Commons Debate on Bill S -17
been that no government has had established any conclusive jurisdiction over large areas of these seas. Of course the fact that the difficulties that have arisen have sprung largely from an absence of jurisdiction has been very little consolation to the people who saw the source of their livelihood ravaged, or to the scientists who were prepared to devote their time and energy to the preservation of this great natural resource.
Three things are necessary; first, the establishment of straight base lines; second, the establishment by clear affirmation of Canada's rights relative to certain waters such as the gulf of St. Lawrence and the bay of Fundy and, third, the fixing of the extent of Canada's fishing zones. I am pleased to see that the bill now before the house envisages provision for all these necessities.
It happens that the constituency which I have the honour to represent, by reason of its peculiar shape and location at the extremity of the mainland of Nova Scotia, is one in which all these three points have a direct application. Both the Northumberland strait and St. George's bay are within the gulf of St. Lawrence. At the same time, the entire Guysborough shore, from Ecum Secum to Mulgrave, will be benefited greatly from the establishment of a Canadian fishing zone 12 miles wide drawn from a base line straight from cape to cape.
When this bill has been proclaimed Canada's fishing zone will extend nine miles beyond the present three mile limit. The function of this portion of the bill, as I understand it, is to establish the existence of Canadian fishing zones. Let me say here parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that it is my understanding also that since these zones are shortly to be moved farther out to sea in many places—that is, just as soon as the straight base lines have been defined and . published—these zones will not be enforced in their temporary locations. Then the bill authorizes the governor in council to establish the necessary straight base lines, these to be drawn from one major headland to another.
For example, in the case of the southern and eastern shores of Nova Scotia, I think what is envisaged is a series of lines beginning at cape Sable, touching the principal headlands and encompassing the larger offshore islands along to cape Canso and thence to Scatari island. When this base line has been settled all the waters landward of this line will be defined as internal waters of Canada. The territorial waters of Canada will be three miles of sea immediately seaward of this base line. The fishing zones of Canada will be the nine miles of sea immediately seaward of the territorial sea.
Generally, as provided by clause 4 of the bill, all fishing both within the internal waters of Canada and in the 12 miles between the base line and the limit of the fishing zone will be under the sole jurisdiction of the government of Canada.
Tuesday, May 26
Mr. Barry Maine. (New Westminster): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question. Having in mind the large delegation of fishermen present in Ottawa today from our western or British Columbia maritimes, can the hon. gentleman clear up a question which concerns them by telling the house whether the matters involved in the north Pacific fishing treaty will be placed before the standing committee on marine and fisheries for consideration at an early date?
Hon. H. J. Robichaud {Minister of Fisheries): I cannot but repeat the statement which I have made in the house on two or three occasions: The north Pacific treaty matter will be brought before the standing committee on marine and fisheries as soon as our negotiations are complete and before acceptance or ratification by the government
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Antigonish-Guysborough): Mr. Speaker, when this subject was last before the house I drew the attention of Your Honour and hon. members to the importance of the subject matter to the people of most of the constituencies of the Atlantic provinces. Twenty-nine constituencies in the Atlantic provinces are bordered by the Atlantic ocean, and the lives of the people in these constituencies are deeply touched by all matters affecting this great and historic industry, the fishing industry.
Now, as Your Honour knows, the scheme of the legislation is complicated. I know from what has been said by hon. members opposite, particularly by hon. members from that most westerly of our provinces, British Columbia, that there is in that quarter a certain uneasiness with the bill before the house. I think Your Honour should know that this uneasiness is not shared by the people of Atlantic Canada. We think that the scheme of this legislation is excellent. We see in this legislation a pre-figuring of an arrangement which will be highly beneficial both to our inshore fishermen and to those who venture out farther upon the sea.
