of any obligations under the 1972 treaty.
Why has the Minister twice refused to answer a direct question to the effect that the Government should cancel or suspend all discussions with the French on the purchase of French nuclear submarines, and on the purchase of the Airbus for Air Canada, until the fisheries dispute is settled in a manner satisfactory to Canada?
Why is he evading answering that question? Is it because he is putting the interests of French companies and French workers ahead of the interests of the people of Newfoundland?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think there can be no question about the determination of the Government to give the highest priority to the interests of the fishermen and the economy of Newfoundland. We have done that consistently, and we have done it particularly in this case.
We have a discussion here today because of a very bizarre and strange incident last night. It is an incident that we have protested. When we called in the Ambassador of France to Canada this morning he indicated that the policy of France has not changed. In our judgment that means that there should not be any change in the traditional practices that have benefited the smaller fishermen of both Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon. We intend to deal with this incident directly on its merits, as we have.
I understand what the Hon. Member is trying to do. He is trying to create a larger partisan question and to start a trade war that would have, among other implications, the likelihood of making it more difficult for us to achieve the settlement by
negotiation that is in the interests of Canada, that is in the interests of France, and that is particularly in the interests of fishermen in Newfoundland.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have had a whole series of incidents, and the latest one is a serious slap in the face of this country.


INTERESTS OF PEOPLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is it not correct, in saying that the Government does not want to expand this matter into a trade war, that the Minister is confirming that the Conservative Government is putting the interests of the people of Newfoundland second to its desire to buy a nuclear submarine and the Airbus from France? It is trading off the interests of the fishermen of Newfoundland and the people of this whole country for purposes that are not in this country's interest? The Minister has said that in his answer to the first question. Why will he not confirm it now, to the shame of himself and his Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only is the allegation of the House Leader of the Liberal Party absolutely false, it is also an attempt to sow divisions in this country, an attempt which I personally regard as contemptible, and should not be carried out by responsible parliamentarians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The reason we have the incident that is now occurring in St. Pierre is because in 1972 the Liberal Government of the day agreed to a treaty which defined the waters in question as French waters. I believe the Hon. Member was a member of that Government, was a supporter of that Government. If he was concerned about the implications of the 1972 treaty he should have raised that concern in 1972 and not waited for a decade and a half.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT PURCHASE NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES FROM FRANCE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Canadians know that it is foolish enough to attempt to purchase nuclear submarines from any country in the world, but it is compounding the folly for Canada to be proceeding with negotiations to purchase these submarines from a country that has deliberately provoked us, a country that snubbed the Head of State of Canada on her visit to that country last fall, and a country that has deliberately ignored Canadian quotas aimed at the conservation of the fishery.
May 6, 1988


An Hon. Member:: The Head of State of Canada is Her Majesty the Queen.


James Douglas Manly: My question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs is as follows. In view of these facts, will the Government now cancel any attempt to purchase the nuclear submarine fleet from France?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a proposal by the two opposition Parties in this House to take a very serious fisheries dispute and escalate it into a trade war between Canada and France. That is their proposal.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands will understand, I would hope, that trade wars claim victims on both sides. Among the Canadian victims of a trade war with France, were Canada to go out of its way deliberately and unnecessarily to start one, would be the employees of Cana-dair, a company which is trying to sell water bombers to France-


An Hon. Member:: We are not talking about a trade war; we are talking about breaking off negotiations to purchase submarines.


Charles Joseph Clark: Such a trade war would impact on a wide range of Canadians.


Brian Vincent Tobin: So, it is a trade war. It is confirmed. Newfoundland is expendable.


Charles Joseph Clark: That speaks to the Liberal and NDP proposal that we start a trade war.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Newfoundland can be sold down the drain.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is the judgment of this Government that, instead of seeking out opportunities to start a trade war, we should be doing all that we can to settle this fisheries dispute, to the benefit of Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: Newfoundland is expendable. We have heard it now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands, on a supplementary.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, France has played hardball on this issue. It is not regarded by France simply as a fisheries dispute or a boundary dispute. Rather, it has been allowed, by France, to spill into other areas.
Had this Government taken a stronger position a year and a half ago, this issue would be solved by now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONS
James Douglas Manly: My
supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External
Oral Questions
Affairs is as follows. Is he now willing to look at this issue in the light of the total Canada-France relationship, or does he simply want to regard it as a little fisheries dispute, with Canada making one retreat after another, letting France have whatever it wants?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what odd behaviour for the Hon. Member. Here we have a man of peaceful inclination standing in the House of Commons urging us to start a trade war.


An Hon. Member:: Hypocrite.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the first oddity.


An Hon. Member:: Those are your words.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member purports to speak for the people of Newfoundland. Perhaps I might be permitted to read into the record, with all appropriate modesty, a letter signed by the Premier of Newfoundland on May 6, today. I quote: "The Government of Newfoundland and Fabrador commends the Government of Canada for the swift action taken by"-and I ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker-"taken by the Right Honourable Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs, in suspending the mediation talks scheduled for later this week between the two countries."
We have acted consistently, vigorously, and effectively to protect the interests of Canadians in this dispute.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a serious matter.
The citizens and workers of Poland continue to struggle against the shackles of communism, of a communist regime. The present strikes are the result of popular discontent over unfair price increases.
There are some 500,000 Canadians of Polish origin in Canada, many of whom agonize over family members in Poland whose lives may be in danger as a result of the current unrest in that country.
Why has the Canadian Government agreed to meet with a Polish parliamentary delegation, when press reports indicate that the Polish Government is forcibly suppressing labour strikes in that country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the developments in Poland are of a

May 6, 1988
Oral Questions
great concern to the Government of Canada, and to the people of Canada. The Government of Canada has been in touch daily with Polish authorities regarding these matters. Our concern is based, not simply upon our interest in developments in Poland, but also upon the justifiable concern on the part of the more than half a million Canadians who are of Polish origin about the rights and liberties of their relatives and friends in Poland.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton East questions why we would meet with a Polish parliamentary delegation to this country.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a visit that has been organized under the auspices of your office and the auspices of the Speaker of the other place, and it is one that involves a visit to Canada by a Polish member of the Politburo who is active in the decisions being taken by the Polish Government at this time. Thus, it presents the Government of Canada, and indeed all parliamentarians, with the opportunity to express, directly and forcefully, the concerns of Canadians to a member of the Polish Politburo.
Certainly for the Government's part we intend to take advantage of that opportunity here in Canada to express our views very directly about what should be occurring in Poland, and I would hope that individual Members of the House of Commons who have the opportunity to meet that delegation will also take a strong and forceful position in relation to that situation.


FREE TRADE-IMPACT
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Yesterday, Status of Women Canada published a report on free trade and women, which states that lowering tariff barriers for Canadian industries will help these industries compete more effectively on the U.S. market; and that women will benefit as far as employment is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how the Minister can claim this sort of thing, when we know that manufacturing costs less in the United States because the minimum wage is lower, raw materials are cheaper and production lines can be longer. How can the Minister justify this kind of statement?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted with the report that came out yesterday showing that free trade is going to benefit the women of Canada. It is going to benefit them in a lot of ways.
One reason that manufacturing costs are lower in the United States is the opportunity to have longer production runs. Canadian manufacturing industries compete very well in the U.S. as long as they can get the size and the investment, and certainly free trade will be very good for Canadian women in the manufacturing industry. It is also very good for Canadian women as consumers.
Because of the reductions in tariffs, both in respect of American goods that go into Canadian manufactured products, as well as the Canadian manufactured goods themselves, costs will come down for consumers relative to what they would be otherwise. By way of example, for low income elderly single women, the estimates of the impact of the agreement show an annual savings of about $155 to $240, compared to what the situation would be otherwise.
The free trade agreement is good news for women both in terms of jobs and the ability to train for new opportunities. The service sector, where 85 per cent of women's jobs are, will grow under the free trade agreement. What could be better for women?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR RETRAINING FEMALE WORKERS
Lucie Pépin: I gather from the Minister's reply that women as consumers might benefit, but I don't think women working in industries that will be most severely affected will benefit, because they will lose their jobs. We know that most of the latter are immigrants with little education and schooling. I would like to know why the Minister refuses, as she did in committee, to allocate funds for retraining and training women who will lose their jobs or will have to seek employment elsewhere. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that she is prepared to reconsider the answer she gave in committee and guarantee that funds will be available for the thousands of women who will lose their jobs? Will she reconsider her reply and give us those funds?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in committee, the Canadian Jobs Strategy has sufficient flexibility to train people, including women, for job changes throughout the economic system.
I went into some considerable detail on this in committee, and I suggest that the Hon. Member read my remarks in committee.
With the system we have in place now, some two million women require some kind of job adjustment every year. They either change jobs every year or leave the workforce to take a training program.
With the new opportunities provided by free trade there will be additional adjustments. Most will be positive. We have,
May 6, 1988

within the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the ability to train women now to take advantage of upcoming opportunities.
Free trade, like any other economic condition, is not a static thing. It is going to grow, and it will be positive for women. It will be positive for women in terms of both the manufacturing sector and the service sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will know that this latest incident is not the only time the French have pushed Canadians around. He will be aware that the French have been overfishing in our east coast waters; they have insulted our Head of State and they have been harassing and hassling Canadian tourists visiting France. The most recent incident was to stop one of our vessels fishing in waters where they have traditionally fished for many years.
Why doesn't the Secretary of State for External Affairs stand up in the House and say that the Government of Canada is now prepared to send a very clear signal to the French Government, that Canada is not prepared to accept being pushed around time and time again? He should tell the French that we are not interested as a Government of Canada in purchasing any submarines from them. Get tough.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have already done that. We have already made very clear to the Government of France the determination of this Government to protect the interests of Canadians. Among the ways we protect the interests of Canadians as a Government is not to engage in casual trade wars.
What the Member of Parliament is doing now on behalf of the New Democratic Party is suggesting that we should put at risk jobs in Vancouver, jobs in St. John's, jobs in Halifax, jobs in Toronto, jobs in Hamilton-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Damn right we are!


Charles Joseph Clark: -jobs across this country of people who now are engaged in contracts to France or people who might become engaged in contracts to France.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no reason at this stage for us to contemplate that. We are being very tough and very consistent on the fishing question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Hon. Minister that standing up for Canada means taking some risks sometimes. It is time we started standing up for Canadians in Newfoundland. How many times does the Minister have to be poked and prodded until he realizes that somebody is trying to hurt him?


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When you poke away at a grizzly bear long enough, eventually he will start fighting back, Mr. Speaker. I think we have been pushed around too long by the French. It is time for the Minister to stand up now and say that we are prepared to send a very clear signal: "Unless you back off and back off now, we are not interested in negotiating this nuclear submarine contract at all".


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have sent a very clear message to the French.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A smoke signal.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have sent a clear message in the protest. We have done that in the suspension of the discussions on mediation. We do not want to make the fishermen of Newfoundland or people working in factories across this country the victims of some political process of the New Democratic or the Liberal Parties.
We are in the present situation because a treaty was signed in 1972 by the Liberal Government that defines certain waters as being French waters. That situation was established then and it cannot suddenly be ignored.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Stand up.


Charles Joseph Clark: As for standing up for Canada, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, because I have been challenged before to stand up for Canada. I have been challenged in this House to stand up on issues, and I think any objective reading would say that when I have been called upon to stand up for Canada, I have stood up for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 6, 1988
Oral Questions CANADA PENSION PLAN ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the stand-in for the Minister of Health.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A stand-in?


