Commons Debate on Bill S -17
with which we are concerned at this time are those to be used in the Newfoundland-Cape Breton area. I believe, and the Conservative party supports the principle, that the base line should be drawn from cape North to St. Paul's island and then to cape Ray in Newfoundland. A base line should also be drawn from cape Freels, Newfoundland, to cape Bauld and then to Labrador. This action would seal off the valuable fisheries resources around Bonavista-Twillingate—and this should be of considerable interest to another maritime member, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Fickersgill)—
Mr. Priiiie: Winnipeg.
Mr. Crouse: —Notre Dame bay, and especially the fishing banks in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Bradell bank near the Magdalen islands, Orphan and Natashquin cod banks off Quebec, Centre bank off Labrador and the banks around Anticosti island, would all be protected. Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating that we draw an iron curtain between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but I sincerely believe that, if the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence are classed as Canada's national inland waters, it will be the greatest forward step taken toward conservation of our fisheries resources in the history of this nation. This action would provide a giant spawning ground for all types of fish, and it would come entirely under the control of the Canadian government.
Since most of the sealing operations are also conducted in this area, it would also give the Canadian government complete control over this industry, which has been very much in the limelight during the past few months as a result of the methods used to catch the seals. There should be little objection raised by other nations to these changes, because they would indirectly benefit from our conservation measures. At present any conservation measures carried out on the high seas are completely under the control of the international commission for the north Atlantic fisheries. When we consider the pressure placed upon the ships operating on our offshore banks to bring back suitable catches, it is questionable whether they are following the recommendations of the commission. We must remember that some of these countries fish for food while we fish for profit.
Some evidence has been submitted that would indicate that' fishing nets have been used with a mesh so small a sardine could not escape. We cannot, as Canadians, enforce regulations governing the methods to be used for catching fish on the high seas. However, if we seal off the gulf of St. Lawrence as a giant spawning area, and classify this large body of water as Canada's national waters, the offshore banks will eventually benefit from our conservation measures.
As I stated earlier, the co-ordinates to be used when implementing this measure are of vital importance, not only to the future of our fishing industry but also to about nine international air lines which are concerned at the immense powers granted to this government or to future governments by this bill. As clause 5 of Bill No. S-17 now reads, the government could by order in council establish geographical co-ordinates which are far out in the ocean. This, of course, would cause international repercussions and would be difficult to enforce, but in the meantime great damage would be done. As this bill is now worded, notwithstanding the fact that its prime purpose is to assist the Canadian fishing industry, it could have a very serious effect on the operation of foreign international air lines flying across the north Atlantic ocean outside of the present territorial jurisdiction of Canada.
Canadian law on the subject of the operation and control of aircraft is set forth in the federal Aeronautics Act. The extent of this Canadian law is defined in the key operative sections of the act, which are sections 3 and 4. In each of these sections, in so far as foreign aircraft are concerned, the extent of the Canadian control is limited to flights over Canada and the territorial waters of Canada. This is consistent with international law and international conventions that have been entered into and to which Canada has been a signatory. Also under international law the territorial waters of a state—for the purposes of aeronautical law have been restricted to the customary three miles from the shore line. While the width of the territorial sea will still remain three nautical miles under this bill, I would point out that the inward point of measurement has been altered. The new definition of a territorial sea adopts the straight base line system for the purpose of measuring the width of the territorial sea at any given point on the coastline of Canada.
But where are these base lines to be drawn? This is what the bill states in clause 5 (1), (2) and (3), and I should like to place it on record:
(1) The governor in council may, by order In council. Issue one or more lists of geographical co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined and may, as he deems necessary, amend such lists.
(2) In respect of any area for which geographical co-ordinates of points have been listed in a list issued pursuant to subsection (1) and subject to any exceptions in the list for the use of the low water line along the coast as the base line between given points, base lines are straight lines joining the consecuUve geographical co-ordinates of points so listed.
(3) In respect of any other area and until such time as geographical co-ordinates of points have, for such other area, been listed In a list issued pursuant to subsection (1). base lines remain those applicable Immediately before the coming into force of this section.
It is in the method of determining the geographical co-ordination of points as outlined in clause 5 that the problem will arise in so far as its applicability to the Aeronautics Act is concerned.
These co-ordinates, Mr. Speaker, are to be determined by the government by order in council. As I read the bill, there are no restrictions setting forth any method to be followed in selecting these points; in fact, a particular point could be a fixed location on water.