Your Honour will recall that this legislation provides for the drawing of straight base lines. The waters ins.'de those base lines will
ENGINEERING & SHIPYARD
J. B. Blake. Mgr. Complete Service for Fishermen
* Boat Building & Repairs
* Engine  Repairs — Gas and Diesel
* Marine Railways — up to 130 Feet
* Marine Shop Service
* Marine Hardware
* Marine Paints
* Chrysler Engines
* Volvo-Penta Diesel Engines
PORT ALBERNI, B.C.
PHONES: 22 and 21
be the inland waters of Canada, and all legislation which applies to any of the inland waters of Canada generally will apply there. I think the importance of this aspect sometimes has been overlooked. Outside the straight base lines will be the territorial sea of Canada extending for three miles seaward, and immediately beyond that—
Mr. Charterion: Will the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Challerton: I think the hon. member said the legislation prescribes base lines. Will he kindly refer me to the part of the legislation which does that?
Mr. Stewart: I think anyone who has perused the bill knows that what this bill enables the government to do is to describe a particular sequence of straight lines which will give to Canada the largest possible portion of sea for its use. I do not believe anybody in this house would demand more. I think I know to what the hon. gentleman is adverting in his question, and I shall come to his point later.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, the third aspect concerns Canada's fishing zones. These will lie beyond the territorial sea in a band of water nine miles wide, so that outside the straight base line there will be a 12-mile area for which the fishing regulations made by the government of Canada will be the regulating principles. I think anybody who is familiar with the oculated coast line of Atlantic Canada will appreciate how attractive this legislation is to us.
Now, it has been suggested that this is not the juncture at which this particular bill should have been brought forward. We have been told that it would have been better for the government to have done one of two things, either to have proceeded with those negotiations, which I am sure every hon. member in this house would wish us to conduct with friendly powers, and at the conclusion of those negotiations embalm the result in a statute of parliament, or to proceed by drawing up now a bill to be enacted declaring prior to further negotiations what our base line would be.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that neither of these courses of action would be as desirable as the course which the present government has elected to follow. As we know, the question of the rights of other powers to have their fishermen fish in our waters is a complicated one. It is not likely that the governments of other countries will lightly give up any claims which they may make. I do not wish to pass upon the validity of these claims. I am sure that in some instances they may very well be regarded by some of our international lawyers as exaggerated. They make these claims both on treaty grounds and on historic grounds. I think everybody in the house would insist that before taking the definitive action, which this government is prepared to take eventually if necessary, there should be complete and amicable exploration of the claims of these other countries.
This exploration, we have been told, has been under way for several months and can be expected to continue for some time. What the government is now asking for is really very simple. The government is coming to this house and is saying, we want you now to give us a mandate to proceed. We have engaged these other countries in negotiations. The negotiations have proceeded to that point at which we are now prepared to ask parliament to give us a mandate to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. We believe that this negotiation has proceeded to the point at which we should be able to inform those powers with whom we have been negotiating that we indeed have the statutory authority to make a final settlement in this whole complicated affair.
Now, sir, in the circumstances I do not see how any other course of action would have been reasonable. I suspect that even had there been no change in government a year ago, parliament today might very well find itself in exactly the same position that it is in now, and I would hope that hon. members who happen to belong to my party would not in that case chastise the government for coming to parliament at this juncture to ask for a mandate to establish a straight line base system and a 12 mile fishing zone, both of which would be so beneficial to our people.
I have almost concluded, but there is one more thing I want to say. It is that I hope, as the debate proceeds on this important issue, that nothing will be put on the record which will cause any misconception in any quarter, within this country or without this country, as to our determination to establish for Canada a 12 mile fishing zone extending beyond waters which are ours by undoubted right. I think this is something on which, despite our minor disagreements, we are emphatically agreed. I think no one in any quarter should have any doubt about this matter. This is one issue on which the Canadian people are enthusiastically unanimous. We are going to have this. We prefer to have it be achieved by amicable negotiation, but we are going to have it, Mr. Speaker.