Geoff Wilson: I do not intend to muddy the waters further.
My question is for the stand-in for the Minister of Health who will know that a small number of Canadians left their jobs some years ago but have not been able to apply for disability pensions because their applications, once received, have been deemed to have been late.
Would the Minister consider amending the Act in order to enable these deserving and needy Canadians, who have paid into the Canada Pension Plan for a number of years but whose applications have been denied for late filing, to apply and receive what they have coming to them?


Sheila Maureen Copps: No stand-in; it is a lie-down.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to lie down as suggested by my hon. colleague on the other side. On the contrary, that used to be the habit of the former Government.
I thank my hon. colleague for his very important question. As he knows, and as he has mentioned, I am standing in for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is presently at the World Health assembly in Geneva. I will bring the specifics of this very important question to the Minister's attention immediately upon his return on Monday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the present time, Canada does not have an ambassador in Paris. Meanwhile, it seems the former ambassador is trying to get elected.
In this case, would the Government be prepared to call back its Charge D'affaires in Paris to show the French that we take this incident seriously, that we will not tolerate this and that this act of piracy is an insult to Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have already advised the French Government of Canada's reaction and protest. We have already
suspended scheduled talks on mediation. We are protecting the interests of people of Newfoundland and other Canadians. We are here to protect Canadian interests, not to play a public relations game.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER PREPARED TO CANCEL VISIT TO FRANCE
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if the Government is so serious about protecting Canadian interests and about showing the French that we take this incident seriously, is the Prime Minister prepared to cancel his visit to France which will be sometime in May, in fact on May 26? Or are you afraid of offending the French and more interested in protecting the image of the Prime Minister during his visit to France?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer is, briefly, no, because I think it is very important for us to keep all options open for influencing the opinion of the French government. But there is another issue, Mr. Speaker: Why do we have this problem today? We have this problem because a treaty signed by the Liberal Government in 1972 gave the French jurisdiction over the waters in question. That was one of the Liberal Government's achievements. It is just one more problem created in this country by the Liberal Party. We are now trying to find ways to solve a problem that was created by the Liberal Government.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In February, 1987, she said that the ability of Canadians to talk to each other would never be negotiable. At the time the proposed policy was that Canadian industry would be guaranteed 15 per cent of the market. We find with the newly announced policy that the industry now has to compete in a bidding war with multinationals for 15 per cent of its own market.
Was it complaints from the Canadian film industry that made her change her mind?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I am in a rather magnanimous mood today. I am not even going to say to the members of the Opposition, "I told you so". But I want to assure the House that the way in which the policy announcements that I made yesterday were received by the industry is indicative of the support that it is giving to this approach.
May 6, 1988

I would like to say to you, Sir, that this morning I received a communique from the National Association of Canadian Film and Video Distributors which says: "The National Association congratulates you on your initiatives in offering a comprehensive and effective strategy to stimulate and strengthen the Canadian film industry".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that I should wind up, but the communique goes on to say, "Your proposal to introduce legislation to regulate the importation of film products into Canada is an important first step toward breaking the stranglehold of the foreign distributors in our domestic market". They say that this will establish Canada as a sovereign market for film distribution in Canada.


NEGOTIATION OF CULTURAL MATTERS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, after the good news, the Minister knows perfectly well that the film distribution industry in Canada is largely controlled by U.S. corporations.
Why won't the Minister admit that these pressures from the Canadian industry actually suit the U.S. industry perfectly, since it will always have access to the Canadian market?
Will the Minister admit that culture was part of the free trade negotiations with the United States?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have some more letters today. There is one from Serge Lozique, president and director general of the Festival des films du monde. It says: "Madam Minister, the legislation you announced yesterday will be remembered as one of the milestones in our country's cultural history.
For the first time in the history of film, we will exist before the world as a country that is sovereign and distinct from the United States. All Canadians, whether they are politically involved or not, should rejoice in ... ".


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I don't think it is appropriate to read the whole letter.

A single question from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.
_____________________________________15215
Oral Questions


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the stand-in for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it deals with the very serious continued distribution of Pam across Canada.
Earlier this week we heard the Minister come to his senses when he said that the Department would move to take the product off the shelves, but he would not give us a date. This morning the president of the company that sells Pam said that there are five million cans sold in Canada every year and that it could take up to a year before they come up with their substitute product.
Given that a substitute is already available, being marketed in the Maritimes and being sold in the United States, and given that five million cans may be sold over the next year while the Government diddles on its policy, I ask the Minister why today he does not simply agree to pull this product from the shelves so that children and adolescents who want to misuse it will not be in a position to do so. If not, if there is another death, he will have to answer to the parents as to why the Ministry of National Health and Welfare was more interested in corporate support than in protecting the health of consumers.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, I am not afraid of standing up in the House. I should recommend to my hon. colleague that she lie low at the rate the knives are flying on the other side of the House.
With respect to this very important question, as I indicated all week, the tragedies that occurred occurred because of a misuse of the product which, if it had been used as intended, is safe for the consumer. That being said, there have been some talks with the manufacturer, as I have indicated, and I am informed that the manufacturer will not only reformulate the product but has been in the process of reformulating the product for a while, and it should be on the test market perhaps as early as next week.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's already been on the test market.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but in view of the time I think we will have to call a close to Question Period.

May 6, 1988
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 67(1) and 99(2), I hereby submit the Government's comprehensive response to the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture entitled Accommodation Requirements of the National Archives of Canada.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-4194, 332-4195, 332-4209, 3324210 and 332-4216.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition from some 400 Canadians, most of whom are from my riding of Nepean-Carleton. The petitions show that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada, affecting about 1 per cent of the population, causing severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and their relatives and costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually. This petition further shows that the research effort in Canada dedicated to schizophrenia is very small and not commensurate with the seriousness and cost of the illness. It further indicates that these petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make sure that the research efforts on schizophrenia in the future will be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions on several topics. The first is from a number of residents of southwestern Saskatchewan and relates to Bill C-54. The petitioners indicate that they are concerned that pressures exerted by various permissive minority groups may cause the watering down and weakening of this important legislation and the petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the Bill which will make it illegal to manufacture, import, sell or rent pornographic materials as defined. They call upon the Government to pass the Bill without dilution in the belief that the Bill gives recognition to
the inherent dignity of individuals, particularly women and young children, who are vulnerable to exploitation in this area.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of other petitions relating to an income tax matter. A number of farm people, again from southwestern Saskatchewan, note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in December of 1987, indicated his intention to eliminate block averaging. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report in the White Paper on tax reform, stage one.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 725 Canadians across the country who would like to present this common grievance with the assurance that the House will provide a remedy. The petition says that whereas the Government of Canada, as represented by the Treasury Board, has failed to recognize a principle of just and reasonable preparation time for federal language teachers, and whereas such failure seriously undermines Canada's policy on bilingualism, therefore, the undersigned request Parliament to mandate Treasury Board to negotiate a collective agreement with the federal teachers providing for 15 hours of preparation time per week for language teachers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on the same subject, signed by 240 petitioners who are asking the Government to make a genuine effort to resolve a dispute that has been going on for several months, and who hope that when negotiations resume next Tuesday on May 10, they will not fail because of the inflexibility of a Government that claims to do everything it can to promote the use of our official languages. Mr. Speaker, this petition asks Parliament to order Treasury Board to negotiate with federal teachers in the Education Group, an agreement that provides for fifteen hours course preparation time per week for language teachers.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House a petition signed by 250 business people and convenience store owners in the riding of Chateauguay and surrounding area. Your petitioners humbly pray the Government to take strong and immediate action to put a stop to the unfair sales of cigarettes and alcohol on the Kanawake Indian Reserve. Mr. Speaker, this practice does tremendous harm to business people in our region, since
May 6, 1988

merchants on the reserve sell these goods, without charging taxes, to consumers from across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of these business people, I hope the Canadian Government will take immediate action to stop these unfair business practices.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I am pleased to have an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of a number of people who are concerned that the comprehensive eligibility list for the northern residents tax deduction in its present form is discriminatory. Many communities not on the list are adjacent to listed communities and obviously that is unfair. The petitioners suggest that a practical solution would be for the Government to declare all communities presently in tier 3 ridings, such as Kenora-Rainy River, as eligible for the deduction. That would resolve the problem until the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) conducts his commission of inquiry to sort out this disaster.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen constituents of mine in Elliot Lake concerning the serious problem of schizophrenia facing many Canadians, and the need for additional research by the Government to assist these patients. The petition simply calls on the Government to provide greater financial support for this very serious disease which afflicts some 1 per cent of our population.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to table a petition on behalf of 800 Canadians, most of whom reside in the riding of Hull- Aylmer, and your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament allocate far more funds than it does at the present time for research on an illness that affects 1 per cent of all Canadians and which costs this country about $3 billion annually. Your petitioners are asking the Government to start making a serious effort to find a cure for schizophrenia, a mental illness that has biological causes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baker:
That this House deplore the unlawful arrest of a Canadian fishing vessel by
the Government of France in area 3PS off the coast of Newfoundland; and
That this House condemn the Government for its failure to protect the
Canadian fishing industry and its continuing inability to resolve the Canada-
France fishing dispute.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised to see that the Minister who last spoke in this debate is not present to respond to questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister had 10 minutes for questions and comments. Since he is not here I must go to debate. The Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has the floor for debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. House Leader for the Liberal Party, I am very unhappy that the Hon. Minister, who took advantage of the question period after the speech of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) to ask questions-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


James Douglas Manly: -is not willing to stand in his place and answer questions himself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a well honoured, and for good reason, tradition of this House that we do not comment on the presence or absence of Members in this House. However, I think the Minister would like the House to know that he is working with other Ministers to bring about a resolution of this problem. That I think should be his priority on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and this Chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wholeheartedly agree with that. We should not comment on who is or who is not in the Chamber. I regret that the Hon. Minister is not here but the rules of the House state that if he is not in the Chamber, he cannot be asked questions or respond to comments.


Mr. Lewis:: You guys do it all the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has been recognized for debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree that Members should not comment on the presence or absence of other Members, but surely it is reasonable that someone be

May 6, 1988
Supply
present to answer questions. There is no one present to answer questions with respect to these negotiations, no one who answered questions today in Question Period, especially not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) because he is obviously out on a limb, out of touch, and not allowed to speak on this important question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I then get unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to have the ten-minute question or comment-


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, Mr. Speaker, you do not hear unanimous consent.


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Manufactured indignation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There not being unanimous consent, the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands has the floor.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the Minister is meeting with other Ministers to try and find some solution to the problem. I hope he has more to say to the other Ministers than he had to say to the House. What we had was very long on wind and very short on substance.


Philip Derek Lewis: Where is Jack Harris when you need him?


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Minister for huffery and puffery, if he had been present yesterday off the coast of Newfoundland, could have huffed and puffed and blown the French fleet right out of the water. However, he had very little to say to the House today about a very serious situation facing the people of Newfoundland and Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You were not listening, Jim.