The minister of external affairs has stated that it was not possible to divulge the geographical co-ordinates that will be chosen in order to establish the location of the straight base line because of pending negotiations between the Canadian government and the governments of other affected countries.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): Does my hon. friend not agree with that?
Mr. Crouse: But he says: "Have patience, I am optimistic that everything will work out right, even though we have not yet been able to settle all outstanding questions, and in certain areas our points of view do not coincide".
This bill, Mr. Speaker, tells us nothing about the future territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada. The government has to date made no commitment, and they can fix the geographical co-ordinates wherever they see fit, whenever they see fit. This bill is as indefinite as the pensions bill. It is as indefinite as the redistribution bill to fix the boundaries of our constituencies. It is as indefinite as the flag issue. It is as indefinite as everything which this government has brought before the house.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): May I ask my hon. friend, having in mind that he represents fishermen, whether he disagrees with the course the government is following? Would he answer that question?
Mr. Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer any question as soon as I have finished my remarks. My time is limited and I gave the minister a few minutes of my time last evening. Clause 5 as presently worded—
H. J. ROBICHAUD
Liberal
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; in order to keep the debate in order is it according to the rules of the house to discuss a bill clause by clause on second reading?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not my understanding that the hon. member is discussing the bill clause by clause. I understood he was discussing the general principle of the bill, although I concede it is very difficult to do this without referring sometimes to specifics in the bill. I do not feel that the hon. member was out of order.
Mr. Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As section 5 is presently worded, one geographical co-ordinate could be taken on Sable island. Sable island is Canadian territory and is located approximately 100 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia. If this was done, an area approximately 100 miles wide off a great part of the Nova Scotia coast would be considered to be Canadian territorial seas for the purpose of the Aeronautics Act, and would make foreign aeroplanes flying over this area subject to Canadian jurisdiction. It is important to note that at present many foreign aeroplanes flying between the eastern United States and Europe pass through the air space lying between Halifax and Sable island. As the minister is no doubt aware, these aeroplanes leaving New York fly above the coast of Nova Scotia near a point in Newfoundland, and thence across the Atlantic to European destinations.
The present government might quite properly deny that they had any intention of using Sable island as a geographical coordinate. However, as clause 5 is now worded, any future government could make such a choice by order in council without having to come back to parliament for amending legislation. If this came to pass, it can readily be seen how this could cause international complications; and I believe the naming of these co-ordinates at present would assist the government—and this is the answer to the question put to me a moment ago by the minister of external affairs—rather than delay the negotiations as suggested by the minister.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): My hon. friend has not studied this matter carefully.
Mr. Crouse: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope these suggestions will be given careful consideration by the minister and that he will spell out the geographical co-ordinates in order to provide a clearcut picture of the benefits of this bill to the Canadian fishing industry and the aeronautics industry; and by removing the veil of secrecy, improve the international relations between Canada and other countries.
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse). He has referred to the recommendations made by the fisheries council of Canada, an organization which represents the Canadian fishing industry from coast to coast. As was stated by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he introduced the bill, the discussions which have taken place so far with the ten countries interested in fishing in Canadian waters or in proximity to the Canadian shore, were based on the representations which were made to the government on January 28, 1963 by the council.
On April 20 of this year, while the fisheries council of Canada was having its annual meeting in Charlotte town, I had the opportunity of meeting the executive of this council. I want to state to the house that I received unanimous approval from the fisheries council of Canada of the action being taken by the government with regard to the 12 mile limit.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has made reference to Russian, Spanish and Portuguese vessels which will be fishing in proximity to the Canadian shore even though the 12 mile limit is introduced. It is true that they will have the right to fish outside of the 12 mile limit, and there are a number of fishing banks located outside of the 12 mile limit which are being frequented not only by Canadian fishermen but by fishermen from a number of foreign countries.
But the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who is familiar with the fishing industry and has a personal interest, also knows that the 13 countries represented on the international commission of the north Atlantic fisheries, including all the countries operating on these banks which have been referred to by the hon. member, are subject to certain regulations and conventions for the conservation and preservation of our fisheries. This year the annual meeting of the international commission of the north Atlantic fisheries will take place in Hamburg during the month of June.
