I
Register immediately for Christmas parties
REGISTER BY NOVEMBER 21
Vancouver WA party
BOYS AND GIRLS TO AND INCLUDING 10 YEARS OF AGE should be registered immediately for the VANCOUVER WOMEN'S AUXILIARY CHRISTMAS PARTY. Applications must be sent in BY FRIDAY NOVEMBER 21.
The Christmas Party will be held in Fishermen's Hall, 138 East Cordova Street, on Sunday, December 14 at 2 p.m.
• For VANCOUVER register by phoning either 876-4855 or 988-0585, or complete form and send to Christmas Party, Fishermen's Hall, 138 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, B.C.
REGISTER BY NOVEMBER 21
Steveston WA party
BOYS AND GIRLS TO AND INCLUDING 10 YEARS OF AGE should be registered immediately for the STEVESTON WOMEN'S AUXILIARY'S CHRISTMAS PARTY. Applica tions must be sent in BY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21.
The Christmas Party will be held in Ukrainian Hall, 9191 No. 2 Road, Sunday, December 14 at 1 p.m.
• For STEVESTON complete and send form to STEVESTON WA CHRISTMAS PARTY, c/o 6731 Blundell Road, Richmond, B.C. or phone 277-3352.
TREATY SYMPOSIUM
Names
Age
Sex
Address
Phone
Name of Father or Mother: .............
Local: UFAWU Book No.:
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
meeting agreed that the government should push for a boundary based on the province's proposed Juan de Fuca canyon line rather than the current equidistant line.
After the meeting, federal spokesman Erik Wang, who had outlined the government position, would not comment on whether this setback for Ottawa would affect federal strategy. "The views of some segments of the industry are well-known. We've discussed these issues beofe and hope to again and will take these views into account."
It was a bad day for Wang, who faced a morning of argument and condemnation from symposium participants and left with the knowledge that the list of industry organizations op-, posed to a sell-out has grown dramatically.
In the first public explanation of where the boundary talks stand, Wang and fisheries department spokesman Bob Applebaum outlined the federal position and then sat through lengthy rebuttals from provincial spokesman Gordon Halsey, of the marine resources branch, and from UBC law professor Don McRae, a specialist in international law.
The U.S. and Canada have mutually agreed to suspend boundary talks for the Pacific coast until the east coast agreement is ratified, Wang explained. In the meantime, however, interim agreements and interception negotiations are continuing.
Applebaum argued that it may actually benefit Canadian fishermen to resolve the interception dispute, the halibut dispute and the tuna dispute before the boundaries are established, because with the division of the resource out of the way, the boundary talks will be that much easier.
Wang, for his part, emphasized that thefederal government considered the boundary question nearly resolved both in the Dixon Entrance and the Stait of Juan de Fuca.
"The Canadian position remains in favor of the equidistance principle as agreed under the 1958 Geneva agreement on the continental shelf," Wang said. "The U.S. position is that the equidistance rule is appropriate, but they use different calculations."
XZZ> K3> >0 IO X^> ><Z&><Z2>><Z2>><3>
Wlono 2000
UROKO
J
®
iono
Patent No. 897964
'VYhtwphj'
Canadian Patent No. 897964
OFTEN IMITATED BUT NEVER SURPASSED
SERVING THE FISHING INDUSTRY FOR 25 YEARS
QUALITY NYLON FISHING NETS
Gillnets available from stock — most sizes • Gillnet Floats     • Seine Floats: 301R and 150R • Seine Web: Salmon and Herring • Toksei Rope, Corklines — soft, medium, hard • Hanging twines and mending twines • Grundens rain wear
VISIT OUR WAREHOUSE AND VIEW OUR STOCK
iNS-PACIFIC TRADING CO. LTD.
3600 Viking Way, Richmond, B.C. V6V 1N6
'•X'.
					
<					
					
y					
• Map shows federal position on equidistant line off Juan de Fuca, with proposed provincial position well south on the canyon line. In the north, federal position curves south from AB line, while provincial positions head north to maximize Canadian benefits.
270-8011
270-8011
CZX C=X <£X <£=x
It is this agreement in principle on equidistance that makes Wang optimistic an agreement is possible.
The equidistance principle means the boundary is drawn along a line that is exactly midway between the coasts of the two countries. In the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Wang says, the Canadians and Americans differ only very slightly on where that line is.
In Dixon Entrance, Canada wants to start its equidistant line from Cape Muzon, the A end of the AB line. The U.S. wants an equidistant line right from the coast, abolishing the AB line and taking over prime Canadian fishing territory in Dixon Entrance.
But Wang sees hope in the fact that "again there is common ground between the two governments on the principle of equidistance."
In both cases, he said, "Canada's position is without prejudice and we have reserved the right to change our position after the east coast decision." (Final decision on the east coast is to go to an international tribunal.)
In subsequent discussion, Halsey, McRae and Sid Dickens, of the Prince Rupert Co-op, pointed out that:
• Canada's equidistance principle gives away massive chunks of Canadian fishing territory forever;
• interim agreements, far from protecting Canadian fishermen, have been greeted with outraged protest; and
• no matter how much Canada may say its position is without prejudice, the existence of the equidistant line on Canadian charts will suggest to international tribunals that this is what we will accept.
Halsey, who reviewed the B.C. position, noted that the federal Juan de Fuca boundary "has major implications for interception. The federal boundary slices through the Prairie Ground a traditional fishing area.
"In the north, it seems to us that any shift northwards (of the federal boundary) would benefit the traditional interests of B.C. fishermen. Any southward drift could jeopardize interception of our salmon."
Halsey rejected the idea that an interception agreement (being negotiated the next week in Lynnwood, Wash.) would make the boundary meaningless. "The interception agreement would ease boundary problems but a boundary agreement will be more enduring.'
Using charts and federal fisheries statistics, Halsey demonstrated that the federal position gives away long-standing Canadian fishing grounds without a fight.
The equidistance principle need not be rigidly followed he said. In the south, a line drawn along the Juan de Fuca canyon would protect historic Canadian fishing areas by using an ecological boundary that appears to divide some stocks.
In the north, the province proposed four different options it felt would better safeguard B.C.'s interests. All are north of the median line and all assume the AB line will be maintained.
McRae pointed out that, from a legal standpoint, there is no requirement for Canada to argue for equidistance. Any boundary must be fair and equitable to both sides, he said, and a line that is equidistant but victimizes one party will not necessarily be upheld in court.
In fact, Canada has abandoned the equidistance principle in the Beaufort Sea, where its implementation would give the U.S. vast oil and gas reserves.
McRae said that in his view the B.C. position both in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Dixon Entrance had legal merit and could be argued in a court with a fair chance of victory.
There is legal precedent, he said, for an argument that the Alaska Panhandle constitutes a "special circumstance" making nonsense of a normal equidistant boundary. Canada believes Cape Cod is a similar case on the east coast. Its use in an equidistant line gives the U.S. a major share of our fishing grounds.
When Dickens slammed Wang for the halibut treaty which negotiators "forced down the throats" of Canadian advisors, Wang admitted the deal "was not deemed an ideal outcome."
But he and Applebaum argued "it was the best that could be accomplished."
Can the federal government really do better than the equidistant line? Wang hammers away at his "without prejudice" theme, but admits "you can never really start from scratch.
"There are trade-offs and it's not easy to get unanimity. Someone will have to take an overall view and weigh what is in the Canadian interest and what is in the interest of B.C. fishermen and a judgement will have to be made."
Judging from the subsequent resolutions, most at the meeting felt the judgement has already been made.
THE FISHERMAN — OCTOBER 24, 1980/7
39