James Douglas Manly: We have had insult, provocation and harassment one after the other by the Government of France. Yet our Government has meekly accepted all of it.
I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate. Ordinarily the person responding for our Party would be the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). He of course is in Newfoundland today where I am sure he is going to have a great deal to say about this very unfortunate incident.
Perhaps this incident could be ignored or downplayed if it were an isolated incident. Perhaps it could even be attributed to some mistake by some over-zealous French officials. However, we cannot see it in that light because it forms part of a pattern of provocation and harassment by the French Government. It is also part of the pattern of the Canadian Government meekly accepting that and backing down in one circumstance after another.
Over the past two years we have seen the refusal of the French metropolitan fleet to accept fishing quotas imposed by the Government of Canada in the interests of conserving cod stocks. These quotas were imposed not simply in our interests but in the world's interests in order to preserve those stocks. The French have blatantly disregarded those quotas and tragically overfished.
Last fall there was a state visit by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Governor General of Canada to France and a deliberate snub of our Governor General by French officials. A few weeks ago a French fishing vessel went into Canadian waters and deliberately provoked Canada in order to be arrested. The presence of elected French officials only underlined the provocation. When that French vessel was arrested by Canada, France escalated the situation by harassing Canadian tourists going to France. It seems as though they are not interested in the fact that France has a $161 million surplus in tourism with Canada. Yet there was still that kind of provocation.
Yesterday's incident, with the arrest of the small vessel Maritimer by a French naval tug, was only the latest in a long series of these provocations. The question of whether or not it was in French territorial waters has occupied us to some extent this morning, and there has been debate back and forth. I do not want to get involved in the technicalities of that.
What we know and recognize on all sides of the House is that that arrest violates a long-standing arrangement between Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon, between Canada and France, which allowed both Newfoundland vessels and vessels from St. Pierre and Miquelon to fish in that general area without being harassed or arrested.
What we see from this whole series of events is that it is very obvious that France plays hardball in international affairs. It is certainly playing hardball with Canada. It has some mistaken, outdated ideas of grandeur that it has inherited from Louis XIV and Charles de Gaulle. The colonial mentality that looks upon places like St. Pierre and Miquelon as colonies that can be manipulated in the interests of French policy, quite apart from the economic interests of the few thousand people who live on those two small islands, has to be rejected and condemned.
While France plays hardball and acts with impunity in its relations with Canada, Canada has accepted all of this. Under the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government, Canada is something of an international patsy. It seems that the overwhelming objective of Canada in international affairs is the photo opportunity.
The House will recall the Prime Minister's visit to Africa and how some of his aides scouted Victoria Falls to find the most advantageous angle at which to photograph the Prime Minister with Victoria Falls for a background. We remember the farce of the Shamrock Summit which, incidentally, points
May 6, 1988

out another sell-out of Canadian fishing interests. The Canada-U.S. salmon treaty for the Pacific coast was rushed through so that the Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan could sign it at the Shamrock Summit. The Prime Minister's boys were very concerned that they not be outdone by this second-rate show business President from the United States, so they went to great, elaborate lengths to present this grand finale where the Prime Minister and the President sang When Irish Eyes Were Smiling. We paid a tremendous price for that PR coup they were able to engineer.
We can look at the latest Summit where the Prime Minister went to Washington and spoke to a joint session of Congress. He got absolutely nothing in terms of the important agenda items concerning Canadians. He got nothing in terms of acid rain but he did get his photo op.
In our relationship with France, we saw that the Prime Minister's refusal to stand up to France on the boundary dispute with St. Pierre and Miquelon was directly related to his desire to have good relations with France for the August meeting of la francophonie last year. While it is desirable to have good relations with France and it is a desirable goal to even have photo opportunities, surely there are other goals and issues that are more basic in terms of foreign policy, including standing up for Canadian interests, for the rights of Canadian fishermen and standing up for a decent environment that would not be polluted by acid rain. Those interests have been sacrificed to the photo op.
Last spring we saw the Newfoundland Government dealt out of the talks with France over the disputed zone because the Prime Minister wanted to have a deal with France that would look advantageous to him even though it sacrificed the interests of the Newfoundland fishery.
If the Prime Minister is that interested in a photo opportunity, perhaps it could have been helpful if he was in St. Pierre yesterday afternoon to be on the dock when the French naval tug came in, towing the Maritimer. He could have seen where his policies have lead and could have had his picture taken, greeting these Canadian fishermen who were only doing their job. He could have been greeting them, after they had been arrested in violation of an agreement because Canada does not have the gumption to stand up to France.
Unfortunately, there will soon be another economic summit at which there will be more photo opportunities. One can presume that this will probably inhibit the Prime Minister from speaking out on this and a number of other issues. I suggest that the Prime Minister may want to see a doctor to help him get rid of some of these inhibitions. He is very inhibited when it comes to speaking out.
We must take seriously the fact that the 65-foot Canadian fishing vessel, the Maritimer, was arrested by the French Government. This action should be condemned by the Canadian Government but rather than condemning it, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is quoted as saying in a CP story: "It is a very strange incident and we
Supply
want to get more details before we take any further dramatic action". The story goes on to say: "Clark said the French insist the privately owned Maritimer out of Fortune, Newfoundland was not arrested but was invited to port".
Mr. Speaker, if someone invited you that way, would you go? What would have happened if the invitation was declined? What would have happened to those fishermen if they did not want to go? Perhaps if there had been a Canadian presence there the invitation could have been turned down successfully. However, as it was, the strength of the invitation was such that a tow line was attached and they were towed into port. Yet the Government seems to accept the fact that it was an invitation.
Rather than condemning it, the Secretary of State says that it is a very strange kind of incident. The only action we have taken is to temporarily suspend the talks that were to take place later this month between Canadian and French negotiators on some kind of non-binding mediation process to provide the French with a secure quota of fish. We have stopped the give-away process of the negotiations. That is all that has happened.
The Croix de Lorraine was seized by Canadian authorities for fishing not in the disputed 3PS zone but in Canadian waters. There was a direct violation of Canadian sovereignty in Canadian territorial waters. In 1987 we banned French fishing efforts in Canadian waters. The Croix de Lorraine incident was a deliberate act of provocation and one that was designed as a media event by the French. That is why there were French politicians on board.
Indeed, there is no relation between the arrest of the Croix de Lorraine and its crew and the accompanying celebrities with the arrest of this working fishing vessel, the Maritimer. The only relation is the exigencies of French politics. I suppose the Government is hoping that once the French run-off Presidential election takes place in three days this whole situation can die down and the Chirac attack will be over. I hope that it will be over also. But the point is, why do we stand for these insults? Why do we allow Canadian interests to become tools in French presidential politics? Why do we not have the gumption to stand up for our own interests at a time like this?
Incredibly, only 13 days after the arrest of the Croix de Lorraine on April 28, 1988, the Canadian Government reached an agreement with the French "on a non-binding mediation procedure to assist in resolving the Canada-France fishing quota dispute". It is a quota dispute, according to this agreement. It is not a boundary dispute. The agreement does not mention anything about how the boundary dispute is going to be resolved. It is a quota dispute. It is something that is going to give the French a quota to fish in Canadian waters. It is not something that is going to solve the boundary dispute between Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon. Providing the French, whether they are from St. Pierre and Miquelon

May 6, 1988
Supply
or the metropolitan fleet from France, with a quota merely addresses the symptom of the problem and does not deal with the problem itself, which is the boundary dispute.
In January of 1987 you will recall, Mr. Speaker, how an agreement was reached, that agreement I referred to earlier, wherein the Government of Newfoundland and the Minister of Fisheries had been dealt right out of the negotiations. An agreement was reached between Canada and France which was supposed to set out the process for determining, first, the conditions for the application of the 1972 treaty after December, 1986, when the French fleet was required to leave the gulf area; and, second, the process by which the maritime claims of both countries off the coast of Newfoundland would be determined.
As I pointed out, this agreement in January of 1987 was reached without the knowledge of the Government of Newfoundland. The Government of Newfoundland was not informed that the team was going to France for one last round of negotiations. It was just left out. It was a kind of oversight.


Abram Ernest Epp: No wonder he considered leaving politics.


James Douglas Manly: It was interesting that that agreement was signed in Paris during the tenure of our former ambassador to France, Lucien Bouchard, who is now the Prime Minister's hand-picked Secretary of State. He will be attempting to run in a by-election. It should be very interesting to see what the results of that by-election will be.
Under his tenure the Government of Canada offered the Government of France unspecified access to northern cod in the 2J3KL zone off northeast Newfoundland, something that had never been proposed before, and something that had been done without the consent of the Government of Newfoundland. It is as though we were offering to give away the hydroelectric resources of Quebec, or some of the mining resources of northern Ontario to some foreign power. That is what we did with the cod stock off the coast of Newfoundland. We were obviously trying to entice the French with these vital fish stock into accepting some kind of binding arbitration process for the boundary dispute. In 1987, in January, we were willing to grant the French access to our northern cod in the hope that there would be eventual acceptance of binding arbitration.
In April of 1988, just last month, we were offering to settle the question of quotas for French fishing vessels without ever addressing the boundary issue in a non-binding mediation process. We have had one retreat after another. We have given away one thing after another.
For 1987 the French were given a total quota in Canadian waters of 22,265 tonnes. In the disputed 3PS zone the French have already taken more than 26,000 tonnes of cod in spite of the fact that for that zone the quota was set at about 6,400 tonnes.
If we look at the importance of this issue we see that there are about 70 fishing communities and 5,000 fishermen located along the south coast of Newfoundland who depend on the resources of the 3PS zone. In both Newfoundland and the gulf region there are an estimated 30,000 fishermen and plant workers who are affected by any decrease in the resource, this resource that is being so heavily threatened by French overfishing. The total annual estimated value of the fishery in this area is $35 million. Yet the French have been continually overfishing in the 3PS zone, and the Canadian Government continues to negotiate with France and to grant concessions. Even after the January 1987 agreement, it took the Canadian Government two additional months to respond to the flagrant French overfishing.
In March of 1987 the Burgeo Bank was off limits to the French, and we closed Canadian ports to French vessels. In June the French responded by another deliberate provocation by issuing two oil licences in the 3PS zone, not that there was any great intention of drilling at the present time. It was just a deliberate provocation.
In August, at the Franchphonie summit, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed a long time personal friend, Yves Fortier, to be Canada's negotiator on the Canada-France issue. When the talks resumed in September, we hoped to be able to negotiate allocations for the French fleet for the years 1988 to 1991, but in October the French walked away from the table. They wanted to settle only on the issue of quota and not on the boundary issue. That was their goal. The Canadians were reluctant to do that at the time. Now, however, we have agreed.
In conclusion, I think that Canada has to take a much stronger position. If Canada had taken a stronger position two years ago on this issue it could have led to a solution, instead of being the international patsy that we are that has allowed us to fall into this present situation.
The people who are suffering are the small fishers on both sides of the issue, both in Newfoundland and in St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are the ones who suffer.
We want to join in condemning the Government for its failure to resolve the dispute. The settlement of the boundary dispute-not just the quota for the French but the settlement of the boundary dispute-has to be seen as the principal issue that has to be resolved. That should be reserved to international and binding arbitration without either party insisting on preconditions such as the access by the French to northern cod. While that is happening there should be an agreement between Canada and France to restrict fishing in the 3PS zone to a level that is not going to endanger stocks.
Finally, the Canadian Government should be looking at this in a total context of all Canada-United States relations. If anyone wants to ask a question on that point, I would be glad to answer it.
May 6, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?
The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional to say when one stands in one's place that one is pleased to be in one's place to participate in a debate on a Bill or a motion. I am not at all pleased to be here today to speak on this motion. There is nothing happy about the occasion. There is a great deal that should leave most Canadians rather embarrassed about this occasion.
Canadians now know what this debate today is about. It is about, at the surface level, an arrest yesterday of a Canadian fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland, a Newfoundland fishing vessel, and that makes it a Canadian vessel. I should not have to say that but it seems that we have to remind ourselves of that today. On the surface that is what it is about, but only on the surface. It runs much deeper than the incident which filled up our television screens and which fills the front pages of our papers today.
What this debate is really about is what has occurred over the last three years in the relationship between Canada and France insofar as the joint use and management of Canadian waters and Canadian fish and the relationship we have had, the historic relationship, with the people of St. Pierre and indeed with France.
I am tired of hearing a Government that is so without a policy, so without a plan with respect to how to handle this difficulty, this dispute, that it has repeatedly talked about the fishing agreement of 1972. That agreement was signed 16 years ago and the Government drags it out as an explanation for what is happening in 1988. There is no more embarrassing position for a Government to be reduced to than a weak defence. The agreement of 1972 was primarily designed to get the French out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the most overutilized fish stock in the country. I am sure the Minister would acknowledge that fact. The agreement of 1972 got them out of the Gulf. They came out in 1987, 15 years later.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They didn't have to.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They are out of the Gulf. The agreement of 1972 spelled out specific quotas for the French.
Last January the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in consultation with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) sent a briefing note to the Government of France on our dispute. I have the briefing note in front of me. It was a formal note sent from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 27, 1987 to the Government of France. The following is what the Canadian Government said to the Government of France with respect to the 1972 treaty which is now being described as the cause of all our problems:
Supply
"The Embassy emphasizes that these quotas exceed the legal obligations of Canada resulting from the Canada-France Fisheries Treaty of March 27, 1972 and have been granted only so as to facilitate the process leading to the settlement of the dispute between Canada and France over the maritime claims of the two states off the coast of Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon."
In a note to the Government of France, the Canadian Embassy said to France that we are giving you quotas that are far and away above and beyond our obligations under the 1972 treaty, and we are doing it as a gesture of goodwill to try to resolve this dispute. That is the 1972 treaty, and enough of that red herring.
What happened when the Government goes beyond the 1972 treaty and attempts to engender goodwill? I agree it is a reasonable attempt for the Government to make. I do not condemn the Government for that. It was an act of diplomacy. But how has it been answered? How has every act of diplomacy, good faith, and goodwill by Canada been answered by France? It has been answered, Mr. Speaker, with an arrogance that is born out of an illusion of an imperial power, with an arrogance that can only be attached to a nation with a colonial mentality.
What nonsense it is in 1988 that because of a small community called St. Pierre and Miquelon off the coast of North America, that France should claim a 200 mile limit off the coast of North America. What nonsense it is in 1988 that the Government of Canada should seriously negotiate such a claim by a nation that lives in the past with illusions of colonial powers. That is the real issue.
What have we seen from our attempts to be reasonable? We have seen the Governor General of Canada, and Canadians will recall since it was recorded in the news services of this country, go to France and be repeatedly insulted by no less a person than the Prime Minister of France. The Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, who embodies Canada when she travels abroad, was insulted and deliberately so. That was the response to the gesture of goodwill.
Last summer the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland, and a very distinguished Member of this House for nearly 30 years, the Hon. James McGrath, for the first time in two decades was denied the right to visit the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. This has been done for decades as a gesture of friendship between Newfoundland and St. Pierre. For the first time in decades the Lieutenant-Governor was told that he was not welcome in the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. That is how France answers the gesture of goodwill.
We saw France take a vessel with four French politicians and deliberately ask that they be arrested. They made it impossible for Canada not to arrest them. That is how France answered our gesture of goodwill. Yesterday we saw France in the most ridiculous action of all and the greatest insult of all, not arresting a Canadian vessel with Canadian politicians looking for cheap press, not arresting a Canadian vessel that