The hon. member has referred to the seal operation. As I have stated in the house before, and we have given notice already to this effect, we want the seal fishery of the north Atlantic outside of the.12 mile limit to come under the protocol to ICNAF in order that we can have regulations which will be observed for the preservation and conserva tion of the seal herds which mean so much to a large number of fishermen of the Atlantic coast.
When this bill was before the other place a representative of the fisheries council of Canada answered a number of questions asked him by members of the other place and he stated that they were satisfied with the action taken by the government. In one breath the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says that we are going too far. He is
afraid of retaliation by our friend;; and neighbours, the Americans. In the next breath he says we should define immediately all the coordinates. The fact is that we have been negotiating on a 12 mile limit for the last seven or eight months. We have had a number of meetings with different countries, and it was generally agreed by the Canadian representative and the representatives of the other countries involved that it would not be proper to take a unilateral position now by defining specifically what the co-ordinates should be.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced in the house on June 4 last that it was the intention of the government to take action, he made it very clear that such unilateral action would be taken after discussions with the countries involved. I should like to quote part of the last paragraph of his remarks, as found on page 621 of Hansard, in which he said:
He also called attention to the "historic" and treaty ashing rights of the U.S.A., and I assured him—
He Is referring to his meeting with the late President Kennedy at Hyannis Port:
—that these rights would be taken into account-Discussions will be held with the United States with a view to determining the nature and extent of the U.S.A. rights and interests which may be affected by the acUon which Canada is taking. Discussions will also be opened as soon as possible with other countries affected, and it is our hope and belief that we will be able to reach agreement with such countries on mutually satisfactory arrangements.
This is the position that Canada has taken after having been unsuccessful in obtaining a multilateral agreement on the law of the sea. I am not complaining because the previous government could not succeed in obtaining such agreement. They were not alone in this regard. There were a number of other countries in the same boat. But when we saw it was impossible to come to such an agreement, in order to prevent powerful foreign countries such as the U.S.S.R., Japan and others establishing historic rights which are recognized internationally and then having to deal with those countries as we are dealing today with other countries that really do have such historic rights, we decided that the time had come for Canada to take action, and we have notified the countries involved accordingly.
Negotiations are now under way. We have completed the first phase of negotiations and we are convinced that we will arrive at a satisfactory agreement. In order to do this it was important that the government should not only make known its intention to proceed with the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone but that it should be given proper, enabling legislation which would provide the government of the country with the power to proceed with the establishment of such a zone.
Mr. Crouse: Would the minister permit a question?
Mr. Robichaud: Certainly.
Mr. Crouse: He mentioned a moment ago that the resolution was being brought in in accordance with the recommendation of the fisheries council of Canada. In checking their brief I note that on page 7 of the proposal by the fisheries council they urge the government of Canada, having reached an understanding with the United States and France and having determined a policy with regard to other nations not having historic rights with Canada, to then make a unilateral declaration. In view of that recommendation would the minister tell the house why the legislation was brought in before these negotiations were completed?
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries council of Canada made it very clear that it was their intention that Canada should make a unilateral declaration with regard to Canadian national waters and a straight base line, once an understanding had been reached with France and the United States, and they also refer in another part of the brief to other countries. This is exactly what we have been doing. We have met here with representatives of these countries. We have met with them on different occasions and we have made known to them what our intentions are. We have made known to them that it is our intention to arrive at some mutual understanding on these matters. Later in my remarks I will answer more directly the question just asked by the hon. member.
I will not attempt in my reply to deal specifically with all the points which have been raised so far in the debate. Most of these questions were answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he introduced the bill "for second reading. Furthermore, as the bill will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries there will be further opportunity to go into a detailed examination of its provisions.
Although there are objections from the other side of the house, there seems to be support in principle at least for the action of the government, and the differences that have arisen have to do chiefly with the means of achieving the objectives sought by the bill now under discussion.
One of the main obj ections, which has been raised by several hon. members, refers to the fact that authority is given to the governor in council to determine the points from which straight base lines may be drawn, without any indication having been given as to how the government proposes to exercise this authority. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has already indicated that the recommendations of the fisheries council of Canada, which are very explicit on this point, are being used as a basis for current negotiations. Our only aim, our main aim, is to arrive at an agreement which will assure our own fishermen of the best protection possible while respecting international understanding and the good relations which Canada has with all countries in the world, particularly with our neighbours to the south.
Mr. Douglas: May I ask the minister a question?
Mr. Robichaud: Yes.