LLOYD R. CROUSE
Progressive-Conservative
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):
Mr. Speaker, any measure dealing with the fishing industry is of vital importance to Canadians generally, and especially to representatives from the Atlantic provinces. I listened with considerable interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he made his statement relative to the govern-
FOUR TEN CAFE
410 Main St., Vancouver, B.C. GOOD HOME COOKING
Fishermen Are Always Welcome'
Hours:
7 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday
RADIO SERVICE
Radios-Fleetwood TV-Records Batteries and Accessories
NOBLE'S
We Pick Up and Deliver Phone 6100—Opp. Totem Theatre
10
THE FISHERMAN - June 5, 1964
ment's proposal unilaterally to establish a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone off Canada's coasts.
While this action is commendable from a conservation point of view, there are still some questions unanswered, questions that require clarification by the government. The most important question in the minds of many Canadian fishermen today deals with the problem of friendly relations that may or that may not exist between Canada and the United States as a result of the government's action.
On the east coast we are concerned with the preservation of our traditional fisheries markets in the United States, markets that are of vital importance to our maritime economy and to our east coast fishing industry. I ask the minister and the government where are the safeguards for these markets? What are the results of the negotiations that have been carried on in recent weeks and months by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Are you asking me to answer now?
Mr. Crouse: Yes, I would like to have that statement on the record.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): As this is a very important matter I do not want to interfere with my hon. friend making his speech, but he asked the question. As he knows, there are negotiations under way between Canada, the United States, France and a number of other countries. Those negotiations have not concluded and it is because they have not concluded that it has not been possible—as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken indicated—to proceed definitively and completely with the establishment of the straight base line system.
The negotiations are still under way. These negotiations are friendly, and there would be no justification in anything that has taken place for any concern on the part of anyone in Canada about our relations with the United States or with any other countries. We are proceeding as friends in our negotiations.
There is no intention to interfere wi.h the treaty, or historic fishing rights of the United States, with whom the particular negotiation has been put in question by my hon. friend, and there is no justification for creating the suggestion that anything involving Canada's interests stands in jeopardy. Coming as he does from a fishing district I am sure my hon. friend joins with my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) in saying it is desirable that we should have a 12 mile fishing zone to protect our fishing industry.
Mr. Crouse: I am grateful to the minister for his explanation, but I would like to tell him that I expressed my concern in the manner, which I did a moment ago, as a result of his very own words which he placed on record in Hansard on May 20 at page 3409, as follows:
I am convinced that in taking this action now— as the government is doing, unilaterally—Canada is acting in accordance with present day international law and practice.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is right.
Mr. Crouse:
The government is convinced that we are following the wisest course in immediately seeking agreements with the countries affected by our action. We are equally convinced that we must carry forward our negotiations %*. ith these countries before we proclaim the base lines for our entire coast.
Then a little further on he stated:
When the government took its decision to establish a 12 mile fishing zone and straight base lines, we did not minimize the problems involved in some of the negotiations lying ahead of us. Nor do we minimize them now. These negotiations may be difficult and we must accept this fact.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is right.
Mr. Crouse: It is because of those words and the very doubts that the minister raised in the minds of many Canadians over the results of these negotiations that I spoke as I did. He states that the government is convinced, but I question whether he has yet convinced the United States who have traditionally rights in these waters. It is in the United States market that we must sell so much of our fish, and this is why I raise this doubt.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): What I am pointing out to my hon. friend is that what the United States are concerned about has nothing to do with markets at all. This is a point of law. It does not in any way involve Canada's markets in the United States. These do not stand in jeopardy at all and the very suggestion that they do, which my hon. friend makes, is one that I suggest to him— as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-Lean) pointed out the other night—is not helpful to a very important negotiation under way now between Canada and the United States.