May 6, 1988
Supply
was deliberately seeking to escalate the conflict by seeking to be arrested, but arresting a Canadian vessel with fishermen who are trying to make a living in order that they can put bread and butter on the table for their family back home in the communities in which they live. That was the final insult and the final answer to Canada's repeated gestures of goodwill.
Where are we today as a nation, Mr. Speaker? We can satisfy ourselves that we have followed the diplomatic route. We can satisfy our consciences that we have attempted at each and every turn to be a responsible, mature nation that seeks to avoid conflict and instead seeks discussion and a resolution of differences. We have done that. But this dispute has reached the point where we have now to satisfy ourselves and satisfy Canadians that this collection of provinces and peoples from Newfoundland to British Columbia, this Confederation that Newfoundland attached itself to 40 years ago in 1949, is a nation; that Canada does comprise a people that stands sovereign, strong, and independent and are prepared to act like a nation.
Today I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs is it not time, not to declare a war, not to put gunboats off the coast of Newfoundland, not to arrest French vessels, not to fish under force of arms, but is it not time to say to France that the $14 billion submarine contract that is being discussed is on hold, that the $1.5 billion Air Canada purchase of planes from France is on hold. I asked him the question, and what did he tell me? He said that we cannot do that. There might be a trade war. Some workers in Quebec or Ontario might be affected in that trade war. He told me that, a Member of Parliament by definition concerned about all of Canada, but also a Member of Parliament from Newfoundland.
I think that I understand Canada better than does the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Canada that I know and love and have attached myself to would never say that Newfoundland or any part of Canada must be sold down the drain in the interests of a possible negative reaction somewhere else in the country. The people of Canada that I have met from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec would never say to me as a Newfoundlander: "Yes, we know your rights have been trampled. We know your livelihood is being destroyed, but you must take it, my son, in the interests of ensuring that none of the rest of us in Canada ever have to pay a price for standing up for your rights as a Newfoundlander and as a Canadian".
That is not the Canada that I am a part of, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I do not know a Canadian from coast to coast who would share his sentiments. The Canada in which I live has citizens in every province who are outraged today at the actions of France. The Canada in which I live has citizens in every province who say: "So be it if we must put a submarine contract on hold, or if we must put an Airbus contract on hold. If we must stand as a united nation to put an end to this insult to this nation and to Newfoundland in particular, then we are prepared to stand as one, take the risk, and pay the price".
That is the Canada that I believe in and the one that the Secretary of State for External Affairs lives in. The Canada that is selfish, the Canada that is brutal, the Canada that says that the poorest and weakest parts of this nation are expendable, are disposable, in the same way that a Kleenex is disposable, exists only in the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
If that is this Government's worry, if that is this Government's rationale for selling Newfoundland down the drain, for selling Atlantic Canada down the drain in this dispute with France, then it need not be concerned, because the people of Canada are far greater, far more proud, far more independent, and far more united than the paranoid mind of this Minister would indicate, a mind that decides that one part of this nation is expendable.
It is time to put an end to endless debates about treaties. It is time to put an end to endless debates about history. It is time to put an end to endless discussions and the turning of the other cheek. It is time for Canada to stand up and be counted.
I do not condemn this Government for its past attempts at seeking to strike a responsive and conciliatory chord with France. But, when faced with the inevitable, when faced with the reality that France only understands, at this stage, a tough measure, faced with the reality that France will only understand, at this stage, that one part of this country shall not be sacrificed, this Government does not act, and for that I condemn it.
The way for this Government to act is to hit France where it will understand it best, and that is in its pocketbook. France ought to be told that $14 billion worth of submissions cannot be sold to Canada in the face of its action off the coast of Newfoundland-


Mr. Dick:: You have just increased it by $2 billion in the last hour. You said $12 billion during Question Period.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is it not a tragedy that, at a time such as this, this narrow and shallow man-a man who, were he but a pair of shoes, could walk across a lake and never get his ankles wet, he is so shallow-would completely misunderstand the importance of the moment and the issue at hand, to the point where he, this junior Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Dick), wants to debate whether these submarines are going to cost $12 billion or $14 billion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You just do not care about $2 billion?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the submarines will probably cost $20 billion. But, the dollar figure is not what counts. Principle counts; backbone counts; courage counts; integrity counts. The Minister cannot count, Mr. Speaker- not when it comes to any of the values that make up the nature and character that define a country; nor can he count when it
May 6, 1988

comes to the cost of these submarines. I would advise him to listen and to learn.
We on this side are asking the Government to put both the Airbus and the submarine contracts on hold, to freeze the negotiations in respect of those acquisitions.
If by some circumstance-one that I cannot imagine-the forests of British Columbia were being held ransom in an international dispute, I am sure Newfoundland would rally to that cause; if the oil and gas resources of Alberta, through some circumstance, were being held to a ransom in an international dispute, I know we would rally to that cause; if the hydro power of the Province of Quebec were being held up to ransom in international dispute, I know that each and every other part of this nation would rally to that cause; and if the mining resources of northern Ontario were held to ransom in some dispute, each and every part of this country would rally to that cause. And, Mr. Speaker, I know in my heart of hearts, notwithstanding the fears and the paranoia of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that as Atlantic Canada, and particularly Newfoundland, and its resource, the backbone of its economy, is being held to ransom in an international dispute, each and every Canadian from coast to coast will rally to Newfoundland's cause.
I invite the Government of Canada to have the vision and the courage to do the same.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), on questions and comments.


Mr. Suluk:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member in relation to the purchase of nuclear submarines by Canada.
I know that the New Democratic Party would prefer that Canada continue to rely upon three diesel powered submarines. I know that the New Democratic Party would prefer that we not acquire new and modern submarines.
Given the renewed interest in Arctic waters and the question of sovereignty, I think most Canadians understand that the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines is no longer an issue that is subject to question.
This past winter, I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) say that he was not interested in acquiring a nuclear submarine fleet; that he would consider cancelling any such acquisition. However, given the troubles that that Party already has, I would think that to be unlikely. My question for the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) is whether the Liberal Party has changed its position in respect of the acquisition of a nuclear submarine fleet.
Perhaps the Hon. Member will take this opportunity to clarify whether he is now in agreement that Canada should in fact acquire a nuclear submarine fleet, thus enabling Canada to grow stronger, and ensuring that, in the future, should we ever have to confront other nations, we have sufficient power to back up the words of the politicians.
Supply


An Hon. Member:: What you want is a war!


Thomas Suluk: I know that the New Democratic Party would like us to just give in, whether it be to the Soviets or to other nations of the world. I would like to know where the Hon, Member stands in that regard, and particularly whether or not there has been a change in the policy of the Liberal Party in respect of the need for a nuclear submarine fleet.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) for his question. I know he will want it answered at this time, given that he has already announced that he will not be running in the next election. As a result, this may be his last opportunity to ask me that question.


Thomas Suluk: So ... ?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am merely pointing out that obviously the Hon. Member is not too enamoured with the process that he has been a part of on that side of the House.


Thomas Suluk: Just answer the question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I shall make two points in response to the question of the departing Member for Nunatsiaq-a decision he has taken, obviously, because he does not enjoy the political process in the Progressive Conservative Party. There are two points that I shall make in response.
First of all, he has lost sight of the issue. The issue is not one of submarines or airplanes. As it happens, submarines and airplanes happen to be the subject matters of two sets of contract negotiations in which the Government is involved with France. It is not something that involves the private sector. I have not asked that Canadians stop buying French wine, or any other product. The airplanes in question are being purchased by a Crown corporation. That is Government. The submarines are to be purchased by the Department of Defence. Again, a purchase by Government. Here we have two areas where our Government can respond. That is why we talk about submarines; that is why we talk about airplanes.
The issue is Canadian sovereignty and the protection of our fishery, a renewable resource. We raise the issue of submarines and airplanes in that context. It could have been a purchase by this Government of billions of dollars worth of toothpicks. As it happens, the contract negotiations involve submarines and airplanes.
On the larger question of submarines, we in the Liberal Party are opposed to Canada acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the purpose, in the words of the Hon. Member, of "backing up our words with military might". We do not suggest that the solution to this conflict is that Canada ought to confront France militarily. We suggest that the solution is to hit France where it hurts, in its pocketbook. That is the difference between the philosophy of the Liberal Party and that of the Progressive Conservative Party.