Mr. Douglas: Would he agree that the house would be in a better position to pass this legislation if the actual co-ordinates were known so we would know that the minister's statement had been carried out and that the lines drawn actually did safeguard the interests of our fishermen, rather than leaving it to legislation by order in council?
Mr. Robichaud: I tried to make it clear earlier that although the co-ordinates are not specified in detail, I am sure every member of this house who is interested in this legislation has read the brief presented by the fisheries council of Canada and has seen the maps which were attached to that brief. As I said earlier, these arc the lines that we are using as a basis for our negotiations.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, the Prime Minister stated that we intended to take this unilateral position after discussions witli the countries involved. If we have met with some objections, some of these objec tions might be based exactly on certain of these co-ordinates. But I want to assure hon.
members of this house that we have token a definite stand on this matter, and this might be one of the reasons our negotiations are taking so much time. We are endeavouring to come to a mutual understanding which wc all agree will facilitate the implementation of this legislation.
I should like at this time to refer to the report of the federal-provincial conference on fisheries development which was held last January here in Ottawa, and at which the ministers responsible for fisheries development in all the provinces participated. The report states, and I quote:
The provincial representatives unanimously support the action of the government of Canada to protect our fisheries through the establishment of a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone measured from a straight base line from headland to headland and inclusion of such waters as the bay of Fundy, the gulf of St. Lawrence. Dixon's entrance, Queen Charlotte sound and Hecate strait as Canadian territorial waters.
How much clearer can I be at this time?
Mr. Howard: May I ask the minister a question?
Mr. Robichaud: Yes.
Mr. Howard: May I ask him whether those waters to which he referred in his quotation from the report of the federal-provincial conference on fisheries, the bay of Fundy, the gulf of St. Lawrence, Dixon's entrance. Queen Charlotte sound, and Hecate strait, will be contained within the 12-mile fishing zone?
Mr. Robichaud: I just want to repeat what I have said earlier. This is the position that Canada is taking. This is the basis of our discussions with the countries involved.
Mr. Howard: But the minister is not at this time saying that these waters will be contained within our fishing zone?
Mr. Robichaud: I am not in a position to determine at this time what action will be taken two months or three months from now when the negotiations have been completed. The government will then be in a position to take a definite stand. As has been stated by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as soon as this legislation is passed, as soon as we are able to come to an agreement for certain areas, it is the intention of the government to proceed immediately.
I am sure every hon. member will understand that there could be some international problems created in certain areas. I cannot determine now exactly what position will be taken before negotiations are completed. But I want to assure the house that the position that we are taking now, the position we have placed before the other countries, is based on the statement I have just read from the report of the federal' provincial fisheries conference. I want to repeat that these recommendations of the fisheries council and of the provinces are the basis of negotiations with the countries whose fishing interests would be affected by the Canadian action.
Mr. Olson: Will the minister permit a question?
Mr. Robichaud: I wonder if after this question further questions could be delayed until I conclude my remarks?
Mr. Olson: Can the minister indicate how long the government is going to continue these negotiations with other countries who are interested before Canada does take the unilateral action he says is going to be taken?
Mr. Robichaud: I want to make it clear, as has been made known, that we are proceeding immediately to complete negotiations with these countries. We expect to meet with them as soon as possible. The fishing zones will be applied immediately after proclamation, but in so far as Canada taking action towards those interested countries is concerned, we have made it clear that this will be done after our negotiations are completed.
I cannot determine now exactly what the results of such negotiations will be. As I have said, some countries may have stronger objections than others. Some countries may not agree to the proposals that we have placed before them. But I have every reason to believe that the final negotiations, the final agreement will be satisfactory to all interested in the fishing industry. There are some hon. members who have taken the position that negotiations with other countries should have been completed before the introduction of this bill.
In this connection, I would point out that this would be normal procedure if conventions were being negotiated with these countries. I could give as an example the Columbia treaty. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already pointed out, this method has been tried by successive Canadian governments since about 1956 and it has not been possible to get an agreement on a multilateral basis. We are now proceeding, therefore, on a different basis. We have a unilateral approach coupled—I want to clarify this—with arrangements of agreements with countries being affected by our action. This unilateral approach would be ineffective without having the appropriate legislation to carry it out. A delay in this legislation would weaken our position and make our negotiations much more difficult. It would do nothing else but result in an indefinite delay. We are, therefore, trying to avoid as much delay as possible so that we can have the 12-mile limit implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. Chatlerton: Will the minister permit a question?