Mr. Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last in the house to say anything that would not be helpful in the negotiations, because I represent a constituency which has undoubtedly the largest fishing fleet in North America, and therefore I want my remarks to be helpful. But when you are dealing with an industry like the fishing industry, that will have a market value in my province of Nova Scotia alone, this year of approximately $70 million, this house and this industry need facts about the protective measures that are being taken for its future.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the place for any fast, slick promises that may have been made during the last two election campaigns by hon. members who now occupy the seats to the right of Your Honour and who form the government, promises made about the value of a 12 mile fishing zone. We in the Atlantic provinces know that conservation measures must be taken, but we are also a practical people and we know that at present some 70 per cent of our entire catch of fish must be sold on the American market. The Lunenburg county fleet alone can catch sufficient fish to feed the entire population of Canada, some 19 million persons.
So I say we need and must maintain the United States market for our fishing industry. In speeches I have made on this subject from the day I entered the house I have taken this stand and I reiterate it tonight because its importance cannot be underestimated. It is for this reason I wish to impress on the minister, for the benefit of thousands of Canadian fishermen and for the benefit of an equal number of processors and handlers of the fish we land on the Atlantic coast, the importance of maintaining this market and assuring us that the Americans are in complete agreement with the negotiations and with the establishment of this limit.
The subject of fisheries conservation is not something new. It is a problem which has plagued various governments since the early days of this century. In fact, we read in a royal commission report on fisheries in 1928— the exact date is May 4—that the following resolution was passed by the House of Commons on February 6, 1911:
That in the opinion of this house, as the mode of fishing known as steam trawling prosecuted by ships of different nationalities on the coast of Canada outside Canadian waters is destructive to fish life, it is expedient in order to conserve the deep sea fisheries, that negotiations be opened wih the view of securing an international agreement—
And you will note it specifically states "international agreement"—
—prohibiting this mode of fishing in such spawning grounds for deep sea fish as the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence and the banks of the north Atlantic adjacent to the coasts of Canada and Newfoundland.
That was way back on February 6, 1911. Then, in the same report on page 91 it is stated:
In order to protect further the shore fishermen, the Canadian government in 1915 enacted a regulation under the Customs Act, whereby the master of any steam-trawler is required before he is granted a clearance for the fishing grounds to give the customs officer a declaration that he will not fish within at least 12 miles from shore, this regulation to apply to all steam-trawlers clearing from a Canadian port on the Atlantic coast. Since that time no further restrictions have been placed on steam-trawlers operating from ports of the maritime provinces.
It is this latter regulation which has plagued the Canadian fishermen over the years and as a result we find the anomalous situation in which Canadian fishermen have, since 1915, been required to fish 12 miles from the Canadian coast while fishermen of all other nations have been permitted to fish within three miles of our shores.
I might add that the three mile limit has never been agreed to among the nations of the world, as far as I can see from the literature I have read. Such a limit was proposed many years ago by two great international powers, Great Britain and the United States, the idea being that the three mile range of their cannon would establish sovereignty over their coastal waters. However, when the league of nations convened a conference at The Hague in 1930 to consider regulations concerning the law of the sea there was so much disagreement on what should be the breadth of territorial water that no resolution or proposal could even be put to a vote. Interest in this matter seemed to lapse until 1958 in which year the United Nations called a conference in Geneva to consider the law of the sea. It was evident that fishing rights and territorial limits had become more important over the years since representatives from 86 states attended the conference. A Conservative government was in power in Canada and under the able leadership of the then minister of external affairs, the Hon. Howard Green, a Canadian proposal supporting a 12 mile limit was put forward. Here, again, I pay tribute to the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for his remarks in commendation of the action taken by Mr. Green at that time. I think it is praiseworthy that the minister should in this way have done justice to one of Canada's great ministers. We put forward at that time a proposal for a 12 mile limit. Our proposal was known as a "six and six" proposal—six miles of territorial sea and six miles in which fishing limits applied. The present proposal calls for a three mile territorial sea and a nine mile fishing zone. In effect, we advocated what we will refer to as a 12 mile limit proposal. We, the Conservatives, hoped to establish this 12 mile limit by international agreement bearing in mind our trade and treaty commitments. We Conservatives believed in international agreement because a principle is at stake in this problem—the principle that the rights of states in international law depend on the consent of other states. However, although the conference was successful in reaching agreement on 113 articles of the law of the sea, after six weeks of intensive debate the contest between those who wished a three mile territorial sea and those who wished a 12 mile territorial sea failed by one vote to gain the required two-thirds majority which would have resolved it. Accordingly, there is still no agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea among the 86 nations represented at that conference.