May 6, 1988
Supply
While the Progressive Conservative Government says that it is acquiring submarines to patrol our Arctic waters, we now know from the departing Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq the real reason, that being that it has some fantasy about a military nuclear confrontation that it wants to be able to deliver on one of these days.
I say this to the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) who comes from Canada's North that the way to establish Canada's sovereignty in the North is not by putting nuclear-powered submarines under the ice. The way to establish our sovereignty in the North-he should know this, he ought to be preaching it but he is not-is to help the people who live in Canada's North to live a decent life, one of equality, one with equal services, one with employment, one with jobs, one with the dignity of a paycheque, because ownership and possession is 90 per cent of the law. Let us help our people who live in Canada's North, the people in his riding, live a quality life. Let us do that. Let us put the money into that, and the Hon. Member will not need to have submarines to protect an empty land because it will be a full and happy land, inhabited by the people who have not been forgotten by their Government in Ottawa and who have the same quality of life and the same services as the people who live elsewhere in this country. The Member should be preaching that rather than departing this Chamber with his tail between his legs, never to run again.


Thomas Suluk: You have never elected a Liberal in the North.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I attended Question Period this afternoon and I heard some answers that made me angry. When I heard a Minister of this Government say that we could not defend the property and rights of Newfoundland fishermen for fear that it might harm some other region of the country, 1 felt angry because I believe that we are all Canadians from coast to coast. I think that this Minister owes us an apology. He should correct the statement he made this afternoon as soon as possible. I was just saying to my colleague, "Shouldn't the Prime Minister demand this Minister's resignation right away?"


Brian Vincent Tobin: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this is not a question to which I will have to give a lot of thought. My colleague says that when a Minister of the Crown puts forward in a nation, diversified but reconciled by unity, the notion that one part of the nation is expendable, then that Minister fails in the most basic sense to understand his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown. Of course he ought to come to his senses quickly. He ought to put his finger back on the pulse of this nation quickly or take leave of his responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown.
I hope that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) goes to France on May 26, when he goes to his next photo opportunity, he will find more than the backbone of a jellyfish accompanying him and that he will tell the leaders of France
in no uncertain terms that Canada is whole and unified and that parts and pieces of Canada will not be traded off like some chip in a monopoly game, because that is the case. Voices from every part of this country will be heard to say that we are not prepared to sell one part of Canada down the drain in some Machiavellian poker game which the Prime Minister and his Government think they are playing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon).


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks, I can assure the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and all Members of this House that our Government does not intend to trade off any part of Canada or the interests of the people in any part of Canada as some kind of a bargaining chip, as the Member described it in this matter. Quite the converse is true. The record of our Government in advancing the cause of Canadian fishermen and asserting sovereignty over our fishing resources out to the 200-mile limit is unprecedented in the history of previous Governments at any time in the history of Canada.
I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) for bringing forward this motion, which enables us to debate an issue of extreme importance to the Government of Canada, to all the people of Canada, but especially to the fishermen and the people who live in the inshore communities of Newfoundland and other areas surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon.
On the other hand, I do not appreciate the distortions, the out of context allegations and pure misinformation which are reflected in the kind of diatribe which first emanated from the lips of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate when he heard of a problem arising in the fishing grounds near the Burin Peninsula yesterday afternoon. What could be worse than having a government running this country made up of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, the Ffon. Member for Port au Port-St. Barbe and the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) who spoke for the NDP earlier? Their kinds of comments belie a shoot-from-the-hip action, "do not think but take an act first" approach to problems. This approach could have serious consequences for Canada and for the very people we are trying to help, the fishermen of these inshore communities of southern Newfoundland and all of Newfoundland.
The comments made yesterday inside and outside this House to the media by the sponsor of this motion, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, who seems to have left this House for the day, are absolutely irresponsible, as they have been in cases of his previous outbursts in reaction to events which have developed over the past year in regard to the Canada-France fishing dispute. Of course the Hon. Member for Port au Port-St. Barbe, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and it seems all Members on the opposite side,
May 6, 1988

would wish that we would act now, escalate this issue even further, if not by a trade war, then by a shooting war, from their perception. We know, Mr. Speaker, that a government has to be far more responsible than that, it has to be methodical and extremely careful in responding to such provocation.
Yesterday the Member for Gander-Twillingate said in this House at about 5.45 p.m., as recorded at page 15188 of Hansard'.
-at this very moment there is a French patrol vessel towing a 65-foot Canadian dragger that was fishing legally in the disputed zone off the south coast of Newfoundland-
We are told this vessel was fishing within the 12-mile territorial sea of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon as recognized by the 1972 treaty which a Liberal Government introduced, approved and then remained silent about for some 12 years. The Hon. Member made a false allegation. Had the vessel been apprehended in the disputed zone, you can be assured, Sir, that Canada's response would have been far more swift and it would have been a far more serious provocation of the relationship between these two countries.
The Member then went on to say:
We talk about the attitude of the Canadian Government. I will tell you what its attitude is. Over this vessel being towed flies an RCMP helicopter.
That is not true. Because of the fog in Newfoundland yesterday, there were no aircraft flying in that vicinity of which we have knowledge. I have checked. There were no Coast Guard aircraft in the area. There were no RCMP aircraft in the area. There were no Fisheries aircraft or vessels in the area. The Member went on to say:
Then there is a fixed-wing aircraft belonging to the Coast Guard. There is a fisheries patrol vessel in the area.
Then the Hon. Member went on to suggest:
-that at least what should be done is for the Canadian patrol vessel in the area to stick its nose in front of the French patrol vessel, communicate with it and say, "Look, you are not allowed to arrest somebody aboard a vessel in the disputed zone-**
All of that is rubbish and nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It is an emotional extreme false misrepresentation of a situation which suggests that any persons who would react from the hip in that manner never deserve to sit in the Cabinet of the Government of Canada.
I want to point out in this House that we have made great progress since January 24, 1987, in bringing the French to their senses in realizing that within our Canadian sovereign waters our fish are there for the first benefit of Canadian fishermen. We have, therefore, taken a number of important steps to persuade France and, indeed, where it was necessary, to take forceful action to ensure that the interests of our fishermen are held over and above all other obligations which France or other countries might feel we have to them.
I wish to point out that our over-all effort in this initiative has been unprecedented in Canadian history. It is to protect
Supply
Canadian interests in the Atlantic area in the face of these difficulties which have developed with France.
Second, this is the first time anyone has interfered with the activities of the small-boat fishermen off the south coast of Newfoundland, the little guys in the inshore fishery, so to speak, who have traditionally fished on both sides of that inshore area between the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the Burin Peninsula. This is the first time that traditional arrangement has ever been challenged as it was yesterday, and in that respect, Canada will not stand idly by and allow this to happen.
Our principal objective is to settle once and for all the boundary question around the French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. I am told that back in 1972 when Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Sharp and others were in the Cabinet of Canada, they had an opportunity to accept a boundary which would set the limit of the extent of French sovereignty around St. Pierre and Miquelon to something like 20 miles, but they refused to accept that very, very attractive offer which would have prevented all of these problems from occurring. It would have meant that our fishermen would not have had to deal with French overfishing and French presence within our waters or within a disputed zone extending some 180 miles to the south of these islands.
The activities of these vessels are putting our stocks at great risk. We want to settle that boundary question and to establish clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Canada's sovereign right, our right, not some other foreign country's right, not some opposition Party's right but the Government of Canada's right to conserve and manage the fish stocks in the area off the south coast of Newfoundland for the benefit of our fishermen. We have taken unprecedented steps in this regard to limit the French fisheries in Canadian waters to their traditional quotas under the 1972 Canada-France treaty, taking into account the expiration of the metropolitan fishing rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1986.
When the Liberal Government of 1972 signed an agreement with France, it included the right for large freezer trawlers which became factory freezer trawlers based in France, in St. Malo, principally, to come across the Atlantic and fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Port au Port-St. Barbe. They fished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 15 years by the will and with the consent of a Liberal Government, and each year of the last five years they took in excess of 21,000 tonnes of fish from that area, of which all but 4,000 were sent back to France for processing.
We have ended that practice. It was this Government which ended that practice and removed that presence from the gulf so that that resource could be turned over to the people of the ridings of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including those of the riding of the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). We are patriating those resources for the benefit of our fishermen.

May 6, 1988
Supply
In a larger sense, this Government has taken unprecedented efforts to remove all foreign fishing presence from our nonsurplus stocks within the Canadian economic zone and to bring into force deterrents and penalties that will ensure that those resources are respected and made available to Canadian fishermen. I think that by now all Members of the House know what a great benefit that has been to the fishermen.
This Government has taken those steps. This Government has been firm. This Government has been reasonable, but it has advanced methodically over the past 12 or 14 months, in the case of its relationship with France, the position that our fishermen and their needs come first. This was not done by some other Government. No previous Liberal Government had the courage to do so. This was done by the Government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Government of which I am proud to be a member.
France has claimed an enormous part of the Canadian 200-mile zone for its two tiny islands off the South Coast of Newfoundland. This is an unreasonable claim, and in fact, we believe that when it is eventually submitted to a court of international arbitration, the decision will be awarded in Canada's favour.
A small, tiny speck of rock adjacent to our Atlantic provinces cannot possibly claim an equitable division of resources with the large continental mass of that rock known as Newfoundland. France knows very well that it will not succeed before any international court in giving effect to the claim of a huge part of the outer Gulf of the St. Lawrence which is Canadian territory. The channel dispute is witness to that. It was awarded in France's favour that islands which are sovereign islands of Great Britain but within the French territorial sea could not claim a large fishing zone around those islands for Great Britain.
It is regrettable that France has made this enormous and unreasonable claim and has at the same time, to put pressure on Canada, escalated its fishery in the disputed zone to four times France's traditional allocation of some 6,400 tonnes of fish in that area. In so doing, France has endangered the stocks and the livelihoods of Canadian communities and the residents and fishermen of those communities, particularly in the vicinity of the southern and eastern coasts of Newfoundland.
France has resisted and continues to resist submitting the boundaries dispute to an international court, demanding from Canada even more fish as the price of an agreement to get the boundary matter into adjudication. As Hon. Members know, these demands are outrageous and cannot be substantiated. Canada will not yield to them. Canada continues to insist, however, that the boundary issue must be submitted to international adjudication before it is too late and the wellbeing and livelihoods of our fishermen in that area are permanently destroyed.
We want to negotiate with France on a reasonable basis quotas which are fair in the interim period, while the matter is being subjected to arbitration, but we will not give up quotas
which will disadvantage our fishermen merely in order to allow ourselves to give in to this kind of pressure-I could use a stronger word to describe it-because we must stand for the interests of our fishermen first.
There are 70 small communities on the south coast of Newfoundland. The unemployment rate there is 22 per cent. Of the 26 fish plants in that area, 15 are closed for at least three months of every year. We are talking here about the livelihoods of almost 5,000 commercial fishermen and 3,400 plant workers on the south coast of Newfoundland alone.
On average, each Newfoundland fisherman catches about 18 tonnes of various kinds of fish in that area, worth about $8,000 to each fisherman per year. In contrast, the 176 fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon catch something in the order of 100 tonnes per year, more than five times what our fishermen catch, worth some $55,000 for each one of the 176 fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The truth is that it is our fishermen who are being disadvantaged and who will be absolutely devastated if we do not eliminate the French overfishing and solve this boundary question as quickly and as swiftly as possible.
That is why we have acted on behalf of these fishermen. We have responded to their concerns by putting pressure on the French, step by step. When we went into discussions early last year, we found that France, by the end of February, had already exceeded the quota we granted it within those waters outside the disputed zone, and we closed, therefore, Canadian ports to French fishing vessels. They had exceeded their 6,400-tonne quota and we therefore closed the ports. We next refused to allow France to fish on Burgeo Bank, an important fishing ground outside the disputed zone to the west of the Burin Peninsula. During the summer of 1987 we closed the rest of area 3PS outside the disputed zone to French fishing, including the western gullies which are very important and precious fishing grounds which they have fished for many years.
The result of these closures has been a significant reduction in French fishing in Canadian waters and, indeed, in the disputed zone. Traditionally, some nine large factory freezer trawlers came from France to harvest our fish. This year I am told that that number has been cut in half because of the strong measures we have taken. You know that when a wayward trawler, a political escapade, if you like, sailed into our waters two or three weeks ago, some 50 miles off St. John's, Newfoundland, and openly defied our decision that no quotas would be granted to large trawlers this year, we arrested them, brought them to port, and charged all of the members of that crew, with the exception of members of the media who were aboard.
On October 9, France walked away from the negotiating table. Although we had put a reasonable proposition on the table for interim quotas, France rejected it, and therefore we said that no further quotas would be granted to French
May 6, 1988