Mr. Robichaud: I would prefer when I am through with my remarks, but I will allow this one now.
REMINDER
When You ft^T"? Need Money \aT^*/s^
B.C. Collateral
77 E. Hastings St. MU. 1-3557
REMMEM BOAT WORKS
BOAT BUILDERS & REPAIRS 9563 Gunderson Rd. 584-5434 R.R. I, New Westminster
Mr. Chatlerton: Can the minister say how the passage of this bill will assist in the negotiations?
Mr. Robichaud: That is what I have been trying to explain for the last five minutes. We want to show that this government has the power, as authorized by the parliament of Canada, to proceed with this unilaterally, which it is our intention to do. This is what this bill will do, and at the same time it will take care of certain other acts which have been mentioned, and which are included in the second part of the bill.
It will also establish a different approach so far as the territorial sea is concerned. It is true the territorial sea will be limited to three miles, but instead of following the sinuosity of the coast the territorial sea will be based on a three mile area, on a line drawn from headland to headland, and this alone would be of tremendous protection to our inshore fisheries.
Mr. Barnett: The minister has been arguing that the passage of this bill at this time would strengthen the position of the government in negotiations. I would like to ask him why he considers that it would not further strengthen our negotiations if the bill specifically set out the demarcation lines?
Mr. Martin (Essex East): Because you would be giving your whole case away.
Mr. Robichaud: If the bill were specific on every co-ordinate how could we deal with countries that are interested? It would mean nothing else but that we were taking a unilateral position notwithstanding what the results would be, and we have to deal with many countries, some of which have treaty rights, others have historic rights, and others again claim historic rights, which we may not agree they have.
This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to come to mutual agreement with those countries on those points which are being raised in the negotiations.
There js another point I should like to deal with, and which has been raised by some hon. members. It is to the effect that certain factions of the industry, particularly the united fishermen and allied workers union of British Columbia, have been denied the opportunity of making their views known on the subject. To this I can say that as far as the government is concerned the views of the united fishermen and allied workers union have been made known on several occasions.
We had representations on this subject by mail, and a brief was submitted by the union to the federal-provincial conference last January. I am also certain that most of the members of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and particularly those representing the British Columbia constituencies, have been duly informed about the British Columbia fishermens unions position.
Furthermore, there will be an opportunity of hearing any group interested in presenting its views when the bill is referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries following the second reading. I want to assure the house that if this particular group so desires, it will be made possible for them, subject to a decision of the committee, to appear and express their views on the matter.
Again I want to refer to the concern expressed earlier by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) in relation to our traditional fisheries markets, particularly in the United States. Seeing that the interests of the United States fishermen in the areas affected by the establishment of the 12 mile fishing zone and straight base lines are being fully recognized, and I would hope my hon. friend agrees with me on this position, it is difficult to see how the question of retaliation by the United States should even arise.
At this point I may add that in many areas on both coasts, on the Pacific coast and on the Atlantic coast, our own Canadian fishermen are also concerned about certain privileges which they would like to retain in United States waters.
Mr. Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the minister to have that assurance on the record. I hope that in my remarks I made it quite clear my concern was for the east coast fishing industry where 70 per cent of the catch must be sold in the United States. I am very grateful to the minister for his indication that concurrence has been reached with the United States, that they will continue to fish in the traditional waters in which they have always fished, and that there is no possible chance of retaliation from the United States over this.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is right.
Mr. Crouse: I am pleased to hear the minister agree with me on this subject.
Mr. Robichaud: National interest and international good will are to be considered in establishing new extended limits along our Canadian coastlines. While Canada is spending what it does for conservation, for the propagation of species, the extension of the limits to 12 miles and the establishment of a fishing zone seem to me to be sound business. It is, in fact, the kind of action which can be expected by other countries in similar positions. Under these circumstances the more amicable road of negotiation seems desirable and preferable. What we are doing now is to Introduce by unilateral action what it has been impossible to achieve, as I said earlier, by international or multilateral convention.
Continued on Page 12
MARINE SHEET METAL
Tanks - Stacks ■ Mufflers •
STABILIZERS for
Gillnetters - Trollers •
STAINLESS STEEL
GALLEY and COMMERCIAL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT
W. A.' Thorn
Sheet Metal Works Ltd.
MU. 4-4541 1770 W. Georgia Vancouver
THE FISHERMAN - June 5, 1964
11