Wednesday, May 27
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg): Last evening I started on the first leg of my cruise of Canada's territorial seas and today I hope to finish the voyage.
From the facts I placed on the record it is readily apparent that Canada's support of a 12 mile limit was officially launched in the international field in 1958. However, international agreement on this matter was not reached and we are now obliged to consider the alternatives open to us. The first question which comes to mind concerns those nations which have already applied a 12 mile limit. We know, for example, that Iceland was the first country to push out its territorial limits to 12 miles, followed by Norway, Denmark and then Russia. Africa and Britain have also decided on this course and, in all, some 25 nations have now adopted a 12 mile limit There should be little objection from these countries to the Canadian proposal. But it would appear that when these decisions were made unilaterally, international incidents followed. Icelandic gunboats chased British trawlers from cod fishing grounds off the shores of Iceland. Norway is chasing Swedish fishermen from grounds which the Swedes have fished for hundreds of years. Irish corvettes have recently scattered Dutch and Belgian fishermen who were fishing in Irish herring grounds, and the Brazilian and French are disputing the ownership of Brittany lobsters caught in traditional Brazilian fishing waters.
This will give the government an idea of what happens when action is taken unilaterally, and I cannot help but wonder what steps are to be taken by the minister and his department to enforce these proposed regulations. What would happen, for example, if the Russians decided to test the new regulation by placing a factory ship within the nine mile limit off the coast of Cape Breton in an area where in the spring of the year the fishing is prolific? I refer to the Scatari bank. It might be that the factory ship would not be fishing in these waters, but the supply draggers would be travelling back and forth and it would require constant patrolling on the part of Canadian vessels to determine whether they were fishing or simply travelling peacefully through these waters.
I would point out, too, that Canada has a very long coastline.
The minister of external affairs stated in the course of his remarks as reported in Hansard at page 3411:
Pending this determination and an opportunity to carry forward our discussions with the countries concerned, we have decided to allow a short period of time to elapse before starting to enforce Canadian  laws  in  the fishing zones of Canada.
My point is this: How will they be enforced? Does the government intend to use the patrol boats of the Department of Fisheries or will it use the patrol boats which are operated as a coastguard service under the
Department of Transport? Perhaps it is intended to use the navy—
To continue, I ask this question: How does the government hope to enforce this regulation? Obviously, enforcement will be one of the main problems to be dealt with if these proposals are to become effective. I cannot impress this point upon the government too strongly. I have said before, and I say again, that a gunboat policy for our fishing industry would be disastrous to our traditional fishing markets. The entire proposal raises the problem of historic fishing rights and today I will deal only with those rights on the Atlantic coast. France and the United States have historic fishing rights dated back to the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and the treaty of London in 1818.
I hold in my hand the brief submitted by the fisheries council of Canada on Canada's national and territorial waters under date January 28, 1963. In this brief they recommend negotiations between the United States and France to reach a mutual understanding, and that unilateral action be taken only after agreement with these two countries. The fisheries council of Canada is representative of the entire fishing industry. It meets annually and it makes recommendations to the government only after careful study of all the facts. I cannot help but wonder why these recommendations were ignored and why the government, despite their recommendations, decided to take unilateral action.