fishermen anywhere in Canadian waters in 1988. That is a great step forward. No previous Government has ever had the courage to do that. It has brought significant benefit to our fishermen. In the absence of an over-all fisheries agreement and without an agreement to send the boundary dispute to international arbitration, there would be no fish for France outside the disputed zone.
What I am saying is that we are making considerable progress in spite of the strong and misleading protests of opposition Members, that is, until France decided to arrest the little guy, the Newfoundland southshore fishermen whose livelihood has been at the heart of this dispute since the outset.
There is an inshore zone some 25 miles across between the Burin Peninsula and the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In that zone there has been an understanding that these small inshore fishermen, both from St. Pierre and Miquelon and from Newfoundland, would be free to fish unimpeded as they have been for decades. They fish alongside. They do not have sophisticated navigational aids. They are not the large, 150 or 200-foot trawlers with efficient processing on board. These are small trawlers, longliners, local fishing boats, and both Canada and France have understood that the interests of those immediate communities and fishermen should be respected by allowing this arrangement to continue. All that ended yesterday when the little guy got hit hard by big France through the apprehension of one of our vessels by a French naval vessel.
We will not stand idly by and watch our fishermen from these communities which are so dependent on this resource, these inshore fishermen whose earnings are far lower than those of the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon, to be harassed in this way. That is why the Government took the swift action announced this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). We will suspend the discussions between our negotiator and the French negotiator which were directed toward finding a way of mediating this problem. The Secretary of State for External Affairs called in the French Ambassador and issued an official protest over this matter. We will defend and support our fishermen, the captain and crew of the vessel concerned.
As conditions develop, other measures, I am sure, will be taken as necessary. Therefore, I would just say in conclusion that it is most irresponsible, unacceptable and reprehensible that members of the Opposition demand some kind of escalation. If it is not a trade war, it is a physical war they advocate. How could we fight such a war with our country as defenceless as it is? This is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. We are being moderate and we have made great progress on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada and will continue to do so. We are prepared to sit down with France and seek an orderly settlement of this question, but not until they reverse this totally unacceptable provocation which they wreaked upon Canada yesterday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.
Supply


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Minister told us right at the beginning that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) was telling all kinds of lies, that there was no plane, there was no helicopter, there was no boat in that region for surveillance. Nevertheless, the Minister assures us that the Canadian vessel was inside the boundaries of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
My first question is: If there was no surveillance, how can he say that our boat was indeed inside these boundaries?
He then said that it was his Government that had managed to get the boats of the metropolitan fleet out of the Gulf. But should those boats not have been out, under Section 3 of the 1972 Treaty that states:

"Fishing vessels registered in Metropolitan France may continue to fish from January 15 to May 15 each year up to May 1, 1986." It is not our Government that made it so that the metropolitan fleet would be moved out of the gulf.
I ask the Minister if he would comment on that, please.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises two important questions. He asks, if we allege that our vessel was within the territorial waters of St. Pierre and Miquelon, how would we know that if there were no aircraft or vessels present? I can assure the Hon. Member there were no vessels or aircraft of the fisheries service, the Coast guard or the RCMP in that vicinity, I am told. However, the point at which the vessel was apprehended was very close to the boundary, and I understand that the Master himself may well have admitted that he was within the territorial waters of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
This illustrates the danger of shooting from the hip and reacting in an inappropriate manner, as the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate did yesterday. I think that shows a lack of forethought, a lack of caution. Had the vessel been outside the territorial waters of St. Pierre and Miquelon, the incident would have been a far worse provocation. Notwithstanding that this is an unacceptable provocation in its present form, we cannot at this point be absolutely certain that our vessel was in the territorial waters of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The evidence of whatever proceedings follow will show that. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that when the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate alleges that an RCMP helicopter was flying overhead and Canadian patrol vessels were nearby, he is absolutely and totally misleading this House and the people of Canada.
With regard to the 1972 treaty and the withdrawal of the French metropolitan fleet from the gulf, the Hon. Member will know, if he studies history a little bit, that there were three five-year renewals of that 15-year right to fish in Canadian waters from 1971 to the May period of 1986. There were three consecutive renewals. The treaty did not specify the quantity

May 6, 1988
Supply
of fish. That was established by the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, for a large portion of that time, was the Hon. Member's predecessor as the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent. As I recollect it, he granted quotas which increased in each of those five-year periods to a level of 21,000 tonnes in the last period between 1981 and 1986. The result was that when I became Minister we had to take drastic measures to reduce quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence because it had been massively overfished. That 21,000 tonnes had a lot to do with devastating the livelihood of fishermen from the Hon. Member's riding in northwestern New Brunswick.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, first I have a brief comment. The Minister referred to the settlement regarding the Channel Islands. I think the Minister would acknowledge that that settlement very clearly indicated that it was not to be a precedent for any other similar situation. The Channel Islands settlement does not apply across the board to St. Pierre and Miquelon. France was cagey enough to ensure that it received that proviso.
The Minister said that great progress has been made since January, 1987, in bringing the French to their senses on the whole question of fishing and coming to terms with Canada. Will he be specific? What have we got? We have seen the French involved in provocations, sending the vessel Croix de Lorraine into Canadian waters.
The Minister himself admitted a few minutes ago that this is the first time the arrangement between Canada and France, Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon, for small vessels has been broken. We have seen continued overfishing.
How have the French come to their senses? What have we got? The Minister referred specifically to international arbitration. When will that international arbitration take place? There is an agreement that there will be a process by which France will get quotas while we are waiting for international arbitration. When will international arbitration begin and in what form?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question is very appropriate. He asks what we have from all these events, even the anguish in the past year, since January 24, 1987. We have the present situation in which, for the first year in our history, there are no French fishing vessels fishing anywhere in the undisputed waters of Canada, from Davis Inlet, down through the areas we call 2GH off the coast of Labrador. There are no quotas of northern cod which they have traditionally fished under their share of the European long-term agreement, which we also terminated last year.
There are no French vessels fishing in the area 3NO on the Grand Banks. There are no French vessels fishing in the Gulf in the area 4RS and 4RT or on the Scotian shelf.
The only place where the French are still fishing within waters that we claim to be ours is in the disputed zone, largely
south of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the smaller area which the inshore vessels of St. Pierre have shared with our inshore fishermen, which is the area that was the subject of yesterday's incident.
We have removed the French presence. There are no large quantities of fish going back to France as there were every year for as long as France has been present in the waters of Canada. That is a great step forward.
We have also noted this year that the number of large trawlers which have traditionally come across the Atlantic to fish in our waters has dropped by almost one-half. We are told that there are signs in France that the owners of these vessels will increasingly find it difficult to contemplate coming to Canada and fishing that resource. I think that bodes well in terms of a solution to the overfishing in the disputed zone by those large trawlers from France. We see a continual decline of their enthusiasm to come across the Atlantic and fish in these waters.
I suggest that we are making very steady progress. A measure of that progress is the rather extreme, alarmist kind of reaction in which France is engaged, first with the silly voyage of the Croix de Lorraine some three weeks ago to draw international attention to this great injustice. However, that backfired and was seen in Canada and abroad as an unacceptable infringement on our sovereignty.
Then it provoked this silly confrontation yesterday in an area where our inshore fishermen have lived according to certain arrangements for a long time. It is the inshore fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon and southern Newfoundland who are being victimized by this latest provocation.
The answer to the question is that we do not know the date on which France will agree to refer the boundary issue to international arbitration. I suggest, however, even with all the debate and controversy that surrounds this issue, that we have made major progress toward persuading France and creating the pressure of international recognition that France's demands in this matter are unreasonable and that just as in the case of the Channel Islands decision which went in favour of France, a just solution to Canada's benefit must be found soon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion of condemnation of the Government. The motion declares that this House deplore the unlawful arrest of a Canadian fishing vessel by the Government of France in area 3PS off the coast of Newfoundland; and that this House condemn the Government for its failure to protect the Canadian fishing industry and its continuing inability to resolve the Canada-France fishing dispute.
That motion is of enormous concern to Newfoundlanders and Canadians. I emphasize that it is a concern to the people of Newfoundland because I know how much our new colleague, the Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), would like to be in the House speaking to this motion. As happens so often with Members of Parliament, on Fridays they are back
May 6, 1988

in their constituencies. He has the opportunity to speak directly to the people in Newfoundland and express his own outrage at what has happened and mobilize their support for strong action from the Government.
In his stead, I and my colleagues recognize firmly our obligation to speak for the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada in putting pressure on the Government to do the right thing to arrive at a resolution of this matter.
In this respect, I am thinking of the Ministry and its members. The Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) spoke before Question Period to express himself strongly on behalf of Newfoundlanders. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) just spoke and expressed the strong feelings of the Canadian Government.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who surely has a central role in such questions of relations with other countries which involve the very boundaries of the Canadian nation, has not spoken. He was here in Question Period, quite naturally receiving the shots of one Member after another pressing him to take action to bring this dispute to a proper resolution.
I want to focus for a few moments on the actions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs since our condemnation is of the lack of success and action of the Government.
It is worth considering what the Secretary of State for External Affairs does in situations like this in other parts of the world. I am not specifically referring to boundary disputes, but the way in which he grapples with difficulties and disputes of whatever sort. Canadians were struck-some pleased, some outraged-by the strong stand the Secretary of State for External Affairs took in regard to the Israeli occupation of the territories it seized in earlier wars, where the Palestinian population has been protesting against the occupation for some months.
I note only the fact that he spoke very firmly. If there was any sense that the Canadian tradition was one of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, when he spoke that particular day to the Canadian Israeli community there was not very much evidence of quiet diplomacy to be seen.
It was not the only time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke out in such a firm way. I think of his strong statements about Canadians of the Sikh faith who belong to certain organizations when he sent a letter to a number of Premiers urging them to have nothing to do with a certain number of organizations. He took a very, very strong stand. Some people saw this as a response to the pressure of the Government of India and to those who were concerned about trade. They saw this as yielding to another Government.I would not want to draw a final conclusion on that.
Supply
At least once in this House some months ago questions were raised regarding the treatment of a Canadian who was from south Asia who was imprisoned in India, whether justifiably or not. We know that the Draconian laws of detention now in effect in the Republic of India allow persons to be held for two years without any charge. The person can then be brought to court and the charge can be renewed for another two years. This detention is in utter disregard for that long-standing principle of habeas corpus that we all value so much which came out of the development of English law. To the credit of the Secretary of State, he recognized the harshness of the treatment of this person. He said quite clearly in the House in Question Period that this was not behaviour that the Government of Canada approved of. I was sufficiently impressed that I went over to him to discuss whether or not this was the first time perhaps that a Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs had spoken so firmly about a sister nation of the Commonwealth in being critical of some actions that it took.
The pros and cons of these various cases can be debated. However, I do not see any strong action. I know, to the credit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the kind of position he has generally taken in Central America. But there I want to begin modifying the picture. We well know that he has been challenged in the House. He was challenged by my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He was challenged to speak some words of condemnation, particularly of the United States which has been pressing against the sovereign state in Central America and against the Nicaraguan people. The Secretary of State for External Affairs refused to do that. There those old traditions of quiet diplomacy came to the fore.
I suggest that whatever may happen in some places far from Canada dealing with countries that have limited impact on Canada, the Secretary of State is prepared to be forceful and firm. However, when it comes to dealings with France and an attempt to resolve this long-standing difficulty involving fishing rights based on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, he has been with his Government a Government that has certainly been equivocal at various times. He has not followed a straightforward and consistent policy that might bring this whole dispute to a resolution.
The Minister of Fisheries spoke a few minutes ago. At one point in his comments he indulged in a certain amount of rhetoric. In fact, he indulged in a little hyperbole about Newfoundland, that glorious rock, and then drew into it the great domain of Canada and how the fishing rights of these little islands could be put up against the fishing rights of the Canadian people. There is, of course, a danger in that rhetoric.
The Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon have remained a French possession from the days of the French regime precisely because of the fishery. Anyone who goes back to the peace negotiations that ended the Seven Years War in the early 1760s, more than 200 years ago, knows perfectly well that France held on to these islands as a way of maintaining its part of the fishery on the gulf and beyond. The fishery of