I think their suggestions are worth placing on the record. They suggest, for example, that Canada, as one of the pioneering nations in the field of international agreements for the conservation of fishery resources of the sea, should continue to provide international leadership and protection for our Canadian marine resources. They recommend that we declare certain bodies of water as Canadian national waters, and establish the straight base line to enclose the national waters. The breadth of the territorial seas and exclusive fishing zone would be measured seaward from the base line. We should recognize and negotiate historic treaty fishing rights and then make a unilateral declaration with regard to the decisions reached. Finally, we should enforce these progressive steps, thereby preventing all other foreign fishing, except the United States and France, from exploiting our marine resources. In my opinion it will be difficult to get some of these nations to give up and suddenly drop their historic fishing rights. The house therefore has a right to know the government's plans on this important matter. Do they intend a phasing out of historic fishing rights over a five or ten year period; or, for example, will the Americans and the French continue fishing their traditional grounds within three miles of our shores in perpetuity? These are questions that require an answer.
Quite frankly, I am not satisfied that the present proposal as outlined by the minister will solve any of our major international fishing problems. In my opinion we will still have large Russian, Spanish and Japanese trawlers operating on the fishing banks of the Atlantic coast five, ten and fifteen years from now in ever increasing numbers, using modern methods and equipped with electronic fish finding devices that can only be described as fantastic. I say this because the world population, according to statistics that were last prepared in the year 1960, I believe, was estimated at 2,900 million and it is increasing by 120,000 every day. The nations of the world must turn to the sea as a source of food in ever increasing quantities to feed their ever expanding populations, and as a result fishing operations will intensify in the years ahead. As a matter of fact, the world fisheries have doubled their production in the last ten years, and a further doubling in the next ten years is expected. This, of course, will only create further international competition on the high seas for our marine resources.
This is why I have stated that in my opinion further negotiation at the international level would have been preferable to the action that has been taken at this time by the government. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) of this government have decided in their collective wisdom to establish by unilateral action this 12 mile limit. Since the 12 mile limit is a conservation measure designed to assist our inshore fishermen as well as conserve our fisheries resources, it is therefore important that we take some definite steps at this time that will be of long term benefit to our fisheries.
In my opinion this measure is not definite enough at present to do what should be done for the Canadian fishing industry. However, it can be amended by the simple act of naming the co-ordinates or points of land to be used in establishing the base line. These co-ordinates are the key, the one important item in this entire proposal; but according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs they have not been named. He stated, as is reported at page 3412 of Hansard, on May 20:
I am hopeful, however, that our discussions will soon be completed and that the governor In council will be In a position before the end of the year to proclaim a list of geographical co-ordinates of points for application of the straight base lines to at least a part of our coastline. If our optimism, here, proves unwarranted it will not be because this is not our present appreciation of the situation; it will be because of the nature of the negotiations themselves. It Is unlikely that the governor in council will publish points covering our entire coastline in his first list. It is possible that, depending on how our discussions proceed, he will publish several lists and that, in the first, base lines will come into force only for those areas in respect of which we have completed our talks.
Mr. Speaker, no one likes travelling through uncharted seas. If we accept this bill as it is now written, we allow this government to take the entire fishing industry on a cruise in the sea of uncertainty. The whole bill, in so far as my reading of it leads me to believe, is surrounded by a fog of indecision. It reminds me somewhat of the Liberal government. They do not know where they started from; they do not know where they are, and they do not know where they are going.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crouse: For example, base lines can be drawn from the United States border along the coast of New Brunswick, past the harbour of Saint John, and then back again along the coast of Nova Scotia, thereby leaving the entire bay of Fundy outside the territorial seas of Canada. Conversely, a base line can be drawn from the United States border to Cape Fourchu, completely sealing off the bay of Fundy and St. Mary's bay, thereby conserving the sardine and scallop industry in the bay of Fundy and the new scallop beds and the inshore fisheries of St. Mary's bay, as these waters would then become part of Canada's internal, or national waters.
I could give the house other examples, but I believe the most important co-ordinates
— Continued on Page 11