May 6, 1988
Supply
North America, the coastal waters and beyond North America, the fishery around Newfoundland, has been famous for centuries. The Europeans had fished their territory out. John Cabot carried out exploration for the fishermen of the west country of England. There was the arrival of fishermen from all up and down the western coast of Europe, from Spain and Portugal to the Basque territories of France and the port cities of France and England. The fishery off the North American coast has been one of the great fisheries of the world. The French interest in that is clear and long-established.
Now, of course, the changes that have occurred in terms of the extension of boundaries out to 200 miles, as well as the establishment of responsibility under international treaties, the situation of these islands and the French claims to them have been clearly put in contention. The reorganization of the fishery and the determination of what France's rights should be in this new situation were something that should have been dealt with about the time that the situation of the Channel Islands was dealt with. Surely the Canadian Government of that time should have been in consultation with the British Government. We can always look back to our days in the Empire and our continuing ties with the Commonwealth, even with the British involvement and the European Economic Community which reduces our ties with Britain in many ways. Surely that was the time to say to the British Government: "Let's be sure that when you settle the rights of the Channel Islands and British subjects out there close to France, let's make sure that at the same time we take care to settle the rights of France near the coast of Canada, right off the Island of Newfoundland, in a very similar way". It can only be profoundly regretted that the settlement that was arrived at there is not to be regarded as a precedent.
If it is not possible for Canada to go to France directly and to say that that is a precedent upon which we should settle, then what can be done is to say to an arbitrator: "The resolution that was arrived at for the Channel Islands indicates how these matters need to be resolved. We do not ask you to make it a precedent. We just ask you to contemplate the situation in the gulf and around St. Pierre and Miquelon. As far as French rights are concerned there, treat them in a similar way". That is all that is wanted.
It seems to me, and lawyers may protest, that this is an attempt to prevent something from being a precedent. However, if it is a sound resolution, then how can the French deny that the settlement there was not a sound one? It was one that they wanted. It seems to me that one does not have to concede very much to that particular kind of legalese in pressing the point.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You assume that it is a reasonable world.


Abram Ernest Epp: The Minister says that it is a reasonable world-


Thomas Edward Siddon: You're assuming that.


Abram Ernest Epp: I want to get to the ways in which it is not a reasonable world. I have been talking about the way in which the Secretary of State has faced up to some situations that were not reasonable.
Surely, in thinking about this situation we have to consider what happened in January of 1987. An agreement was made which indicates how unreasonable the world can be and how unwise the Government of Canada was at the time. It arrived at an agreement which it was hoped would quiet down the French and take care of things. It was an agreement that gave the French some rights. In fact, it gave them unspecified access to the northern cod stock in another area off northeast Newfoundland, the 2J3KL zone. To arrive at that kind of agreement without having consulted with the Government of Newfoundland was an incredible piece of irrational behaviour. It was not reasonable to do that.
A good deal of the difficulties that the Government got into politically resulted from that particular failure to consult with the Government of Newfoundland. This particular grant of fishing rights is short of what is actually required, which is a resolution of the boundaries question. It is not enough to buy the happiness of the French by giving them some fishing rights. What we want to do is to settle the matter.
It is worth recognizing that the reaction or fire-storm of protest that broke out in Newfoundland when that agreement came to public attention has reverberated very far through the halls of Canadian power. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the constitutional Accord arrived at at Meech Lake, and considered further at the Langevin Building last spring, the proviso is that in perpetuity the fishery be a topic for discussion at constitutional conferences, of all places. This is evidence of how badly and irrationally the Conservative Government of the day acted in arriving at some type of concession to the French without properly dealing with the Government of Newfoundland.
It is not surprising that late last fall the Premier of Newfoundland apparently considered getting out of politics when he noted that type of behaviour on the part of his federal friends. They were not even people from another Party. When Manitoba got shafted by the Government on important decisions such as the CF-18 contract, Premier Pawley could always think it was partisan, that the Manitoba New Democratic Government did not matter a whit to the Conservative Government of Canada. But for the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland to experience that type of behaviour from a Government of his own stripe was surely cause for the outrage that he expressed, which continued for months, and also the type of outrage expressed by the people of Newfoundland.
What is clearly required is to find the means of bringing the French to arbitration. What we did today in Question Period is attempt to find the means and to suggest the means to Government to do this.
May 6, 1988

Perhaps to the credit of the Government, which is not something that we do all the time, cutting back on the fishing rights to which the Minister referred in responding to questions from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), actually begins to focus the issue. To cut back on the right to fish for French fishermen, and to make the failure of the agreement on boundaries as costly as possible for the French, is surely the only way to go. When the Government took those steps in reaction to the fire-storm of protest that came last year from the people of Newfoundland, and calls here in the House in Question Period for days, that action was certainly on the right track. I am very pleased to hear that far fewer trawlers are coming over.
This is a question of the fishery of Metropolitan France which has often extended incredibly far across the oceans. While Metropolitan France is not doing its thing in the Gulf area and around Newfoundland as it has in the past, and thank goodness for that, that is the type of action that is required. In this context, perhaps it is the desperation of the French that has been expressed in actions over the last several weeks, for example, the action on April 15, of the Croix de Lorraine-a good historic name. Perhaps it is worth remembering President de Gaulle from Lorraine and the Croix de Lorraine which is part of his symbolism. It is a a marvellous name to have on a ship, and a marvellous expression of French grandeur-if it does not have power, throw some muscle around a little bit any way. When that ship sails into the area with politicians on board and the media present, it creates an incident and attempts to dramatize the matter.
We should perhaps recognize in that action an indication of the desperation of the French as they find themselves under severe pressure, and find themselves getting caught. Are those the circumstances in which the Government of Canada should be giving anything away? I think not.
Let us look at the agreement that the Government came to, which was announced on April 28. The Secretary of State for External Affairs the Minister for International Trade, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, all three of them, announced that agreement had been reached on a non-binding mediation procedure to assist in resolving the Canada-France fishing quotas dispute.
What is this about "non-binding mediation"? It is just about as bad as precedents that one cannot use, or agreements that do not amount to precedents. That is not what is wanted when the pressure is on the French. What is wanted is no fishing, or as little fishing as can possibly be allowed to the French until they recognize that this matter has to be resolved by arbitration and they are only going to get rights established through an arbitration process. The event yesterday adds insult to the injury of the April 28 agreement, where a French naval tug dragged a fishing boat, by means of a cable fastened to the bow of the fishing boat, into harbour in the French islands.
That additional act, which has produced the outrage in this resolution, only underscores the need for strong action. As I
Supply
scan over the agreement I notice that there has to be agreement on a mediator by tomorrow, May 7. These are circumstances in which this particular announcement and the agreement should be torn up. These are circumstances in which to send the French back and say to them, "You can go and talk to Prime Minister Chirac", who is preoccupied with becoming president these days, a position he will likely not achieve on Sunday. "You go back and talk serious business".
We were all interested to note this morning in our news that the French people, at least Parisians who are at the heart of Metropolitan France in the capital city, have not been told about this matter. I bet the Chamber of Commerce or the fisheries in St. Malo know all about it. I wonder how many votes Prime Minister Chirac is hoping to get up and down the west coast. If some of the reporters took themselves out there and did a little checking, I am sure that everyone up and down the coast knows what is happening with this particular piece of tugboat diplomacy by Prime Minister Chirac, or as someone stated earlier, this particular "Chirac attack" that we have had off the coast of Newfoundland.
What is required is decisive and clear-headed action. We have had a little, but not nearly enough from the Government of Canada. We want a lot more. Let us keep the French out of the fishery as much as we possibly can, under the laws that exist, and get them into the arbitration that is required to settle the boundary dispute. Once that is resolved, and once we have the type of international decision, which we expect will be to the advantage of the fishermen of Canada while allowing some rights which have existed in European history, one is tempted to say, from time immemorial, that the French do some fishing here, once we have established how much of a right France has in this type of context, we will have an end to the difficulties that the French have been imposing, not so much on the Canadian people here, but on individual fishermen.
I have not said very much about those men who were fishing where they have fished for a long time, where the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland have fished together without dispute, and now to have the metropolitan power intrude as it has through the French Navy is entirely unacceptable. The Government of Canada is on its mettle to resolve this as fast as it can.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) a couple of questions. I appreciate the seriousness and the particular perspective on history which he brings to this issue. I am sure he is far more qualified than many other Members in the House to deal in questions of history. In view of his appreciation of history, he will realize that difficult international diplomatic problems are rarely solved in a fortnight or in a year, and sometimes even in a decade or more. I appreciate the fact that he has recognized some progress has been made.
If we look at the 1972 treaty, it is true that the treaty recognizes that historical presence going back centuries

May 6, 1988
Supply
referred to by the Hon. Member. The economy and the people of the islands have depended on the surrounding resource as their main sustenance and their main reason for being on this side of the Atlantic. We also appreciate that. The Government has always wanted to be understanding and supportive of the people who live on St. Pierre and Miquelon. In some respects they are being exploited or used as a pawn in this international debate.
The agreement of 1972 was designed to phase out the Gulf fishery by a fleet from Metropolitan France, which in times past have not fished in the tens of thousands of tonnes which they did claim for that 15 year phase-out period. But it recognized, and France recognized, that at the end of the 15-year period, they were to be gone. As well, it recognized that unspecified quotas would be available in other parts of Atlantic Canada, once boundaries were extended and jurisdiction established.
The Hon. Member would appreciate that that jurisdiction cannot be finally established until the boundary around St. Pierre and Miquelon is resolved through international arbitration.
There was recognition in the treaty that the small boats operating out of St. Pierre and Miquelon should have certain basic quotas, and that is something to which we have attempted to be sensitive.
In my view, the treaty provides the possibility for solution, but it is something that will only start with the resolution of the boundary question. Certainly, this Government wants to be reasonable in its approach to this whole matter.
My question for the Hon. Member is whether he would not agree that the debate which was triggered on January 24, 1987, has a great deal to do with the progress that we have been able to make to date, in an orderly way. During that debate, Canada has shown that we are not going to play second fiddle to anyone in looking after the rights and needs of our fishermen.
Will the Hon. Member not agree that Canadian public opinion, not just in Newfoundland but from coast to coast, and indeed international opinion, has been polarized to recognize the basic justice of Canada's appeal that the boundary matter be resolved?
I have a second question for the Hon. Member. In view of the historical perspective of the Hon. Member, I would ask for his view as to why France would take actions which would appear to hurt its own citizens, the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, there are moments when those watching the telecast of these proceedings see the House operating at its best, and certainly the exchange we are having at the moment is a good one.
I should like to pick up on some of the thoughts that the Minister has articulated, and to respond to them.
The importance of developing Canadian opinion in support of firm action by the Canadian Government is obvious. In terms of the agreement entered into in January of 1987, we had a fire-storm of protest in Newfoundland, and reaction in the House on the part of many Members. As the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, a riding located on that large inland sea, Lake Superior, I join with others in support of a motion moved by a Newfoundland Member. In fact, the member of the NDP caucus who preceded me in this debate was the Member for Vancouver Island.
While the motion itself was moved by a Newfoundland Member, it is a motion that expresses, for Canadians generally, as happened in January of 1987, the importance of taking the appropriate and proper action.
We had the same reaction, of course, in January of 1987, when as well we had forceful representations made to the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West on the question of taking appropriate action in respect of the agreement entered into at that time.
The motion moved by the Official Opposition today calling upon the Government of Canada to take strong action in connection with this matter is very important in terms of making it possible for the Government of Canada to do the right thing.
The Minister, in the preamble to his question, talked about the importance of the history of this dispute. He spoke of the terms of the agreement and the importance of settling the boundaries dispute.
I can assure him in that respect that the notes provided by the Hon. Member for St. John's East in connection with this debate focused on the importance of the boundaries question and the fact that it is a matter that has to be resolved.
The background notes state that the dispute on the boundary should be referred to international and binding arbitration, without either party insisting upon any pre-conditions, such as access by the French to northern cod. If in a 16-year old or 17-year old treaty there is a promise of access to be had somewhere or other in the future, one might find people in External Affairs, given the calibre of advisers the Government surely has, to put context to that.
Was this access that would be worked out following on the resolution of the boundary question? And if so, then obviously the French are walking away from the bargaining table. If they are refusing to negotiate properly, they would have no right to access, with the result that it would remain unspecified-meaning, presumably, at zero, until France is prepared to settle the matter. Part of the settlement of the boundary question will be to arrive at the proper quotas for France, thus constituting recognition of their rights for all time in the future.
May 6, 1988

These are times when one might be tempted to invite the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon to forget their old ties with France and to become Canadians. In a country which, for some 20 years now, has been officially bilingual, and proud to be so, they might not feel all that out of place, or certainly one would hope not. But of course they are not simply residents of the New World, if you will; they are inhabiting those two islands in a French context.
Why a Government would do this type of thing to its citizens, I do not know. Is it possible that a Prime Minister desperate for the presidency would really forget about what happens to the little people, to the fishing folk of St. Pierre and Miquelon? Of course, he is thinking of the fishermen of St. Malo and the other coastal ports of France itself. I guess he takes the view that those closer to home will be voting more immediately, and more in number.
These are terrible choices that people make sometimes, and dreadfully wrong choices. But they make them nevertheless.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. At the outset, permit me to call to the attention of the Members of the House certain facts, as follows: The Department of External Affairs received a preliminary report concerning this incident about 2.30 p.m. yesterday, from the Canadian Honorary Consul in St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Consul had just been notified by the Maritime Administrator of SPM that the small Canadian trawler, Maritimer had been found fishing for cod within the 12-mile territory limit of those islands by a French naval tug, the Tenace, and was being escorted into harbour at St. Pierre.
The Maritimer was approached by a boarding party from the Tenace, and two men, apparently unarmed, were placed on board and remained there until arrival at St. Pierre.
According to Captain Willoughby Bolt of the Maritimer, this request was made at 3.40 p.m., or 1.40 p.m., Ottawa time. Less than an hour elapsed before the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa learned of the action of the French vessel.
The Maritimer arrived in St. Pierre about 7 p.m., after sailing some three hours. The vessel was met at the dock by the Canadian Honorary Consul, Mr. Jean-Pierre Andrieux for the purpose of providing all possible consular assistance to the captain and the four other crew members.
It was confirmed last evening by the Honorary Consul that the captain and crew members, all residents of Newfoundland, had not been arrested, and the vessel, which had only a small quantity of scallops on board, had not been impounded.
The Consul said that he had the key to the trawler's engine. The crew had all been courteously treated by the French authorities. The crew planned to sleep on the vessel overnight.
At 8 a.m. today, they attended before the fisheries authorities, the SPM Maritime Administration, at which time a decision was made to charge the captain and to impound the
Supply
Maritimer. The crew was accompanied throughout by the Honorary Consul to ensure that their rights were fully protected. The charges are in respect of Fishing without a licence in French territorial waters. The vessel was carrying 450 kilos of cod. Indications are that a bond in the amount of no less than 500,000 French francs, approximately $110,000 Canadian, will be required to obtain the release of the trawler. Arrangements are being made by the Canadian Government to post this bond with a view to releasing the vessel today.
There was never any question that the Maritimer was not fishing in the disputed zone where Canada and France have observed for some years mutual restraint in the enforcement of their fishery regulations. We were informed that the crew of the Maritimer have admitted to the French authorities that they were fishing within five or six miles of the northeasterly side of the Islands of Miquelon and Langlade, that it was their long standing practice to fish in that area without hindrance from the French authorities and they were unaware of any requirement to obtain a licence. The location of the incident was between these islands and Newfoundland, and thus within the maritime boundary allocated to France under the 1972 treaty.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the inshore fishermen of both countries have for a long time, indeed decades, pursued their activities in each other's waters without hindrance. That was done in recognition of the particular circumstances of small inshore fishing vessels, and that practice has been long recognized. To change these traditions and abandon such reciprocity could have the most serious consequences for the communities along the south shore of Newfoundland and for St. Pierre and Miquelon as well.
Since the French Government appears determined to act against this long- standing practice, Canada will most certainly protest vigorously and take whatever action may be necessary. We have already been in touch with the French authorities to register our concern over this regrettable incident in which there appears to have been no deliberate flouting of French law.
In the present circumstances and until the matter is clarified to our satisfaction, it is unthinkable that the process of mediation in which we have been engaged and in which we were making substantial progress, can be allowed to follow its course as if nothing had happened. Indeed, we find it difficult to understand why this incident has occurred at the very moment our negotiator, Mr. Fortier, was en route to Paris. Canada cannot be counted on to show understanding and a spirit of compromise when simultaneously France, through the rigid application of the letter of its laws, modifies a longstanding practice by both sides of non-interference with the traditional activities of our inshore fishermen. These are the people who require and deserve the most generous treatment. We intend to continue protecting their interests with every means at our disposal.

May 6, 1988
Supply
External Affairs officials in Ottawa were in contact twice last evening and again this morning by telephone with Captain Willoughby who assured them that all the crew were well and in good spirits. He proposed to have their families advised by telephone of their well-being.
An External Affairs officer has gone to St. Pierre to assist with the consular representation of the members of the crew. The Canadian Government will continue to follow matters closely and will take whatever action is appropriate in the light of developments.
The Acting Speaker Mr. Paproski): Are there any questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) which says, and I quote:
That this House deplore the unlawful arrest of a Canadian fishing vessel by
the Government of France in Area 3PS off the coast of Newfoundland; and
That this House condemn the Government for its failure to protect the
Canadian fishing industry and its continuing inability to resolve the Canada-
France fishing dispute.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore yesterday's events, first of all because here we have the captain of a fishing vessel and his crew who were arrested for working at the only trade they know, which means going out to sea, fishing and bringing their catch safely back to port for processing in the plants on shore, thus providing jobs for the families that live there. These fishermen were arrested in Area 3PS where, as the previous speaker mentioned, there has been a long-standing practice of non-interference. Now, all of a sudden, France decided to make arrests for reasons that are very much its own. The arrests have been made. The Government tells us it will take action, but from what we have heard today, the Government's position and the action it proposes to take are not very convincing. Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled at the failure of this Government to take a strong stand.
This Government is not prepared to defend the interests of its fishermen and the people of the Atlantic region, and I was also appalled when I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Clark), tell us that we should not act too aggressively, because we might harm other regions in the country. The Secretary was more or less implying we should sacrifice the interests of Newfoundland fishermen to avoid harming people in other regions, and that, Mr. Speaker, is really appalling. And I also deplore the fact, that this Government sees this action by the French as just another bizarre incident. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that the action taken by the French is an insult to all Canadians, not just to the people of Newfoundland and the Atlantic region but to all Canadians from coast to coast.
The Government should take advantage of this opportunity to take a strong stand. I am not saying it should go to war, but just take a strong stand and show the Atlantic fishermen that it intends to defend their rights, because when we talk about Area 3PS, we are talking about cod and treaties and the livelihood of the people of the Atlantic region. Newfoundland is often mentioned because the people there are very close to Area 3PS, but the fish that swim in those waters move all over the Gulf, which means there is an impact on fishermen from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec as well. So the Government should take this opportunity to take a strong stand and tell the fishermen: Enough is enough, and we intend to tell the French we mean it!
We have the tools to show the French we mean what we say. These tools are the current negotiations for the purchase and construction of submarines. We are considering buying submarines worth over $10 billion, and I don't think we need them, but in any case, negotiations are under way. So we should tell the French: If you don't want to negotiate in good faith, negotiations on the submarine deal are off and will stay that way until we settle the problem about the contested area.
Negotiations are also taking place between Air Canada and Airbus about the purchase of aircraft for a total of over $1 billion. There again, the Government could take a strong stand and tell the French: Until we settle the fisheries dispute, negotiations with Airbus are off.
The Prime Minister who had planned to visit France sometime in May should take also this opportunity to tell the French: I have decided to postpone my visit because of the bad faith you have demonstrated in the St. Pierre and Miquelon fisheries affair. Also, Mr. Speaker, we should recall our Charge D'affaires again to emphasize to the French that the action they took was serious and an affront to Canadians.
I suggest that if the Canadian Government showed some resolve, the French would certainly be more prepared to negotiate an agreement to end once and for all the problem in that area.
Mr. Speaker, I could have dealt with the Treaty, those who signed it and under what terms. I could have spent time describing what was or was not done. But we are now faced with the de facto situation of a Canadian fishing vessel which was illegally arrested. I therefore urge the Government to be firm and demonstrate to the French that we are not going to roll over, that we are going to defend our fishermen's rights and that the sooner we can settle this problem, the sooner the whole situation between France and Canada can get back to normal.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose two or three questions to the Hon. Member who just spoke, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). I would like to remind the Hon. Member of New Brunswick's lobster
May 6, 1988

exports to France which I believe generate millions of export dollars for that province and indeed for Canada. Eventually, those dollars spin off into other industries including shipbuilding, processing and electronics. Is the Hon. Member aware of that? What would be the impact on his province if trade relations with France were discontinued or if this war were to be escalated? Does the Hon. Member indeed want to escalate the situation into a trade war? Would that help his Province of New Brunswick?
Would it not be the height of irresponsibility, as we heard the Minister say during Question Period today, to escalate this war? Would it not be the height of irresponsibility, both in terms of Canada's relations with other sovereign states and in terms of one region of Canada versus another?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am greatful to the Hon. Member for his question. I am certainly well aware of some trade being conducted between my province and a number of European countries, including France. I am also aware that we export lobster and various species of fish.
I must tell the Hon. Member, however, that New Brunswick fishermen are quite concerned about the overfishing in the 3PS
Supply
zone, because they do not only fish off New Brunswick, but also both inside and outside the Gulf. I can tell you that when fishermen hear and know that there is overfishing in that area, they react in a very negative fashion. I am sure that if we were to act firmly to end this problem, New Brunswick fishermen would react positively.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comment is over. Debate.
[English}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: With the conclusion of this debate, the proceedings on the motion now before the House have expired pursuant to Standing Order 82(12). Shall I call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, May 9, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers