Memorial of Canada

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION

OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE A.REA

(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

VOLUME I
Special Agreement; Memorîal of Canada

COUR INTERNATIONDE JUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
.DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME

DANS LA.RÉGION DU GOLFE DU MAINE
(CANADA/ÉTATS-UNID'AMÉRIQUE)

VOLUME l
Compromis; mémoiredu CanadaMEMORIAL OF CANADA

MÉMOIRE DU CANADA[1-6] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 29

SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO SlJBMIT TO A CHAMBER

OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE THE DELIMITATION OF THE
MARITIME 80UNDARY IN THE ÛULF OF MAINE AREA

[See supra, pp. 10-16] [7-11] 31

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY CANADA

INTRODUCTION

1. This Memorial is filed in accordance with the Court's Order of
2
J February 19821,as varied by an Order of 28 July 1982 extending to 27
September 1982 the time-Jimit for the filing of the Memorials of both
Parties in this case, whîch was brought before the Court on 25 November
1981 by the notification of a Special Agreement.

The Dispute

2. The subject of this dispute is the course of the single maritime
boundary dividing the continental shelf and fishing zones of Canada and

the United States in the Gulf of Maine area. The dispute centres
primarily on the rich fishing grounds and potential hydrocarbon resources
of Georges Bank, a large detached bank seaward of the Gulf of Maine,
off the coastsof Nova Scotîa and Massachusetts.

3. The maritime boundary daims of the Parties, as they stood
upon the conclusion of the Special Agreement on 29 March 1979, are
illustrated in Figure 1. Point "A" in this illustration, where the two
0
daims first intersect, is situated at 44" 11' 12" N, 67° 16' 46" W and is
the point at which the adjudicated boundary is to begin in accordance
with the question set out in Article li of the Special Agreement. From
Point "A" to Point "B", the second point of intersection, there is an area
of just over1,000 square nautical miles between the two lines that has not

been claimed by either Party. The United States has exercised fisheries
jurisdiction over this unclaimed area since 1977, pending establishment
of the maritime boundary 3•

0 4. Figure 2 shows the two claimed lines with the addition of
bathymetric features that illustrate certain contours of Georges Bank. It
will be noted that this Bank lies at some distance to seaward of Point
"B", where the two claimed lines diverge to create a broad area of ocean

space that is subject to competing daims by the Parties. Beyond Point
"B", the nearest distance between the United States claimed line and
Canadian- land is 62 nautical miles; the nearest distance between the
Canadian claimed line and United States land is 94 nautical miles.

1 /.C.JReports 1982,p.15.
' l.C.JReports 1982,p.557.
J See ~Maritime Boundaries Between the United States and Canada". United States
Department of State, Public Notice No. 506. PublishFederal RRgis1eVol. 41, No.
214, 4 Nov. 1976, p. 48620. This notice contained in its Fol the following state­
menl:
"In view of the fact that the claimed boundaries published by the United States and
Canada would leave an unclaimed area within the Gulf of Maine, the United States
will exerciitfisheries management jurisdiction to the Canadian-clline wherc
that lîne îs situated eastward of the United States-cline, until such time as a
permanent maritime boundary with Canada is established in the Gulf of Maine."
See Annexes to the Memorial Submitted by Canada, Vol. Il, Annex 30. 32 GULF OF MAINE
[12-14]

00 5. The daims illustrated in bath Figures / and 2 are those that
were defined and published by the Parties in connection with the creation
of their 200-mile fishing zones, in circumstances explained in paragraphs
223 to 245 of this Memorial. These daims, however, are applicable to the
continental shelf as well.

0 6. Figure 3 shows how the Canadian line has been constructed. It
is an equidistance line on which every point is an equal distance from
basepoints on the coasts of the two Parties4•The landward portion of the
line is controlled throughout by the nearest point of land on each coast,
including a number of off-lying islands and low-tide elevations. In its
outer reaches, however, for reasons which are fully explained in para­
graphs 342 to 356, a basepoint located at the north end of Cape Cod

Canal bas been used instead of the attenuated coastal projection of Cape
Cod and the offlying islands of Nantucket and Martha 's Vineyard.

7. The Canadian line allocates Jess than half of Georges Bank to
Canada. The United States line, on the other hand, would allocate the
entire Bank to the United States. That line appears to follow certain
superficial features of the seabed topography, proceeding from basin ta
basin in the Gulf of Maine itself and hooking around the northeastern
rim of Georges Bank. lt then crosses over a sill near the edge of the
physical continental shelf and extends beyond that point to where it
meets a short segment of an arc that defines the seaward limit of the 200-
mile fishing zone as claimed by the United States.

8. The present dispute, whose evolution is more fully outlined in
Part I, Chapter IV, first began to emerge in the context of the continental
shelf. Both Canada and the United States are parties to the 1958 Conti­
nental Shelf Convention. Canada first issued offshore oil and gas explora­

tory permits for the Gulf of Maine area in the mid- l960s. The equidis·
tance method which Canada applied in issuing these permits was
accepted by the United States authorities with respect ta this area, and
the permits remained in effect without challenge for a substantîal period
of time. The United States, however, ultimately changed its position and
took issue with the jurisdiction exercised by Canada. Late in 1969 the
United States "reserved" its position in regard to the area that is now in
© dispute and had formally claimed it by the mid-l 970s. Figure 4 depicts
the outstanding continental shelf hydrocarbon permits and leases granted
by Canada and the United States. Canadian permits are shown in blue,
United States leases in green.

9. The dispute took on a new dimension in 1977 when the two
Parties extended their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles in

accordance with the consensus reached at the Third United Nations Con­
ference on the Law of the Sea. The 200-mile zone established by each
Party at that time gives effect to the essential provisions negotiated at the
Conference with respect to the conservation and utilization of the living

• These basepoints are described in paragraphs 334-341 and 352-356. {15-16] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 33

resources of the exclusive economic zone The manner in which the sea­
ward limits of these zones have been established is depicted in Figure 5.
© Both Canada and the United States have used arcs of circles for this pur­
pose, drawn with a radius of 200 miles from contrai points on the coast.
Figure 5 also shows the location of these contrai points, as well as the
©
arcs defining the seaward limit of each zone; those of Canada are
depicted in red and those of the United States in black.
10. Beginning in 1969, a number of attempts were made to settle
this dispute through negotiations, first in its initial phase and later in îts
current form encompassing both the continental shelf and the 200-mile

fishing zones of the Parties. These attempts were unsuccessful. Accord­
ingly, on 29 March 1979, the Parties signed a treaty providing for the
judicial seulement of the dispute. The treaty originally formed part of a
broader seulement that included a permanent agreement on the manage­
ment and equitable sharing of the living resources of the Gulf of Maine
area: the Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources, also signed on 29
March 1979. The original intention, reflected in the provisions of both
instruments, was that the boundary adjudication treaty and the fisheries
agreement would enter into force together or not at all. The United
States, however, failed to ratify the fisheries agreement. lt was with­
drawn from the United States Senate by President Reagan in early 1981.
Canada subsequently agreed to ratify the adjudication treaty despite its
separation from the fisheries agreement by the unilateral action of the
United States. Instruments of ratification of the treaty, amended in order

to omit any reference to the fisheries agreement and to make certain
other technical changes, were exchanged on .20 November 1981 and the
Special Agreement annexed to the treaty was duly notified to the Court
on 25 November 1981. 1

The QuestionBeforethe Court

11. Under Article II of the Special Agreement the Court is
requested to decide, in accordance with the principles and rules of inter­
national law applicable in the mauer as between the Parties -

". . . the course of the single maritime boundary that div-idesthe
continental shelf and fisheries zones of Canada and the United
States of America from a point in latitude 44° 11' 12" N, longitude
67° 16'46" W to a point to be determined by the Chamber within
an area bounded by straight lines connecting the following sets of
geographic coordinates: latitude 40° N, longitude 67° W; latitude
40° N, longitude 65° W; latitude 42° N, longitude 65° W".

5 Both Can~da and the United States entered into a series of bilateral agreements with
States engagingin distant-water fisherîes off their respective coasts, establishing an
agreed basis for the implementationhe new regime of extended jurisdiction. Each ser­
ies of bilateral agreements incorporated the basic framework for the management of the
living resources of the 200-mile zone that was set out in the negotiatîng texts of the Law
of theSea Conference, and that is now contained in the Convention on the Law of the
Sea. This framework includes, in particular, the authority of the coastal State with
coastal State, the coastal State's determinationharvesting capacily, and the alloca­ the
tionof the surp[us of the allowable catch to foreign fleets. 34 GULF OF MAINE [17]

As already noted, the starting point for the determination of the single

maritime boundary as specified in this provision of the Special Agree­
0 ment is Point "A" in Figure l. Recause this point is over 20 nautical
miles from land, the delimitation of the territorial sea is not at issue in
the present case.

12. The Court in its discretion may fix the seaward terminal point
of the single maritime boundary at any point in the triangle defined in
00 Article II of the Special Agreement and illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
There is no other significance in the use of this device or in the configura­
tionof the triangle itself; it was chosen simply as a convenient, neutral
technique that accomplishes the task of indicating clearly where the
adjudicated boundary is to end. The triangle encompasses the terminal
pointsof the publîshed boundary daims of both Parties, as well as the

arcs of circles defining the seaward limit of the 200-mile fishing zone of
each Party between the two terminal points. It thus provides a ready
means of permitting a boundary to be established throughout these 200-
mile zones beyond Point "A".

13. The terminal points of the 200-mile boundary daims of the
Parties lie at a water depth of about 3,000 metres. The continental shelf,
however, extends beyond the seaward limits of the triangle to the outer
edge of the continental margin as defined either in purely physical terms
or according to Article 76 of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea'·.
Itis primarily for this reason that Article VII of the Special Agreement
contemplates a further extension - "as far seaward as the Parties may
consider desirable" - of the maritime boundary to be decided by the
Court and also provides for binding third-party settlement if the course of
such a seaward extension cannot be fixed through negotiation.

14. In purely juridical terms, the special character of this case lies
primarily in the concept of a "single maritime boundary" posited in
Article IIof the Special Agreement. This boundary wîll reflect the geo­
graphical unity of the fisheries and continental shelf jurisdiction that the
Parties now exercise beyond the territorial sea to the 200-mile limit. Its

determination accordingly requires consideration of some of the most
fundamental concepts that have emerged from recent developments in the
law of the sea.
15. The Special Agreement, moreover, looks beyond the status
quo. By the terms of Article III, the single maritime boundary to be

established will be applicable as well to other forms of sovereign rights
and jurisdiction in this area: rights and jurisdiction that could encompass
any further matters brought within c<iastalState authority under the new
regime of the exclusive economic zone, but that may not necessarily form
part of the jurisdictîon now exercised in the Gulf of Maine area by

• !981. The convention was adobyethe Third Conference on the Law of the Sea on 30st
April 1982. The final text,r, is not avai!able at this lime.[18) MEMORIAL OF CA!jJADA 35

Canada or the United States 7• This factor too confers a special signifi­
cance upon these proceedings.

16. In more concrete terms, the range of factors in issue gives this
case a unique human immediacy and .economic importance. For the first

time, the Court is asked to direct its attention to the full panoply of sover­
eign rîghts and jurisdiction that coastal States may now exercise in the
area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea with respect to the living
and non-living natural resources of the seabed and subsoîl and the super­
jacent waters. The case thus brings together the promise of the continen­
tal shelf and the known abundance of the fishe.ry: the economic prospects

that the shelf may offer in years to corne and the present livelihood of
coastal fishermen and the welfare of the communities they sustain.

' the 200-mile zone, under, for instance, theOcean Dumping Contrai Act, Statutes oft within
Canada !974-75-76, chap. 55. The United States Clean Water Ac/ of 1977, Public Law
No. 95-217, 91 U.S. Statutes at Large 1566, 1593-94, declared United States policy that
there should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances that might affect "natural
resources belonging to, appertainin10.or under the exclusive management authority of
the United States (including resources under the Fishery Conservation and Management
Ac1 of 1976)". The legislation authorized measures to prohibit harmful discharges that
may affect United States resources, including those of the 200-mile zone. See 33 United
States Code, Section l32! (b)(2)(A), (b)(3) and (cl( l). 36 [19-23]

PARTI. THEFACTS

CHAPTERI.GEOGRAPHY

Section I.Physical Geography

17. The Special Agreement of 29 March 1979 refers in its title
and preambular paragraphs to the "Gulf of Maine area". ltis clear from
the question put to the Court in Article II of the Special Agreement that
this "area" encompasses the Gulf of Maine itself and an outer area that
includes Georges Bank.

18. The Gulf of Maine area -isb1rdered by the two regions repre­
sented 2y the Maritime Provinces of Canada and the New England
© States of the United States. As shown in Figure 6, the essential juxtapo­
sition of these regions is east-west and the land boundary between them
runs generally in a north-south direction. The longest part of the land
boundary in this sector follows this course for 152 kilometres.
19. The macrogeographic context isÏllustrated in Figure 7, which
0
utilizes the Lambert conformai projectioni. Although the Atlantic coast
of North America has a general northeast to southwest orientation, there
are two distinct directional trends. The first trend may be approximately
defined by a line from Cape Race, Newfoundland, through Cape Sable
and Cape Cod to Long Island, New York. The second trend may be
approximately defined by a line from Long Island, through the eastward
protrusion of the United States mainland in the vicinity of Cape Hatt­
eras, to the southeastern extremity of the Florida peninsula at Miami. lt
can be seen that the North American landmass northeast of Long Island
faces in a south-southeasterly direction onto the Atlantic Ocean, while
southwest of Long Island the continental landmass faces east-southeast.

20. The Gulf of Maine is a great anvil-shaped indentation of the
coast between the province of Nova Scotia on the northeast and the state
of Massachusetts on the southwest. It is surrounded on more than three
sîdes by land and on its seaward side by relatively shallow submarine
© banks. Figure 8 shows the coasts of the Gulf of Maine area and the major
geographic features that characterize it:
(a) on the Canadian side - the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia on the Bay of Fundy and the coast of Nova Scotia, fringed by
islands and facing southwest, south, and southeast onto the Gulf of
Maine and the Atlantic Ocean;
(b) on the United States side - the coast of Maine, fringed by islands
and facing southeast onto the Gulf of Maine, and the coasts of New

' Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
2Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Vermont.
iThe Lambert conformai projection is a conic projection where meridians appear as
straight linesnverging at the apex of a cone. A straight line on this projection closely
approxima tes the line described by a great circle, which is the shortest distance, along the
sthe scale distortion inherent in a chart based on the Mercator projection.ion eliminates[24] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 37

Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island facing east and south­
east onto the Gulf of Maine and the Atlantic Ocean;
(c) on the seaward side - the shoal areas off the southwestern coast of
Nova Scotia, including Browns Bank, and the Nantucket Shoals off
the southeastern coast of Massachusetts, with Georges Bank
between them.

21. The Canadian coastline within the Gulf of Maine extends in a
general northeasterly direction from the Canada-United States boundary
in Passamaquoddy Bay, along the southern shore of New Brunswick
within the Bay of Fundy, to a point near the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia
border at the head of Chignecto Bay, the northeastern extremity of the
Gulf of Maine. ltthen runs southwest until it rounds Cape Chignecto and
turns eastward to the head of Minas Basin. The coastline then extends
generally southwestward, along the smooth shore of Nova Scotia inside
the Bay of Fundy to Brier Island. There it turns and runs southeast to
Cape Sable. At Cape Sable the coastline turns and extends in a north­
easterly direction along the Atlantic shore of the Nova Scotia mainland
and Cape Breton Island to Cape Breton, following the general directional
trend of the North American coast. The coastline of Nova Scotia from
Brier Island to Cape Breton is rocky, deeply indented and fringed with
numerous islands and rocks.

22, The United States coastline in the Gulf of Maine extends
southwestward from the Canada-United States boundary in Passama­
quoddy Bay, along the shore of Maine to Cape Elizabeth. While this
stretch of coast is deeply indented and fringed with many islands and
rocks extending well offshore, its general configuration follows a straight
line. At Cape Elizabeth the coastline turns somewhat to the south and
curves southwestward along the shores of southern Maine, New Hamp­
shire and Massachusetts, passing around Cape Ann and along the shore
of Massachusetts Bay to Boston, at the southwestern extremity of the
Gulf of Maine. It then turns to the southeast and passes along the shore
of Cape Cod Bay to the isthmus of the hook-shaped protrusion of Cape
Cod, where it turns sharply to the east. After rounding the elongated
point of the book, it falls away to the southwest along the underside of
Cape Cod, through Nantucket Sound and along the southern shores of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Long Island, New York, following the
general northeast to southwest orientation of the North American coast­
line. The United States coastline from Cape Elizabeth to Cape Cod,
although marked by several headlands and shallow embayments, presents
a generally smooth front to the sea.

23. · On the seaward side of the Gulf of Maine is a shallow rim
which lies off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, between
Cape Sable and Cape Cod. This rim is formed by a series of banks and
shoals, pierced by two relatively shallow depressions on either side of
Georges Bank: the Northeast Channel, about 250 metres deep, separating
Georges Bank from Browns Bank and the shoal areas off southwestern
Nova Scotia; and the Great South Channel, about 80 metres deep, sepa­
rating Georges Bank from the Nantucket Shoals off southeastern Massa­
chusetts. Georges Bank is a large, detached, oval-shaped bank defined by
the Great South Channel and the Northeast Channel and variously by38 GULF OF MAINE [25-26]

either the 50-fathom (91.4 metres) or 100-fathom (182.8 metres) con­
tours to the north and south.
24. The Atlantic continental shelf of North America from Nova

Scotia to the Florida Keys bas been described in terms of four physio­
graphic "provinces" in a paper published by the United States Geological
Survey in 1968:
"Along most coasts the continental shelf is a broad and fairly
smooth platform extending from shore to the top of the continental
slope. In the area from Nova Scotia to the Florida Keys, however,
the shelf is more complex and displays a great diversity of topo­
graphie forms. On the basis of relief and depth of water, the shelf
bas been divided into the following provinces: Scotian Shelf, a com­
plex surface of shallow banks and deep basins, off the coast of

Nova Scotia; Georges Bank, an area characterized by parallel
shoals and troughs and separated from the Scotian Shelf by North­
east Channel and from the East Coast Shelf by Great South Chan­
nel; Gulf of Maine, a rectangular depression off the New England
coast; and the East Coast Shelf, a shal4ow platform extending from
Nantucket Island to the Florida Keys .''

Browns Bank and the shoal areas off southwestern Nova Scotia form part
of the "Scotian Shelr' province, while the Nantucket Shoals off south­
western Massachusetts form part of the "East Coast Shelf' province.
Thus the province of Georges Bank is framed on two sides by these two
provinces, and on the third side by the province of the Gulf of Maine.
(See Figure 13.)

25. The Gulf of Maine itself bas an average depth of 150 metres.
Its floor consists of a series of shallow basins separated by low sills and
flat-topped banks. The deepest of these basins, Georges Basin, bas a max­
imum depth of 377_metres below sea level.
26. Apart from Nantucket Shoals and shoals on the western and
northern parts of Georges Bank, the seabed topography of most of the
Gulf of Maine area presents no hazards to navigation. Browns Bank and
the eastern half of Georges Bank are freely navigable. Vessels approach­
ing Boston and Portland from the north and east cross Browns Bank and
the Northeast Channel on their final course to port. Vessels approaching
Saint John from the north and east pass close to Cape Sable and then

proceed to the Bay of Fundy. Vessels approaching Boston or Portland
from the south utilize the Great South Channel, where the traffic separa­
tion scheme illustrated in Figure 9 is in effect. Vessels approaching Saint
John from the south have the choice of utilizing the Great South Channel
or traversing the northeastern portion of Georges Bank on a direct course
to the Bay of Fundy, where a traffic separation scheme is also in effect.
27. On its northwestern side the Gulf of Maine measures 288

nautical miles from the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick border at the head
of Chignecto Bay to Cape Elizabeth on the coast of Maine. From Brier

4 Elazar Uchupi: Atlanric Continental Shelf and S/ope of the United Siates - Physiogra­
phy. United States Deparlment of the lnterior, Geofogical Survey Professional Paper
529-C. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968, pp. C3, C5.[27-28] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 39

Island on the coast of Nova Scotia to Cape Ann on the coast of Massa­
chusetts, where the inner Gulf begins to merge with the open Atlantic, is
a distance of 206 nautical miles. On its seaward side, from Cape Sable to
Cape Cod, the Gulfis 213 nautical miles wide.
28. The length of the Canadian coastline froni the Canada-United
States boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay, around the Bay of Fundy and
along the southwestern coast of Nova Scotia to Cape Sable is 287 nauti­
cal miles. The length of the United States coastlîne from the interna­
tional boundary to Cape Cod Canal is 299 nautical miles>.There is thus
an approximate equivalence between them.

29. The coast of Maine and the Bay of Fundy coasts of New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia face the inner part of the Gulf of Maine and
are relatîvely distant from Georges Bank. These physical facts are ref­
lected in the economic relationship of the coastal communities to specific
marine areas. The fishermen of Maine, New Brunswick and of the Fundy
coast of Nova Scotia (except Digby county) do virtually no fishing on
Georges Bank. Instead they fish in nearby areas within the Gulf.

30. The coasts of New Brunswick and Maine follow a generally
straight line as they diverge to the northeast and to the southwest from
the Canada-United States boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay. Moving sea­
ward, the relationship of the coasts takes on elements of oppositeness as
between Grand Manan Island (New Brunswick) and Maine and then as
between Nova Scotia and Maine.

31. Still further seaward, Nova Scotia and Massachusetts face.
each other directly across the Gulf of Maine. The relationship of the
Nova Scotia coast from Brier Island to Cape Sable, on the one side, and
the Massachusetts coast from Cape Ann to Cape Cod, on the other sicle,
is therefore clearly one of oppositeness. From Cape Sable and Cape Cod
respectively the Canadian and United States coasts diverge to the north­
east and to the southwest.
32. Georges Bank lies off the relatively nearby coasts of Nova
Scotia, both northwest and northeast of Cape Sable, and of Massachu­
setts, both northwest and southwest of Cape Cod. The adjacency of these
coasts to Georges Bank is reflected in the relatîonship between the fishery
resources of the Bank and the coastal communities shown in Figure 10.
Virtually ail Canadian fishing on Georges Bank is conducted from com­
munities on the coast of Nova Scotia between Digby and Lunenburg. Vir­
tually ail United States fishing on Georges Bank is conducted from com­
munities on the coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island from
Gloucester to Newport.

33. The general symmetry of the coasts of Nova Scotia and Mas­
sachusetts relative to each other and to Georges Bank is broken by the
aberrant protrusion of Cape Cod and the offlying islands of Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket. Cape Cod protrudes some 57 kilometres eastw
ward into the Gulf of Maine from the southeast corner of Massachusetts.

' Coastal lengths have heen calculated "according to their general direction" on the basis
of straight baselines and notional straight base!ines constructed in a parallel fashion on
both coasts in keeping with the provisions of Article 4 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on
the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. See Sea Cominental Shelf Judgment,
l.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 52, para. 98.40 GULF OF MAINE [29)

Its area is 1,063 square kilometres. The outer arm of Cape Cod runs
almost north-south and is about 53 kilometres long, with an average
width of only 5 kilometres. The inner Cape Cod arm runs east-west and is
about 50 kilometres long and 12 kilometres wide, but increases in width
to the west, where it forms the head of Buzzards Bay. The Cape Cod
Canal cuts across the neck for a distance of 15 kilometres, connecting
Buzzards Bay with Cape Cod Bay. This sait-water canal has a minimum
bottom width of 146 metres and represents an important corridor for
navigation. Cape Cod is largely formed of glacial deposits; it has been
modified by marine erosion and is still under attack by the sea.

34. The island of Martha's Vineyard, which bas an area of 261
square kilometres, lies 3 nautical miles south of the western part of Cape
Cod. The island of Nantucket, which bas an area of l23 square
kilometres, lies 15.75 nautical miles south of the outer Cape Cod arm.
Like Cape Cod, these islands are largely formed of glacial deposits.

35. In summary, the essential juxtaposition of the Maritime Prov­
inces and the New England States is east-west and the land boundary
between them runs generally in a north-south direction. The Atlantic
coast of North America runs in a general northeast to southwest direc­
tion, and northeastward of Long Island the continental landmass faces
south-southeast onto the Atlantic Ocean. The "Gulf of Maine area"
encompasses the Gulf of Maine itself, as well as Georges Bank and the
nearby coasts of the Parties facing the Atlantic. The coasts of New
Brunswick and Maine face the inner part of the Gulf of Maine. The rela­
tive distance of these coasts from Georges Bank is reflected in the
absence of any significant economic link to the fisheries of the Bank. The
coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts face each other from opposite
sides of the Gulf of Maine and also face the Atlantic Ocean northeast of
Cape Sable and southwest of Cape Cod. Georges Bank lies off these
coasts between Cape Sable and Cape Cod. lts adjacency to these coasts is
reflected in the economic connection between the fishery resources of the
Bank and the coastal communîties of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts.
The general symmetry of the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts
relative to each other and to Georges Bank is broken by the exceptional
protrusion of Cape Cod and its offlying islands.

Section II. Po.litical Geography

36. The territorial boundary that separates New Brunswick and
Maine has had a long and difficult evolution but has always followed an
essentially north-south line. It is the oldest portion or the present Canada­
United States boundary and derives from the exp6oration of the mouth of
the St. Croix River by de Monts in 1604-1605 •
37. Seventeenth-century French settlement in Acadia (the
present-day provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince

' Article 5 of the Jay Treaty of 1794 between Great Britain and the United States estab­
lished a commission to identi River St. Croix which the Trea ty of Paris of 1783 bad
fixed as the boundary between Nova Scotia and the United States. lt was the remains of
a settlement built by de Monts in the early seventeenth century that enabled the St.
Croix Commission to confirm the true identity of the river in 1798.[30] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 41

Edward Island), which resulted from expeditions by de Monts, Cham­

plain, Poutrincourt and others, was accompanied or soon followed by the
abutting and conflicting territorial daims of Great Britain. In 1606,
James I of England granted a charter to the Plymouth Company which
allowed îtto form settlements on the Atlantic coast of North America,
includîng present-day New England. In 1621, under the Sea! of Scotland,
he issued a grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander. The territo­
rial extent of this grant coincided roughly with that of Acadia. lts west­
ern boundary, the establishment of which had a profound effect on the

eventual determination of the line divîdîng Canada and the United
States, is described in the 1621 charter as -

"... the river generally known by the name of St. Croix, and to the
remotest springs, or source, from the western side of the same,
which.empty into the first mentioned river; thence by an imaginary
straight line which is conceived to extend through the land, or run
norrhward to the nearest bay, river, or stream emptying into the
great river of Canada [St. Lawrence]: and going from that east­
ward along the low shores of the same river of Canada 7 •••".
(ltalics added.) ·

The grant to Sir William Alexander did not lead to the establishment of
permanent British settlements in the territory, which was rcstored to
France by the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye of 1632.

38. Great Britain and France were in dispute over their territorial
possessions in North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth cen­
turies. For much of this period the two countries were at war and the
more populous New England colonies, particularly Massachusens, pur­
sued an aggressive policy against Acadîa. From 1654 to 1755 they under­
took eight military expcditions against the capital at Port Royal and the

major fortifications at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island.
39. In 1713, by the Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of the

Spanish Succession, France yielded up the whole of Acadia, except Cape
Breton Island and Prince Edward Island. The scope of this cession was
disputed when France later argued that Acadia did not extend to the
mainland portion of its Atlantic tcrritories that lay outside the Nova
Scotia peninsula. The British maintained that the ancient limits of
Acadîa extended to both sicles of the Bay of Fundy and southwestward
along the coast of the Gulf of Maine. It was their view that ail this terri­
tory had therefore been ceded by France under the treaty.

40. The final disposition of French territorial interests in thîs part
of North America was made by the Treaty of Paris of 1763 under which
ail of Canada and its dependencies, încluding Nova Scotîa and Cape
Breton, were ceded to Great Britain. In the same year, 1763, a commis­

sion was issued to Montagu Wilmot as Governor of Nova Scotia. lt
defined the western limit of his jurîsdiction as fol!ows:

"... although our said Province has anciently extended and does of
right extend as far as the River Pentagoet or Penobscot, it sha!l be

7 E. F.Slafter:Sir William Alexander and American Calonlzarion. Boston, The Prince
Society,1873,.p. 129. 42 GULF OF MAINE [31)

bounded by a line drawn frorri Cape Sable across the entrance of

the Bay of Fundy to the mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said
River to its source, and by a fine drawn due north from thence to
the southern boundary of our Colony of Quebcc 8".([talies added.)

41. The use of a due north line was perpetuated in the Treaty of
Paris of 1783, which marked the end of the War of American lndepen·
dence. Article 11described the boundary between the British and United
States territories as being, in part -

"... From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that angle
which is formed by a fine drawn due north, from the source of
Saint Croix River to the Highlands, along the said Highlands
which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St.

Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean ... a line
to be drawn a!ong the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth
in the bay of Fundy to its source .•..". (Italics added.)

42. At this same time thousands of American colonists loyal to
the British crown settled the St. John River Valley. Because of the arrivai
of the Loyalists, the British Government divided the colony of Nova
Scotia in 1784 and created a new colony of New Brunswick on the north·
cm shores of the Bay of Fundy. The exact location of the boundary
bctwcen New Brunswick and the United States was still not îdentified

and differcnccs soon arose over the înterpretation of Article Il of the
1783 Treaty of Paris. These differences were slowly resolved by bilateral
commissions established under the Jay Treaty of 1794, the Treaty of
Ghent of 1814, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, and the Treaties
of Washington of i908, 1910 and 1925.

4J. As the foregoing account demonstrates, the French colony of
Acadia and the British colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, on
the one hand, and the British colonies ih New England, on the.other, have
always had an cast-west juxtaposition; divided by an essentially north·
south !ine intersecting the source of the St. Croix River. The present

boundary between Canada and the United States resulting from thîs
© early hîstory is illustrated in Figure 6. 1

44. lt should be recalled here that both Canada and the United
States are fedcral States, wîth constit.utîcins that apportion law-making
powcrs between two levels of government. Nova Scotia was one of the
four self-governing colonies that joined to form the Canadian federation
in 1867. Itwas the first of hese colonies to obta in its own represen tative
assembly, in !758, and the first to achieve responsible government, in
1848.

45. In the case of the United States, the continental she!f and
fîshery resources beyond the territorial sea are subject to federal rather
tha n state jurisdict ion. 1n Canada jurisdiction over fisheries Iîes with the

fedcral government. Although the issue of jurisdiction over the resources
of the continental shelf has not been finally resolved betwecn Canada and
Nova Scotia, the federal government and the provincial government

8 J.White: Boundury Dispu1esand Treaties.Toronto. Glasgow, Brook & Company, !914,
p. 755. ------ ---------~

[32-33] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 43

reached a political settlemerit on 2 March 1982 with a 42-year agreement
on offshore oil and gas resource management and revenue sharing 9•

Section III. Social Geography

46. The "Maritime Provinces" are aptly named. Here, in the con­
verse of the legal maxim, the sea dominates the land. Nowhere is this
more true than along the Canadian coasts that border the Gulf of Maine

area, where the economy and the way of life are irrevocably tied to the
resources of the sea.

47. Halifax is the major Canadian city of the area. With a popu­
lation of about 265,000, including its suburbs and sister city of Dart­
mouth, it is Atlantic Canada's largest urban centre and Jeading port, and
serves as headquarters for the Canadian Forces Maritime Command and
the Maritime Air Group. Not far down the coast from Halifax lies south­

west Nova Scotia, the area most heavily dependent upon the resources of
Georges Bank. This area comprises the five counties shown in Figure J/:
Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby.

48. The most strikîng aspect of the pattern of settlement in south­
west Nova Scotia is its overwhelmingly coastal character and the empti­
ness of the hinterland. It is very largely a rural area; the population is
strung out in a multitude of small communities interrupted only occasion­

ally by slightly larger towns like Lunenburg, Yarmouth and Digby. Well
over a hundred of these settlements are historically linked to and cur­
rently dependent upon the fishery - often to the exclusion of virtually
any other source of economic sustenance. The transportation network
teflects this coastal orientation: the major highways and all-season roads
seldom venture far from the sea, and only two of the highways eut

through the interîor to link the southwestern shores to the Annapolis Val­
ley. (See Figure 11.)

49. It is nature as much as history that bas dictated this pattern
of development in southwest Nova Scotia. The deeply indented coastline
îs ideal for small fishing harbours, but the land itself is stony and poor,
and most of the soils in the five-county region are unsuitab!e for agricul­
tural purposes. While the greater part of the region is covered with conif­
erous forest, the glacier-scraped terrain severely restricts productivity and
forestry potential is limited. Only in eastern Digby county and parts of

Lunenburg county does the land begin to offer greater agricultural pro­
mise.

50. The rural character of southwest Nova Scotia is borne out by
the statistics. About 70 percent of the population is classified as rural,
and almost 95 percent of this rural population was further classified as
"non-farm" in the 1976 census results 10•The total population of the five
counties is about 120,000 and only about a quarter of the population
resides within the nine smalI towns of the region. Yarmouth, with about

7,800 inhabitants, îs the largest of these.

• Canada-Nova Scolia Agreement on Offshore Oil_and Gas Resource Management and
Revenue Sharing, 2 March 1982. See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 48.
'" See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section Ill, Annex 27. GULF OF MAINE (34)
44

51. Two signs of the general impact which the post-war expansion
of the offshore fishery has had on the area may be found in the popula­
tion statistics. First, there has been a rise in the young adult population
- people jn their twenties - from a level of about 10 percent in !961 to
over 15 percent in 1976. The change suggests that greater numbers of
young people are pursuing their livelihoods and establishîng their families
in the five counties; unlike earlicr generatîons, they are Jess înclined to
leave the area in search of work. Sccondly, between the years 1951 and
1971, while there was a dramatic decline in the already small farm popu­

lation, the non-farm population residing in rural arcas increased by
almost 58 percent, reversing the population outflow of earlier years.

52. What industrial employment exîsts, apart from the fishery
and forestry and activities dependent upon those two sectors, is mainly to
be found at the large Michelin Tire plant in Brîdgewater, Lunenburg
county. The rapid industrial expansion generated by the tire plant at
Bridgewater (current!y the most rapîdly growing community in Nova
Scotia) is the major exception to the generally maritime and resource­
based character of the regional economy. The on!y other signîficant
departure from the pattern is a textile plant at Yarmouth.

53. Lunenburg county is perhaps the single area most dependcnt
upon the Georges Bank fishery in terms of the volume and value of its
landings. The general character of the îndustry here is relatively concen­
trated and capital-intensive, though not by any means to the exclusion of

smaller-scale undertakings. The county has the largest fleet of offshore
vessels exceeding 30 metres in length, many of them owned and operated
by National Sea Products Ltd. to supp!y its large and modern plant at
Lunenburg town. Further to the southwest - particularly in Shelburne
county, the area closest to Georges Bank, whose economic base is almost
totally dcdicated to the fishery - the industry is dominatcd by small ves­
sels and plants dispersed throughout the many small fishing villages scat­
tered along the coast. Digby, Queens and Yarmouth counties fall some­
where between these two extremes in the size of the fishery undertakings
they accommodate.

54. But even with the comparatively high degree of concentration
in Lunenburg county's fishing industry, the employment benefits are dis­
tributed throughout a radius of 50 to 75 kilometres from Lunenburg
town. The labour is mobile, but the families stay put. The trawlermen

and plant employees continue, by and large, to maintain their famîly
homes in the smaller communîties throughout the area. Thus the industry
depends upon a regional labour market rather than on one localized in
the trawler ports. lt is a pattern that !ends stabîlity and cohesion to doz­
ens of villages wîth no apparent interest in the fishery.

55. The ethnie character of the southwestern counties is far more
varied than in most other areas of Nova Scotia. Only Shelburne county is
homogeneous, with the vast majority of its population claiming ethnie
affilia tîon to the British Isles. ln Queens and especially in Lunenburg, a
large segment of the population is of German origin, descendants of Ger­

man soldiers who received land grants from the British in the eighteenth
century. Acadians constitute upwards of 40 percent of the population in
Yarmouth and Digby counties, concentrated at the extreme western end[3S] MEMORJAL OF CANADA 4S

of the province. Accordi ng to the 1971 census, over a quarter of Yar­
mouth county residents and well over one-third of the Digby county
population reported French as the language most often spoken at home.
S6. East of Digby county on the Fundy shore (and outsîde the

five-county area), there is a gradu?l change in the character of the land
and its economy. The Annapolis Valley provides some of the best farm
acreage in Nova Scotia, and the economy is far Jess dependent on the sea.
But the maritime character of the area is by no means lost. A series of
fishing villages along the western two-thîrds of the Annapolis coast pro­
vides harbours for a substantial number of fishing vessels. These vessels,
Iike those of Maine and of New Brunswick, concentra te their efforts upon
the fisheries of the inner Gulf of Maine, includîng the Bay of Fundy.
They do not now habitually resort to Georges Bank, although there is evi­

dence that fisheries were conducted on the Bank from Parker's Cove in
the early part of this century. Further up the coast in the eastern
Annapolis Valley, Kings county, and along the Minas Basin and Chig­
necto Bay, the tide-swept reaches of the upper Bay of Fundy provide a
less hospitable environment for the fishery; but even here an inshore fish­
ery is maintained.

57. The Fundy coast of New Brunswick is limited in its agricu\­
tural productivity. The local economy is dominated by forestry, fishing
and the industry and trade of the port city of Saint John. Charlotte
county, facing Passamaquoddy Bay at the western end of New Bruns­
wick, has the most substantial fishery of the area, with about 40 percent
of the province's offshore vessels and a sizeable inshore fleet as welL The
New Brunswick fîshing îndustry of the Passamaquoddy and Fundy coasts
relies primarily upon the resources of the inner Gulf of Maine - espe­

cially the herring and lobster that typify the commercial fisheries of the
inner Gulf on both sides of the border. Although Georges Bank does not
figure prominently in the New Brunswick fishery, some vessels (espe­
cially those of Campobello Island and Grand Manan Island) make occa­
sional trips to the Bank.
S8. Saint John county, further to the east on the Fundy shore of

New Brunswick, is dominated by Saint John itself, New Brunswick's
largest city wîth a population of around 115,000. The county's contribu­
tion to the fishery is slight compared tothat of Charlotte county, but it
does maintain a Oeet of well over a hundred boats that engage primarily
in the inshore fisheries of the Bay of Fundy. The pattern of coastal
development along the upper Bay of Fundy on the New Brunswick side is
not dissîmilar to that of the Nova Scotia coast across the Bay. The
coastal waters with their powerful tides are Iimited in their productivity,
but they do susta in a mîxed inshore fishery. ·

59. There is a marked similarity between much of the coast of the
state of Maine and the adjoinîng part of the New Brunswick coast; both
areas (apart from the city of Saint John on the Canadian sîde and the cit­
ies of Rockland and Portland on the United States side) are largely rural
and sparse\y settled, and dependent mainly upon forestry and fishing.
Neither Maine nor New Brunswick are significant centres for the

Georges Bank fishery. Along this entire stretch of coastline, the prevail­
ing character of the fishery is esscntially the same in its reliance upon the
relatively nearby waters of the Gulf of Maine itself.46 GULF OF MAINE [36]

60. The general patterns of fishing by vessels of the state of

Maine have been described as follows by an American scholar:
"NM FS [National Marine Fisheries Service] 1975 statistics indi­
cate that somewhat Jess than 1 percent of Maine's catch in both
dollars and pounds was taken in,the Georges Bank area. Tradition­
ally, Maine fishermen work inshore grounds from small vessels and

boats. Larger vessels, concentrated in the ports of Rockland and
Portland, venture farther afield but Georges Bank contributes only
some 5 percent to their catche.s ... since offshore fishing in Maine
usually means the Gulf11f Maine and the smaUer banks to the
northeast of Georges ."

61. At the southwestern end of the Maine coast the landscape
begins to change, and with it the economy: the rocky and indented coast
gives way to shelving beaches and the transition to the milder climate of
southern New England begins. This part of Maine and the short coastal
strip of New Hampshire are more industrialized and populous than east­
ern Maine and are supported by a highly developed tourist industry more
than by the resources of the sea. Southwestern Maine and New Hamp­
shire do not make any substantial us_eof Georges Bank.

62. lt is only in Massachusetts, as the industrial conurbation of·
Boston is approached, that the Georges Bank fishery begins to take on
any significance for the United States. But in contrast to the situation in
Nova Scotia, ·where the Georges Bank fishery is dispersed among many
coastal communities, the New England fishery on the Bank is concen­
trated in the ports of New Bedford, Gloucester and Boston. The Massa­
chusetts fishery, again in contrast to that conducted across the Gulf in
southwest Nova Scotia, is insignificant in the context of the dense and
urbanized population of Massachusetts, with its industrialized and diver­
sified economic base. On Cape Cod, the commercial fishery is dwarfed by
a rich recreational and retirement-based economy. The New England
coast with a direct interest in Georges Bank extends beyond Massachu­
setts only to a small portion of the Rhode Island coast, to Newport and,
to a \esser extent, Point Judith 1 •

63. ln a sense, then, the social geography of the area underscores
the purely physical configuration of the coasts. Those portions of the
coastline that face upon the inner part of the Gulf of Maine are charac­
terized by a fishery that is largely directed to the resources of that inner
area. It is from the coasts of southwest Nova Scotia and Massachusetts in
closer proximity to Georges Bank that the fishery on the Bank is largely

conducted. But here the symmetry stops, for the contrast between the
one-dimensional, fishery-based economy of southwest Nova Scotia and
the diversified and highly urbanized character of Massachusetts could
hardly be more pronounced.

11 S. Olsen: Fishing and Petroleum Interaction on GeorgesBank. Energy Program Techni­
eal Report 77-1. Boston, New England Regional Commission, 1976, p. 98.
12 Final Supplement to Environmental Statement. Proposed 1979 Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas lease Sale Offshore 1heNorth Atlantic States. (OCS Sale No. 42.) United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, U.S: Gov­
emment Printing Office, 1979, p. 116.[37] 47

CHAPTER II. THE OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT

Section 1.The Continental Shelf

A. PHYSJOGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY

64. The physîcal continental shelf of eastern North America
fringes the continent and extends from Baffin Bay in the north to Florida
in the south. Together with the continental slope and rise, it makes up the
continental margin of eastern North America, which in the prescnt
Memorial is referred to as "the Atlantic continental margin". This Atlan­
tic continental margin is a continuous, uniform and uninterrupted physio­
graphic structure, marked of course by certain secondary features as a

result of glacial and nuvi;il action, and constituting the submerged natu­
ral prolongation of the North Amerîcan landmass into and under the
Atlantic Ocean.

65. 'The continental shelf descends gently seaward from the
Canadian and United States coastlines ail along the castern coast of
North America (at an average inclination of about 2 metres per
kilomctre) until the seaward limit of the shelf is reached at an approxi­
mate ocean depth of 200 metres. The seaward limit of the shelf is marked
by an abrupt change in gradient - the shclf edge or shelf break - wherc
the slope begins to descend more stceply (at an inclination of about 75
metres per kîlometre or 4 degrees). This shelf edge is located well within
the 200-mile limit of the Parties. lt is the most pronounced physical fea­

ture of the submerged land mass ma king up the Atlantic continental mar­
gin, includîng, of course, the margîn in the Gulf of Maine area, and îs an
important unifying feature from northeast to southwest. The continental
slope continues to depths of approximately 2,000 metres, where it mergcs
with the continental rise. From the base of the slope, the continental risc
descends at a more graduai rate to merge with the abyssal plain of the
deep ocean noor beyond the seaward limîts of the Parties' 200-milc
zones.

66. The abrupt change in gradient at the shelf break scparatcs the
continental shelf from the continental slope. The slope is steepest in its
upper part and together the slopc and rise form an escarpmcnt-like fea­
ture a!l the way along the Atlantic continental margin. This bold frontal
face is best revealed by vertical exaggeration, as Figure 12 illustratcs. lt

must be understood, however, that such visual aids are necessary to per­
mit appreciation of this continuous and important physiographic feature.
In reality, ifthe ocean were drained, the continental shelf would appear
as Oat as the Canadian prairies. Even the continental slope, or frontal
face of the margin, descends at a gradient barely noticeab!e to a cydist.

67. Although the continental shelf is relativcly flat, it is not com­
pletely featurelcss, and it is possible to recognizc certain broad "prov­
inces" or areas within which there is a fair degree of physical similarity.
As noted in paragraph 24, four such physiographic provinces can be
identified off the mid-Atlantic coast of North America (illustratcd in
Figure J3): 48 GULF OF MAINE [38,39]

(a) the Scotian Shelf province, off the Canadian coast to the northeast
of Georges Bank;
(b) the East Coast Shelf province, off the United States coast to the

southwest of Georges Bank;
(c) the Georges Bank province;
(d) the Gulf of Maine province, to the north of Georges Bank.

These provinces have been innuenced by the extent of glaciation and
fluvial erosion of the Atlantiè continental margin, the shelf to the north­
east being scoured into basins and banks, while the shelf to the southwest,
beyond the Nantucket Shoals-Great South Channel area, consists largely
of an unglaciated offshore plain of low relief.

68. The topography of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine
area is characterîzed by banks and basins that represent secondary fea­
tures produced very late in geological time. The most important of these,
Georges Bank, is separated from the East Coast Shelf province to the
southwest by the Great South Channel and from the Scotian Shelf prov­
ince to the northeast by the Northeast Channel. Both these depressions
are superficia! features produced on the uppermost Jayers of the sedimen­

tary wedge by recent (in geological time) nuvial and glacial erosion.
Shoal areas of Georges Bank are other surface features·that have resulted
from glacial deposition and subsequent marine erosion in recent geologi­
cal tîme.

69. The geomorphic processes that produced the present-day
topography of the Gulf of Maine area are both complex and diffîcult to
explain fully in terms of cause and effect, given the changes that have
occurred over the course of millions of years as a result of the periodic
risîng and wîthdrawal of the sea in relation to the shore-line. What fol­
lows is a brief summary of the major geomorphic events during the very

late geological stages that came after the basic evolution of the Atlantic
continental margin, including the Gulf of Maine area. These and other
significant elements in the geological evolution of the area are summa­
rized in Table 1.

70. In the Pliocene epoch (5.5 to 1.8 million years ago) the sea
level of the Atlantic dropped and river systems draining the landmass in
the present Gulf of Maine area eut their way across the exposed Atlantic
Coastal Plain - the broad sedimentary structure that now constitutes
the Atlantic continental margin. One of these systems incorporated the
waters of the Merrimack and Kennebec Rivers in present-day New
Hampshire and Maine and flowed to sea through a valley that is now the
Great South Channel. A second system incorporated the Penobscot River

of Maine, the St. Croix and St. John Rivers of New Brunswick, and
drainage from the Bay of Fundy and parts of Nova Scotia, such as the
Shubenacadie River, and was discharged through a second valley that is
now the Northeast Channel1. The emerged area between these valleys
formed what was to become Georges Bank. Other early drainage systems
appear to have crossed the Atlantic Coastal Plain off Long Island (the

' See R. N. Oldale and E. Uchupi: The Glaciated Shelf Off Northeastern United States.
United States Department of the lnterior, Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-B.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970,pp. B167-Bl13.[39,41] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 49

ancestral Hudson River) and near the junction of the Grand Banks and

Scotian Shelf (the ancestral St. Lawrence River).
71. Beginning in the Pleistocene epoch (about 2 million years

ago), massive glacial ice sheets ground down across the North American
continent from northern Canada in several cyclical waves of advance and
retreat, the last advance culminating about 20,000 years ago. In its fur­
thest advance the glacial mass reached the edge of the continental shelf
off the coast of Nova Scotia and at least the northern portion of Georges
Bank, scouring the seafloor of the Gulf of Maine, which had already been
eroded by fluvial systems in the Pliocene epoch. The present depth and

U-shape of the Northeast Channel resulted from modification of the river
valley by such glacial erosion. Evidence suggests that another lobe of ice
scoured the area of the Great South Channel2. Sand, grave! and mud
scooped by glaciers out of depressions inside the Gulf of Maine were
deposited under and in front of the Ieading edge of the ice mass and were
left behind when the glaciers receded.

72. Each time an ice sheet formed on land, it required water to be
withdrawn from the sea, with the result that sea level fell, exposing much

of the shelf to fluvial and subaerial activity and, eventually, to the possi­
bility of glaciation. When the glaciers melted and retreated, water was
returned to the sea, which advanced over the shallow areas of the shelf
once more. When the last ice sheet began serious retreat 15,000 to 16,000
years ago, sea level rose along the Atlantic margin, covering Georges
Bank and other adjacent banks in the Gulf of Maine area. The Great
South Channel (and to a lesser extent the Northeast Channel) was par­

tially 3illed with sediment washed in off the adjacent banks by the rising
waters • On the tops of the banks, the sand, grave! and mud dumped in
front of the glaciers were reworked and redistributed as grave! deposits
and sand waves by the inundation of the Atlantic Ocean. The coarser
materials were concentrated on the northern half of Georges Bank. Grav­
els and sands are about equally represented in the surface sediments cov­

ering Browns Bank, while Nantucket Shoals southwest of Georges Bank
have proportionally Jess grave) and more sand. In other words, there is a
graduai reduction in the coarseness of surface materials, from grave( in
the northeast to sand in the southwest, throughout the Gulf of Maine
area.

73. This pattern of fluvial and glacial erosion, with subsequent
inundation by the sea during interglacial times, affected the whole of the
continental shelf from the area off Cape Cod and Nantucket Shoals

northeastward to Baffin Bay. The last inundation in postglacial times has
left the most recent imprint. Thus the Pleistocene epoch has been largely
responsible for the creation of the small-scale features that characterize
the seafloor topography of the Gulf of Maine area and the shelf farther
north off the coast of Nova Scotia.

2S. T. Knott and H. Hoskins: "Evidence of Pleistocene Events in the Structure of the Con­
tinental Shelf off the Northeastern United States." (Marine Geology, Vol. 6, 1968, pp. 5-
~J .
J S. T. Knott and H. Hoskins, "Evidence of Pleistocene Events in the Structure of the Con­
tinental Shelf off the Northeastern United Spp.5-43. 50 GULF OF MAINE [40)

TABLE 1
0
O>
C <(
GEOLOGICAL AGE = .. GEOLOGICAL EVENTS - GULF OF MAINE AREA
::;;>-

::, Recent .002 Nova Scotia-New England margin assumes present form
.. (Holocene) Glaciers retreat, sea waters rise over Georges Bank and rework
C surlicial sediments.
~ .01
Pleistocene Conlinentalglaciers lurther scour out Gull of Maine
ô and Northeast Channel.
(.) --- 1.8 -
0 Fluvial erosion carves out Gulf of Maine and removes
N Pliocene most of Coastal Plain cover: Northeast and Great South
0 Channels lorm as water gaps.
z 5.5
w ~ Shallow marine 10 non-marine deposilioconlinues on Gull ol Maine
(.) 1 Miocene Platform and Scotian Shell.
;;; 22
...
Oligocene Sea level drops: shell and slope build out: submarine canyons form.
38 ---
Eocene Continued marine deposilion.
54
Paleocene Renewed subsidence and marine deposition.
65
Margin uplifted: LaHave Platform and Gulf of Maine Platform eroded:
.. Late Sea rises and spreads back across area: Dawson Canyon and Wyandot
:, Cretaceous formations deposi1ed:
0 Transverse movements along Kelvin Fault zone result in New England
:il Seamounl chain .
.; 100 -
ü LaHave Plallorm and Yarmouth Arch uplilted and eroded.
Earty Sea level drops, deltas form: Missisauga and Logan Canyon
Cretaceo\.ls lormalionsdeposited.
ü 135
0 Late Jurassic Continued development ol carbonate oank with back bank Mie Mac
N lormatîon behind.
(/) 160
w u Eastern North American margin subsides: Abenaki carbOnale bank
·~ Middle Jurassic lorms close to the h1nge zone.
~ Nova Scotia and New Eng1and decouple lrom NW Alrica 10 lorm Central
~ Atlantic Ocean; Mohican formation deposited.
176 1
Early Crus1 subsides along basemenl hinge zone: Yarmouth Arcll forms;
Jurassic Georges Bank and Scolian Basins expand: shallow sait pan occupying
the depression resulls in Argo lormalion.
192
·.; Tensional crustal forces cause formation ot grabens filled by
.. continentalsedimenls. including evaporiles and volcanics: Georges Bank
-~ Triassic
,;:. and Scolian Basins form.
225 --- -----
Permian
Carboniterous 280 - Conlinenlalsediments laid down in Bay ol Fundy, Boston Basin.
ü ---
Oevonian 345
N Acadian granites intrude Appalachian. Avalon and Meguma bells.
0 395
w Silurian Meguma Seaway closes - Meguma sediments lolded and faulled.
...J -- - 430 - ------------------
et Ordovician Appalachian (lapetus) Seaway closes: Appalachian sediments
o.. lolded, laulled. intruded.
- - 500 -
Camorian Oeep water sediments laid down in Appalachian and Meguma Seaways.
570 -
60(). Avalon Plallorm rocks tolded and intruded by granite. followed
700 by seafloor spreadîng.
PRECAMBRIAN
1000 Avalon Platlorm rccks laid down in shallow sea.[41-42} MEMORIAL OF CANADA 51

B.GEOLOGY

74. The geological history of the Gulf of Maine area is of intcrest
to the extent that it helps to demonstrate the essential conti nuity and

integrity of the Atlantic continental margin as it appcars loday. An
examination of the process can give a bettcr understanding of the rcsult.
The Court, of course, is already familiar with the concepts of the theory
of plate tectonics• and will be aware that from a dynamic viewpoint there
are three kinds of tectonic boundaries where lithospheric plates internet.

These boundaries are: Iranslational or transform, whcrc the plates are
moving in opposite directions but parallel to thcir common boundary;
divergent, where the plates are moving away from (1sprcading centre
(mid-ocean ridge); and convergent, where one plate dips bcneath another
and is rc-melted by the extremcly high tempcratures found in the earth 's

rnantlc beneath the lithosphcric plates. The western side of North
America is an active margin lying close to the cdge of a lithospheric
plate. The eastern side of the continent, on the other hand, is a passive
margin in which the continental crust remained attached to the adjoining
oceanic crust fo!lowing the initial rifting. The Tunisia- Libya Continental

Shelf case concerned a continental tcrrace that had .been built on a pas­
sive margin but had in part been folded into the Atlas Mountain chain as
a resu!t of the destruction of the pre-Meditcrranean (Tethys) ocean basin
following a collision between Africa and Europe. Such complications do
not occur in the area now under considera tion; the Atlantic coast of

North America îs generally considered as the classic examplc of a passive
margin,
75. The important fact about the Atlantic continental margin in
the Gulf of Maine arca is that it has been produced by tectonic forces
that are common, in terms of time and type, from Nova Scotia to the
5
Blake Plateau off Florida , The entire margin was formed on the North
America n plate by successive stages of continental rifting, crus ta\ stretch­
ing and thinning, and associated scafloor spreading, as molten rock rose
at the mid-Atlantic ridgc to build the new ocean floor, whilc the North
American and African plates slowly but progressively separated.

76. The internai (or subsurfacc) geological structure of the rnar­
gin in the Gulf of Maine area is of scientific interest. The bascment
block, consisting of continental crust, provides the founda1ion upon which
the present-day continental rnargin was later built by sedimentary deposi­
tion. The rocks making up this continental basement block arc extremely
old in tcrms of geologieal time, the oldest having becn forrned in the Pre­
6
cambrian era (at least 600-1,000 million years ago) •Thcre are three dis­
tinct zones of ancien! basement rock in the Gulf of Maine area:

' Cominen!al Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), J11dgment. l.C.J. Reports 1982.
p. 50fL paras. 52ff_
A good description of the common tcctonic forces tha t produced the Atlantic conti ncntal
mMgin is found in A. W. Bally, A. B. Watts. J. A. Grow, W. Man,pciler.D. Bernoulli.
C. Schrciber and J. M. Hunt: Geo!ogy of Pa.Bive Co11/itie111a/Morgins. History,
Structure and Sedimenwlogic Record (With Specia! Emphasis 011the Atlantic Morgin)
Prepared forthe America n Association of Pctrolcum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting
and Atlantic Margin Encrgy Conference, Education Course Note Serics No. 19. Tulsa.
Oklahoma. AAPG. 1981.
' Sec W. H. Poole: "Plate Tecwnic Evolution of the Cam,dian Appalachian Regiun."
(Geo/ogical Sun,,•_\'of Canada. Repof/ of Activities Part B, Paper 76-1 B, 1976, pp. 113-
126): P. E. Schenk: "SouthcasteAtlantic Canada.North western Africa. and Continen·
tal Drirt.." (Canadia11Journal of Eanh Sciences, Vol. 8, 1971, pp. 1218-12; 1.)52 GULF OF MAINE [42-44]

(a) thc Appalachian geosyncline;
(b) the Avalon platform; and

(c) LhcMeguma geosyncline.
These zones or geological belts (as shown in Figure 14) run closely parai­
lei to one anothcr in a southwest-trending arc from Newfoundland to

New England, extending offshore where they become buried beneath the
sedimentary wedge. The two most relevant zones for present purposes are
the Avalon platform and the Meguma geosyncline. Rocks that appear to
be part of the Avalon platform sequence were encountered at the bottom

of one of the stratigraphie test wells drilled by a consortium of United
States companies in the central part of Georges Bank in 1976, providing
evîdence of the seaward extension of the Avalon platform from the
Canadian landmass to the area of Georges Bank • Moreover, some lead­

ing geologists considcr that the basement rocks beneath at least the east­
ern portion of Georges Bank are probably part of the Meguma belt
extending seaward from Nova Scotia •

77. To complete the geological picture of the basement black, itis
necessary to return to the concept of plate tectonics. As the North Amerî­
can and African continents began to separate due to tensional forces
associated with Atlantic seafloor spreading, the continental block sup­
porting the continental land masses was stretched and thinned white

being pulled outward in a direction roughly perpendicular to the contem­
porary North American Atlantic coastline. A prominent zone where sub­
sidence, or downfaulting, of the continental crust occurred as a result of
these outward-pulling tectonic forces has been identîfied by geophysicists.

In the Atlantic offshore area this feature is known as the "Basement
Hinge Zone", shown in Figure 15. This is a generally continuous struc­
tural feature from northeast to southwest, ail through the Atiantic conti­
nental margin.

78. A second geological feature associated with the basement
block structure is the "East Coast Magnetic Anomaly", a linear trend of
high magnetic intensity, also shown in Figure 15. This trend extends

without any major interruption from the coastal area off Nova Scotia
southwestward to the margin seaward of Florida. The geological evidence
points to the Anomaly being related to the structural zone where conti­
nental crust was stretched and where there is a transition to oceanic
crust. The important point here is that, as in the case of the Basement

Hinge Zone, the East Coast Magnetic Anomaly is evident as a geological
trend all through the Gulf of Maine area, extending from northeast to
southwest through Georges Bank. lt is also pertinent that the Anomaly
and the Basement Hinge Zone paraliel each other throughout this portion

of the Atlantic margin, and both run parallel to the general direction of
the present-day Atlantic coastline and shelf edge from northeast to south­
west.

R.V. Amato and J. W. Bcbout. cd,.: Geo/ogic and Operationa/ Summary. COST G-1
Weil. Georges Bank Area. North Ar!antic O.C.S. Unîted Siate:; Dcpartment of the
lnteriorGeological Survey Open File R~p<Jrt.Washington.U.S. Government Prînting
Office. 1980. pp. 80-268.

' L. K. Schultz and R. L. Grover: "'Geology of Georges Bank Basin." (American
Associa/ion of Petro/eum Geologists Bu/!e1iVol. 58, No. 6, Part 2. J974pp. 1159-
1168): J. A. Wade: "The Mesozoic-Ccnozoic History of the NortheasternMargin of
North America.'"(Proceedings of !01h Anm,a/ Offshore Technology ConferenceVol. J,
1978.pp. 1849-1858.)[44"47] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 53

79. As tectonic forces pulled the continental blocks apart, depres­
sions or breaks in the crustal structure appeared. These "grabens" and
"half-grabens" (separated by structurally higher blocks, or "horsts")
were produced in the basement block and were later filled with Triassic
red beds, salts and volcanics • The grabens show a marked northeast­
southwest orientation, crossing the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank,
rou$hly parallel to the present Atlantic coast of North America. They are
lastmg evidence of the direction of the tensional forces at the commence­
ment of continental rifting.

80. A feature of the basement block in the Gulf of Maine area is
a horst structure that bas been named the "Yarmouth Arch". This is a
ridge of ancient basement rock extending southwest from Nova Scotia,
plunging underneath Georges Bank in a direction transverse to the
Northeast Channel (as shown in Figure 16). The Ar.chwas formed about
200 million years ago when the continents rifted and when the continen­

tal crust was correspondingly stretched outward by tensional forces. ltis
part of the basement black that did not subside in response to the out­
ward pull of those forces. On each flank of the Yarmouth Arch there are
deep downwarped and downfaulted subsurface basins, the Georges Bank
Basin to the west and the Scotian Basin to the east. These two basins,
each some 10 kilometres deep, have been filled by a complex of Triassic
and Jurassic sediments, linked around the southwestern "nose" of the
Arch. In the later Jurassic period the Arch was overtopped by the
accumulating sedime·ntand is now buried by more than 4 kilometres of
Cretaceous and Tertiary strata that run continuously from northeast to
southwest through the Gulf of Maine area, as shown in cross-section BB'
in Figure 17. Other simîlar horst blocks occur to the west of the Georges
Bank Basin, separating a series of lesser sedimentary basins.

81. The most distinct geological discontinuity evident in the Gulf
of Maine area is the "New England Seamount Chain", a row of extinct
volcanoes extending seaward off Cape Cod in the vicinity of the Great
South Channel. Geological evidence suggests that the seamounts are
associated with a zone of crustal weakness that developed after the for­
mation of the underlying seafloor. The line of the seamounts interrupts
the northeast to southwest trend of the East Coast Magnetic Anomaly in
the area southwest of Georges Bank off Cape Cod. Scientists are not cer­
tain whether the seamounts are associated with an east-west basement
fault south of Cape Cod (known as the "40th parallel wrench fault"), or
whether there is a relationship between the seamounts and a belt of seis­
micity that extends northwestward from the area seaward off Cape Cod
through the White Mountains of New Hampshire and into western Que­
bec. What is significant here is that this chain of seamounts, disturbing
the structural integrity of the basement bJock, is found on the southwest

extremity of the Gulf of Maine area off the United States coast. (See
Figures 15 and /6.)

9R. D. Ballard and E. Ucbupi: "Carboniferous and Triassic Rifiing: A Preliminary Out­
line of the Tectonic History 1he Gulf of Maine." (Geological Socin_v of America
Bulletin, Vol. 82, 1972, pp. 2285-2302);·M. M. Gi"Mesozoii:and Early Cenozoic
Geology of Offshore Nova Scotia." (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Vol. 25,
No. 1, 1977,pp. 63-91.)54 GULF OF MAINE [47-48]

82. Overlying the basement structures of Georges Bank is the
sedimentary wedge that actually constitutes the Atlantic continental mar­
gin, From the northeast to the southwest the wedge is marked by the
same basic structural characteristics: a series of sedimentary layers made
up of saline evaporites, carbonate deposits an_ddetrital material washed
off the continental landmass and covering the continental and oceanic
basement structure. Although internai, local geological complexities are
evîdent, in its essential aspects this wedge is continuous and similar in

composition along the entire east coast of North America, thickening as
it progresses seawards to the shelf edge (seeFigure 17, cross-sections AA'
and CC'). An enormous amount of material was carried by drainage sys­
tems to build the sedîmentary wedge through age-long processes covering
some 200 million years. ln the Gulf of Maine area, as bas been described
above, the youngest of these river systems in the Pliocene epoch drained
through what today are known as the Great South Channel and the
Northeast Channel.

83. Quite obviously, it is not possible to demonstrate absolute
internai geological unity and symmetry in the geological structure of the

sedimentary wedge throughout the extent of the Atlantic continental
margin. Geological history did not leave so perfect a picture. Neverthe­
less, the wedge was constructed by a single ocean system and it displays
very important similarities of structure and stratigraphy throughout the
Gulf of Maine area from northeast to southwest. These similarities attest
to the essential continuity and integrity of the present-day Atlantic conti­
nental margin, consisting of shelf, slope and rise, which constitutes the
natural prolongation of the North American landmass into and under the
sea.

C. CONCLUSION

84. In summary, the Atlantic continental margîn îs a continuous,
uniform and uninterrupted structure, characterized by superficial topo­
graphie features resulting from glacial and fluvial action. The geologica!
history of the Gulf of Maine area began with the formation of the base­
ment structure in the Precambrian age over 1,000 million years ago. The
massive formation that is the present day Atlantic continental margîn is
the result of 200 million years of scdime-ntation. The topographie features
etching the surface of the continental shclf were produced only in recent
geological time, between 5.5 million to !ess than 5,000 years ago. They

arc mere markings on the shelf, not interruptions or discontinuities, and
can be revea!ed for illustrative purposes on!y with the aid of multiple ver­
tical exaggeration.

Section II, Hydroearbon Potential
85. Oil and gas potential is often closely related to the thickness

of the sedimcnts available for hydrocarbon generation and entrapment.
The rocks of the Atlantic margin sedimentary wedge extend across
Georges Bank and the Northeast Channel, reaching 10 kilometres in
thickness in places. ln contrast, the inner portion of the Gulf of Maine
contains only thin remnants of these' sedimentary rocks, generally kss
than 50 to l00 metres in thickness. Because of its thick sedimentary[48-49] MEMORIALOf CANADA SS

layer, Georges Bank is considered to offer reasonable potcntial for oil and
gas, while the inncr part of the Gulf of Maine is thought to have virtually
none.

86. Jthas already been noted in paragraph 80 that two major sub­
surface sedimentary basins - Georges Bank Basin and Scotian Basin -
are found beneath Georges Bank, partially separated by the subsurface

geological feature of the Yarmouth Arch. These subsurface basins are
geologically similar to the Sable Island area off Nova Scotia - also part
of the Scotian Basin - where several significant oil and gas fields have
been identified. Based on a comparison with the known geological param­
eters in the Sable Island area, the eastern half of Georges Bank is
estimated by the Geological Survey of Canada to offer a 40 percent

chance of yielding at least l,100 10llion barrels of oil and about 5.3 mil­
lion million cubic feet of gas • Whîle these amounts represent only a
small fraction of the proven reserves of the North Sea, for example, they
are nonetheless significant. The oil estimates amount to approximately
one-sixth of Canada's remaining conventional reserves. The gas would
also be a valuable resource, given the proximity of markets. Almost ail of

this potential on the eastern half of the Bank is concentrated in the west­
ern extension of the Scotian Basin.

87. In 1980, the United States Geological Survey revised its
assessment of undiscovered, recoverable hydrocarbon resources for the
"North Atlantic Shelf' region, which included the entirety of Georges
Bank. United States estimates for this area are now 4.44 million million

cubic feet of gas and 890 million barrels of oil, with a 1 in 20 chance of
recovering 13.2 million million eubic feet of gas and 2,500 million barrels
of oil11.These estimates are not incompatible with the Canadian figures
noted in paragraph 86.

88. The petroleum industry's interpretation of the hydrocarbon

potential west of the Canadian line on Georges Bank was shown by the
results of the 18 December 1979 United States Department of the
Interior Lease Sale No. 42, in whîch 63 tracts were awarded to the oil
and gas industry, with total bids of U.S. $816. S million 12•This very high
sum represents the total price that companies were prepared to pay for
the right to explore and the option to exploit discoveries; additional taxes

would be payable on the value of actual production. Ali these tracts are,
of course, located in the undisputed United States portion of Georges
Bank. While there bas been some recent exploratory drilling by corpora­
tions on this portion of the Bank, the detailed results are not available to
Canada.

10
These estimates have not been confirmed by exploratory drilling, which Canada has
refraincd from authorizing pcnding settlemcnt of the maritime boundary.
11"Preliminary Revised Estimates of OCS Oil and Gas Resources." (United States Depar.t­
ment of the lnterior, Geological Survey. News Release, 1 March 1980.) Referred to.m
G. McLeod and J.Prescott, eds.: GeorgBank. Pas/. Present and Future of a Marine
Environment. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1982, p. 140.
" "lnterior Department Accepts High Bids Totaling $816,516,546 for Offshore Oil and
Gas Leases on Georges Bank in the North Atlantic." (United States Department of the
lnterior, Bureau of Land Management. News Release, 31 December 1979.) See
Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 45.56 GULF OF MAINE (49-50)

Section III.The Water Column

A. 0CEANOGRAPHY

89. Throughout the Gulf of Maine area, and particu.larly on
Georges Bank, there is a complex interaction of bottom topography, cur­
rent structure and biological processes. As a resu\t of this interaction
Georges Bank is an unusu.ally productive area. In oceanographic terms, it
is atone and the same time a semi-discrete marine ecosystem and part of
a larger system with affinities to the northeast.

90. Georges Bank waters contain a high level of phytoplankton
that provide food for the zooplankton and benthic animais that in turn
serve as food for the various fish species aboundîng there 13•An important
factor contributing to this high Jevelof biomass and productivity is the
water turbulence on Georges Bank,which results from the interaction of

strong tidal currents and the rough and shallow bottom. This vertical
mixing ensures that nutrients (nitrates, phosphates and silicates) are rela­
tively uniformly distribu.ted throughout the water column from top to
bottom. One of the world's richest fishing grounds, Georges Bank bas
been described as -
"... about twice as productive as the North Sea, four times more
productive than the Grand Banks and five times more so than the
15
Northeast Atlantic ''.
91. On a broad oceanographic scale, the colder and Jess saline
waters carried by the Labrador and Nova Scotian currents pass across

Georges Bank in their southwestward course, inside or landward of the
northeastward flows of the warm Gulf Stream. The transportation of
colder, northern waters onto Georges Bank creates thermal conditions
that are conducive to the production of micro-organisms and fish life with
northerly orientations - i.e., the boreal species that dominate plant and
animal life on the Bank. When these colder waters reach the Cape Sable
area off Nova Scotia in their southwestward flow, part of the current
enters the embayment of the Gulf of Maine and is "trapped" for a time
inside the Gulf, where itcirculates in a counter-clockwise direction,
returning to the principal southerly-flowing body of the current by way of
the Great South Channel and the Northeast Channel. This pattern of cir­
culation in the inner Gulf is separate from the clockwise current circula­
tion that is present on Georges Bank itself.

92. ln addition to these large-scale oceanographic features, there
are important driving forces that operate in the Gulf of Maine area in
smaller scales of space and time. Paramount among these are the tides,

with their rhythmic to and fro motion and the associated rise and fall of
11
The oceans support a vast populalion of organisms that either swim or float in the various
indepe,ndent movement. they cannot perform any effective horizontal migrations against
the set of tides and currents. These pelagic organisms comprise the phytoplankton
(plants) and thezooplankton(animais}. The animals and plants on the bottom of the
ocean comprise theenthos.
" Biomass is the living weight of a part (or the whole) of a biotic community. Production,
or productivity. the growth of biomass over time.
1, Final Supplement to Environmental Statement. Proposed 1979 Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore the North Atlantic States. (OCS Sale No. 42.) United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office,9"19,p. lJ. 57
[50-52] MEMORIAL OF CANADA

sea level.The shape, size and bathymetry of the Gulf of Maine, including
the funnel shape and the extent of the Bay of Fundy, are such that the
tidal amplitude in the Gulf of Maine area is greatly augmented. This
resufts in the well-known powerful tides of the Bay of Fundy, which are
among the highest in the world. The area off southwest Nova Scotia, the
Nantucket Shoals and Georges Bank itself, together with the Bay of

Fundy, constitutes a single region of greatly enhanced tidal currents. (See
©® Figures 18 and 19.) Research has shown that the entire Gulf of Maine
area responds as a single, integrated tidal regime 6. This produces
extremely important localized effects: the tidal current coursing over the
rough and shallow bottom of Georges Bank ensures that nutrients are
well distributed and is probably the single most important factor support­
ing the biological abundance and high productivity of Georges Bank.

93. Tidal current patterns also interact with bottom features to
produce a semi-permanent gyre on Georges Bank. This gyre is not perfect
in its completeness and there is seasonal variation in its intensity . But it
presents a definable pattern, following a clockwise direction around the

Bank, separate from the counter-clockwise water circulation in the inner
part of the Gulf, and separate from the circulation on Nantucket Shoals
to the southwest and on Browns Bank fo the northeast. The gyi'ehelps to
set Georges Bank off from immediately surrounding waters, as illustrated
in Figure 20.

94. "Georges Bank water", while similar to and probably formed
from contiguous water masses, exhibits temperature and salinity charac­
teristics that are more temporally uniform and more vertically homogene­
ous18.This homogeneity is largely attributable to the extensive mixing of
the waters on the Bank that results from the combination of strong tidal
currents and relative shallowness.

95. The rivers emptying into the Gulf of Maine make an impor­
tant contribution in oceanographic terms. Canada's St. John River alone
pours some 32 cubic kilometres into the Gulf each year - nearly 33 per­
cent of the total inflow. The Merrimack, Androscoggin-Kennebec and
Penobscot rivers, flowing from the United States, add another 35 cubic

kilometres. The Saco (United States), the St. Croix (Canada-9nited
States) and other smaller rivers make up the balance 1 .

1•C. Garrett: "Tidal Resonance in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine." (Natll!'e, Vol:
238, 25 August i972, pp. 44l-443); C. Garrett: "Normal Modes of the Bay of Fundy and
Gulf of Maine." (Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. l l,. 1974, pp. 549-556);
D. A. Greenberg: "A Numerical Mode! Investigation of Tida! Phenomena in the Bay of
Fundy and Gulf of Maine." (Marine Geodesy, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1979,pp. 161-187.)
17A gyre normally comprises a semi-enclosed currenl system. In the case of Georges Bank.
there is a continuai exchange between Georges Bank water (within the semi-enclosed
current) and surrounding waters; this exchanges associated with tidal, wind-induced
and other motions, such as Gulf Stream incursions and resulling eddies.
18 Iffor a given location at which observations have been made at various depths the lem­
perature and salinity corresponding to each depth are plotted, the points thus plotted may
bejoinoo to forma fairly smooth curve. This calledthe temperature and salinity curve
for that location. The T-S curve, or a portion thereof, representing a continuum of water
types, describes a "water mass". The term water mass may be applied to a body of water
throughout a region in which mînor modifications of the characterîstic T-S curve may
take place. The Georges Bank water mass is one example. See T. S. Hopkins and
N. Garfield: "Physical Origins of Georges Bank Water."(Jormw/ of Man·ne Research,
19Vol. 39, No. 3, 1981,p. 465.)
D. Merriman: "The History of Georges Bank". in G. McLeod and J. Prescott, eds.:
GeorgesBank. Past, Present and Future of a Marine Environment, p. 18;S. Appolonio:
The Gulf of Maine. Rock.land,Maine, Courier of MainBooks, 1979,p. 30.58 GULF Of MAINE [52-54)

96. Micro-organisms (phytoplankton, zooplankton) and benthic
species found on Georges Bank are distributed both to the northeast and
to the southwest. Nevertheless, the phytoplankton and zooplankton
biomass in the Gulf of Maine area, including Georges Bank, is dominated

by species having primarily boreal or northern distributions. These spe­
cies are dominant on Georges Bank as a result of the environment pro­
duced by the southerly flows of colder, northern waters along the
Canadian continental shelf across the Bank. Such species are Jessevident

in the warmer waters to the southwest of the Bank beyond the Cape Cod
area.

97. Because of their sedentary nature, benthic animais reveal a
range of geographical distribution that is more restricted than that of the
phytoplankton and zooplankton, the benthos patterns being dependent on

water temperature and to a large degree on bottom sediment texture. The
species composition of the benthos on Georges Bank is similar to that
observed in areas to the northeast, in the Bay of Fundy and on the banks
of the Scotian Shelf20. Southwest of the Cape Cod.:Nantucket Shoals
area,. on the other hand, the benthic composition becomes increasingly

dominated by species having southerly distributions. This differentiation
in benthic species composition reflects the fact that the Cape
Cod-Nantucket Shoals area off the United States coast is a recognized
faunal and floral boundary, constituting a transition zone between north­

ern cold-water benthic species of the Nova Scotian biogeographic prov­
ince and southern warm-water benthic species of the Virgînian biogeo­
graphic province 21•(See Figure 21.)

20 For example, in relation to benthic communities on Georges Bank dominated by dense
beds of horse mussels(Modio/us modiolus), the same community composition and struc­
ture can be found in the Bay of Fundy where a similar combination of currents and sedi­
ments ex.ists. Eighteen of the 20 benthic species reported as occurring on Georges Bank
also oocur on sîmilar deposits in the Bay of Fundy. See R. L Wigley: "Benthic lnverte­
bratesof the New England Fishing Banks." (Underwater Naturalist,Vo!. 5, No. 1, 1968,
pp. 8-13); and D. Peer, D.J.Wildish, A. J. Wilson,J. Hines and M. Dadswe!l: Sublit­
toraf Macro-lnfauna of the wwer Bay ofFundy. Canadian Technical Report of Fisher­
ies and Aquatic Sciences, No. 981. Dartmouth, Dep.artment of Fisheries and Oceans,
1980, p.74.
11 See for example Final Environmental Statement. Proposed 1977 Outer Continental
Shel/ Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore the North Atlantic States.(OCS Sale No. 42.)
United States Department of the lnterîor, Bureau of land Management. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977, Vol. 1, p. 321, where it is stated with respect to
benthic flora:

"Nantucket Shoals-Cape Coi:!, Massachusetts, forms a distinctive geographical
boundary between northern species of benthic algae with subarctic tendencies and a
Southern borealflora adapted to warmer waters."
The same point is made with respect to benthic fauna later in the document (at p. 329):
''The geographic area. within the North Atlantic area may be separated into Iwo dis­
tinct temperature orimatic zones, with the boundary at Cape Cod. From Cape Cod
northward, the region is boreal, while southward, the region is warm-temperature."

Scientific study of one zooplankton group - the ostracods (a small, shrimp-like animal)
- bas revealed, however,tllat for this species the transition zone between northern and
southern forms may be the Northeast Channel. See J. E. Hazel: Arlantic Continental
Shelf and Slope of the United States - Osiracode Zoogeography in the Southern Nova
Scot/a and Northern Virginian Faunaf Provinces. United States Department of the
Interior, GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 529-E. Washington, U.S. Government
PrintingOffice, 1970.[55] MEMORIAL OF CANADA
59

B. fISHERY RESOlJRCES
98. The fishery resources of Georges Bank can best be considered
at several levels. First there is the malter of fish distributions at the level

of species a!ong the entire Atlantic coast of North America. Secondly,
there is the matter of separate stocks - relative!y discrete populations of
given species - linked to Georges Bank itself. And thirdly, there is the
matter of general distribution of biomass - the living weight of the fish
community - from east to west on Georges Bank.

99. At the level of species, the pattern of fish distributions along
the Atlantic coast of North America indicates that Georges Bank is part
of a larger oceanographic system. To the extent that discontînuîties can
be identified, howcver, they are to .the southwest of the Great South
Channel-Nantucket Shoals area. Distributions may be considcred for
three categories of commercially-exploited spccies:

(a) Widely-distributed species found in the waters of the continental
shelf and slope from the northeast a\ong the Canadian coast to the
southwest of Georges Bank along the United States coast. Major
fishes and invertebratcs in this group are !llex (short-finned) squid,
lobster, sea scallops, herring, mackerel, red hake, silvcr hake, sword­
fîsh, tuna and yellowtail nounder. A number of thcsc species are
highly migrntory.

(b) Species whose distribution along the North American coast gener­
ally does not extend northeast of the Great South Channel­
Nantucket Shoals area. Species in this second group, while occasion­
ally observed on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine, do not
spawn north of the Great South Channel-Nantucket Shoals area and
are generally confined in their range to the southwest of Georges

Bank along the United States coast. Major fishes and invertebrates
in this group are bay scallop, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish,
menhaden, scup, summer flounder and weak fîsh.
(c) Species whose distribution along the North Amcrican coast does not
extend southwest of the Great South Channel-Nantucket Shoals

area. Species in this third group, while occasîonally observed south
of the Great South Channel-Nantucket Shoals area, are only found
in signifîcant concentrations to the northeast of this area, off and
along the Canadian coast - that is, on Georges Bank and further
north. They do not spawn in significant quantities south of the Great"
South Channel. Fish in this group indude American p!aice, argen­
tine, cod, cusk, haddock, halibut, po\lock and redfîsh.

100. There are only two major species for which the northern
limit of distribution in the Gulf of Maine area appears to be the North­
east Channel: Loligo (long-finncd) squid and sea robin.

101. On the basis of the distribution patterns discussed above, it
has been conduded that the Great South Channel-Cape Cod-Nantucket
Shoals area is an important transition zone for many commercially
exploited species. This conclusion has been recently stated by United

States biologists in the following terms:60 GULF OF MAINE [56]

" there is an abrupt general division between the biological and
physical properties of water east and west of Cape Cod ... The off­

ing of Cape Cod also appears to be a definite transition zone (prob­
ab)y thermal) for some northern and southern species of fish and
invertebrates, both pelagic and benthic (Colton 1964). The species
composition and abundance of fishes vary markedly between the
two regions, with boreal, non-migratory species dominating the
Gulf of Maine and warmwater migratory species prevailing in the
2
Middle Atlantic Bight2 ."
102. The transition zone described above coincides with the
coastal zone "boundary" (the Cape Cod to Long Island area) between
the two well-described biogeographic provinces, the Nova Scotian ànd the

Virginian, referred to in paragraph 97. These biogeographic provinces
relate to benthic plants and animais in the intertidal and contiguous
coastal waters of eastern North America. The marked change in distribu­
tion of marine plants and animais in the area off Cape Cod coïncides with
the differences between the glaciated and unglaciated Atlantic continen­

tal shelf, the continental shelf to the southwest consisting largely of a
smooth offshore plain. To the degree that the biogeographic province
concept can be extended to include the marine area beyond coastal
waters, and so embrace the waters of the continental shelf as well, the
Gulf of Maine area - and hence Georges Bank - can be said to corre­

spond with the Nova Scotian province.
I03. At the second level under consideration, within the broad
distribution patterns described above, several important fish species
2
maintain relatively discrete stocks on Georges Bank 3.The species for
which separate Georges Bank stocks have been identified are haddock,
cod, yellowtail flounder and Atlantic herring. To the extent that these
four species show mixing at the stock level beyond Georges Bank, cod
and haddock show evidence of a greater exchange between stocks across
the Northeast Channel than across the Great South Channel. Yellowtail

flounder and herring, on the other band, show more mixing between
stocks across the Great South Channel than across the Northeast Chan­
nel.

104. The highly valuable scallop resources of Georges Bank are of
prime interest to Canadian fishermen. While it is not possible to state
definitely that there is a discrete Georges Bank scallop stock, there are
welJ identified discontinuities in the concentrations of scallops in the Gulf
of Maine area. Following the pattern of these areas of concentration,
major fisheries for scallops have developed on Georges Bank proper, in

21
J. B. ColtonW. G. Smith, A. W. Kendall,P. L. Berrien and M. P. Fahay: "Principal
Spawning Areas and Times of Marine Fishes, Cape Sable to Cape Hatteras." (Fishery
Bulletin, Vol. 16, 1979, p. 913.} The Gulf of Maine is defined in this study as including
Georges Bank and Browns Bank. The Middle Atlantic Bight is southwest of the Cape
warmer watertspecies. This separatîon _isalso described in Final Environmental State­
ment. Propased Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas lease Sale Offshore the North
At/amie Stales, Vol. l, at pp. 345,351 and 352.

lJ Witbin the overaHlimtsof the range of distribution of a species, there ary dis­tivel
populations.hese populations are termed stocks by fisheries scientists.h contiguous(57] ,61
MEMORIAL OF CANADA

the Great South Channel-Nantucket Shoals area, and in the waters off
southwest Nova Scotia.

105. No marine mammals evident in Georges Bank waters are
actually confined to the Bank year-round or even on a seasonal basis,
although the Bank may play a rote in their life histories. For several
important species of whales, for example, the whole continental shelf
from Cape Cod and Georges Bank northeast to Newfoundland is a sum­
mer feeding area. Other marine mammals show similar wide-ranging

migratory feeding patterns. Young grey seals, for example, tagged after
birth on Sable Island off Nova Scotia, have been recorded feeding from
Labrador south to Cape Cod 4. 2

106. Turning finally to the level of the biomass, Georges Bank is
characterized by an unusually high density of fish. As already noted, the
Bank offers a habitat for both "resident" stocks - cod, haddock, yellow­
tail ftounder and scallops - and for migrant species that concentrate
there during part of their life histories or on a seasonal basis. Certain
other commercial species are found in abundance both on Georges Bank

itself and along its northern edge and its seaward edge near the shelf
break. When the biomass of all species is considered in the aggregate, it
shows a fairly even pattern of distribution from east to west across the
Bank and in its immediately contiguous waters 2, although this pattern is
not entirely perfect when seasonal variations and migratory patterns of
individual species are looked at. Nevertheless, the general evenness of

biomass distribution holds true for such species as cod and haddock
(which tend however to be more available on the eastern part of the
Bank) and for other species, such as th.e hakes (which tend to have a
more westerly orientation). Yellowtail flounder are more concentrated on
the central part of the Bank, with indications of a westerly orientation

24Sea bird distributions are also of interest. While there are no endemic species on Georges
Bank, thereis a marked concordance between sea birds known to occur on the Bank and
off the eastern coast of Nova Scotia. Moreover, Georges Bank is an extremely important
feeding and wintering area for many species that brccd along the easlern Canadian sea­
board. Out of 25 sea bird spccies recorded on Georges Bank, 22 are also found to be
ring on the Bank, only four breed on the adjacent coast of Massachusetts. Data taken
from: James Fisher and R. M. Lockley: Sea-birds. An Introduction to the Natural
History of the Sea-birds of the North Atlantic. London, Collins, 1954; Ralph Simon
Palmer, cd.: Handbook of North American Birds. Vol. 1. New Haven, Connecticut, Yale
University Press, 1962; William S. Butcher, Anthony P. Reed and Jonathan B. Butcher:
Distribution Charts of Oceanic Birds in the North Atlantic. Woods Hole Reference No.
68-69. Woods Hale, Massachusetts, Woods Hale Oceanographic Institution, 1968; R. G.
B. Brown, I;);N. Nettleship, P. Germain, C. E. Tull and T. Davies: Atlas of Eastern
Canadian S,eabirds. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife Service, 1975; Stanley Cramp and K. E.
Vol. 1. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977; R. L. Grayce: "Summer Sea Birds onca.
Georges Bank." (Bulletin of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, Vol. 39, 1955, p. 367.)
M. S. Gordon: "Summer Ecology of Oceanic Birds off Southern New England." (Auk,
Vol. 72, 1955, p. 138); K. D. A. Lamb: "Sea Birds at the Confluence of the Gulf Stream
and the Labrador Current east of New York." (Sea Swallow, Vol. 16, 1963, p. 654); J.
Lein and L. Grimmer: "Manx Shearwater Breeding in Newfoundland." (The 0.17Jre_,._
Vol. 9, 1978, p. 50.)
25 This conclusion is based on plots produced by the Bedford lnstitute of Oceanography,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, from data from groundfish research trawl surveys done in the
spring and fall from 1963 to 1978 by the United States National Marine Fisheries Ser­
vice, Northeast Fisheries Centre, Woods Hole Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section Il, Annex 2.62. GULF OF MAINE (58)

towards the Great South Channel area 26•Scallops are concentrated on
both the northeastern and southwestern parts of Georges Bank, and on
7
the south-central part2 • Lobster are found in concentrations on the shelf
edge along the outer part of Georges Bank, from northeast to southwest.

C. CONCLUSION

107. In summary, Georges Bank is in certain respects a semi­
discrete ecosystem in oceanographic and biological terms. Both the
N-0rtheast Channel and the Great South Channel have a role in defining
the limits of the Bank and hence the oceanographic and biological extent

of its "separation" from contiguous areas.

108. At the same time, it is clear that Georges Bank is part of a
larger system with important affinities to the areas to the northeast. lt is
the colder, Jess saline water from the more northerly coastal areas of
Canada that creates the thermal conditions on Georges Bank that in turn
are an important factor in determining the nature of the plant and animal

life found there; Further, Georges Bank is part of an integrated and pow­
erful tidal system, embracing the Bay of Fundy and the New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia coasts to the north. Water characteristics in the Gulf of
Maine area, including those of Georges Bank, are also affected by fresh­
water outflows in the Gulf of Maine itself, with a major share of this

fresh water coming from Canadian rivers. In biological terms, the domi­
nant phytoplankton and zooplankton species on Georges Bank are of the
boreal assemblage rather than of more southern origins.

109. Most important of all, Georges Bank is a habitat and area of
concentration for important commercial species of fish comprising both
"resident" stocks and wide-ranging and migratory species that gather

there in abundance in season. It is the unusual, concentrated ~ealth of
these living resources that has drawn Canadian fishermen to the Bank
over the years.

26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed 1982 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas lease Sale Offshore the North Atlantic States. (OCS Sale No. 52.) Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1981.On p. 108, it is stated:
"Yellowtail are abundant in the general region of Nantucket shoals, the Great South
Channel and the western half of Georges Bank. Yellowtail are also found on the east­
ern end of the Bank but in lower concentrations. Southeast Georges Bank has been a
consistently excellent producer of llounder including yellowtail and is a major yellow­
tail fishing region."
27 G. M. Hare: Atlas of the Major Atlantic Coast Fish and lnvertebrate Resources
Adjacent to the Canada-United States Boundary Areas. Technical Report No. 681.
Ottawa, Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and
Development Directorate, 1977, p. 8.[59-60) 63

CHAPTER III- THE HUMAN DIMENSION

Section I. The Socio-Economic Setting

A. AN ÜVERVIEW

11O. The fishing industry is a mainstay of the Atlantic Canada
economy, more so than the bare economic data might suggest. The prov­
inces of the region - Newfoundland and the three Maritime Provinces
- have not yet attained a Jeve\ of prosperity and development compa­
rable to the rest of Canada 1•The region's thinly scattered population and
its distance from the markets of central Canada and the United States
have limited the growth of manufacturing, and the economy remains

heavily committed to the export of natural resources - fish, minerais
and forest products - in a raw or semi-processed form.
. 111. The fishing industry accounts for the largest share of
employment of any îndustry in both the primary and secondary sectors in
2
the regional economy of these four provinces •But what the statistics fail
to convey about the industry is its pervasivencss. Sorne of the other major
components of the regional economy are concentrated in a few massive
developments or projects, especially in mining and to a lesser degree in
certain sectors of the manufacturing industry as well. The fishing indus­
try, by contrast, is dispersed throughout the hundreds of communities

that line the Atlantic seaboard of Canada. It ranges in scale from small
owner-operated boats to large corporate-owned offshore traw\ers; and
from scores of village processing plants scattered along the coast to a
handful of "world-scale" establishments that use some of the most
capital-intensive and advanced seafood production technology currently
available.

112. Nova Scotia leads the Atlantic provinces in the value of its
fish landings, ranking only a little behind Newfoundland in volume. 1t

has by far the highest number of fu!l-time fisher~en o~ any province. in
the region, partly because of the strong offshore onentat1on of the provin­
cial fleet: the larger offshore vessels more frequently operate throughout
the vear.
113. In Nova Scotia, as in Atlantic Canada as a who\e, the fish­
ery is the leading employer in both the primary and secondary industria!
sectors. ln a provincial economy that is very largely sustained by exports,

fish Jead ail other product groups by a very considerable margin in export
value - 30 percent of the total, over lO percentage points ahead of the
next export sector. Georges Bank is the most valuable fishing ground
available to Nova Scotia fishermen. ln 1978, for instance, fully one-third
of the total value of provincial landings was accounted for by Georges
Bank. By far the most important single component of this fishcry is scal­
loping, represcnting an estimated two-thirds of the direct employment

generated by the Canadian Georges Bank catch.

' See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section 1-A (Economie Indicators: Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia
and Southwest Nova Scotia).
' The primary secto'rrefers to agriculture, fîshing and the production of raw materials; the
secondary sectorefers to manufacturing, including fish processing.64 GULF OF MAINE {60-61]

114. It is in the sou hwcstern part of the province tha t Nova
Scotia's fishing industry is most heavily concentrated, and it is from this
area that the great bulk of the Canadian fishery on Georges Bank is con­
ducted. The regîon accounts for well over half of the fishery-relatcd
employment in the province; itharbours 45 percent of the province's
înshore vessels and close to 80 percent of the provincial neet of large off­
shore fishing vessels; and well over 70 percent by va!ue of the provincial
catch has generally bcen landed here in recent years. The region is, in

sum, the heartland of the Nova Scotîa fishing industry. It is no coinci.·
dence that this îs the area that lies in closest proximity to Georges Bank.
115. Southwest Nova Scotia has a very narrow economic base,

constituted primarily by the fishery. During the years îmmedîate!y
preceding the signature of the Special Agreement, Georges Bank was by
far the most valuablc source of fish landed in·the largest ports of the
area, contributing in the order of 65 to 80 percent of the total landed
value at each of the five leading ports. Clearly, Georges Bank may be
described as the keystone of the regional fishery. By the same token ît 'îs
an indispensable ingredient in the general economy of southwest Nova
Scotia in which the fîshery plays so fondamental a ro\e.

116. For many of the smaller ports of the region as well, Georges
Bank makes an essential contribution. Many of the small offshore vessels

based in the villages scattered along the extreme southwestern end of
Nova Scotîa - Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby counties - rely on
eastern Georges Bank for a signtficant proportion of their landings of
cod, haddock and other groundfish species, especially durîng the summer
months when the weather makes for relatively safe conditions on the off­
shore banks. The processing of these groundfish landings is a labour­
intensive activity, carried out locally at village fish plants that often pro­
vide the only avaîlable source of onshore employment.

117. lt is not surprising, then, that Canada 's vessels have estab­
lished a position of strength in the Georges Bank fishery, one that com­
pares favourably to that of the New England fleet. ln the ten-year period
preceding the conclusion of the Special Agreement, the average Canadian
catches from Georges Bank as a whole represented at least half the com­

bined Canada-United States catch in terms of landed value. In sharp con­
trast with the American fishery on Georges Bank, however, the Canadian
catches are concentrated in the castern portion of the Bank, the area
under Canadian daim.

118. In assessîng the relative importance of Georges Bank to each
country, it is essential to bear in mînd the different character of the larg­
est sectors of the Canadian and American fisheries on Georges Bank. The
leading component of the Canadian înterest in Georges Bank is the scat­
lop resource of the disputed area, a stationary resource that cannot be
exploited outside th is area. For the United States, the predomi nant tradi ·
tional interest in the fisherîes of Georges Bank, apart from the scallop
beds found in its own undîsputed zone, lies in the free-swimming species

of the Bank. Many of these species range over large areas of the Bank
and become available for capture in the undisputed waters of the United
States zone. Thus, while the boundary willhave a major impact upon the
a!!ocation of al! the resources of the Bank, îts effect will clearly be a far
more absolu te one with respect to the scallop fishery of the disputed area.(61-62] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 65

119. The position is aptly summed up in a 1978 American study
on the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine area, prepared by a Maine con­
sulting group known as "TRIGOMl". The study, which focused on Cape
Cod and Nova Scotia, was sponsored by the Office of the Geographer of

the United States Department of State. In this document, under the
heading "The Economie Importance of the Georges Bank and Gulf of
Maine to Nova Scotia", the following passage (with which Canada
entirely concurs) appears:

"Nova Scotia has more to !ose, in the short-run, in the present
boundary dispute because it is more dependent upon the Georges
Bank for its present income. In principle, it is harder to have an

accustomed resource taken away than it is to Jose a projected one'."

(ln the longer term, the study simply noted the potential for growth in
the Georges Bank fishery with careful management.) Similarly, the coun­
sel to the "American Fisheries Defense Committee" set up to lobby
against United States ratification of the 1979 East Coast Fishery

Resources Agreement, put the same basic point very succinctly in bis
statement before a Congressional committee:

" ... United States access to fish in the northeastern tip of Georges
Bank is significantly Jess important to us than Canada's continued
access in the area is toits fishermen'".

120. While the Canadian coastal areas that rely upon Georges
Bank and its fishery are rural and dominated by the fishing industry, the
character of the corresponding United States coast presents a striking
contrast. The American Georges Bank fishery is conducted mainly from

Massachusetts - and within Massachusetts, primarily from the ports of
Gloucester, Boston and especially New Bedford. Massachusetts, of
course, is a bighly urbanized area-with a diversified economy in which the
fishery forms a relatively insignificant part. While there are some
Georges Bank landings in the state of Rhode Island, the coastal states of
the inner Gulf of Maine - New Hampshire and Maine - are not sig­
nificant participants in the fishery of Georges Bank.

121. In summary, Canada submits tha t two propositions are fun·

damental to the appreciation of the social and economic character of the
Gulf of Maine area, as it relates to this case. The first is that Canada has
a major and vita!ly important fishery on Georges Bank: a fishery that
gives Canada no Jess than an equal interest with the United States in the
living resources of the Bank as a whole, though the Canadian catches

3 Georges Bank. Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod, Nova Scot/a. Perspectives in Economies and
History.Portland, Maine,TRIGOM (Sponsoredby the Office of the Geographer,
United States Department(State), June 1978.
• Georges Bank. Gulf of Maine, Cape Co(/, Nova Scotia. Perspectives in Economies and
Hiswry, p.106.
5 United States, Hearings Be/ore the Committee on Foreign Relations United States
Sena.te. 96th Congress, 2nd Session, on Ex. U, 96-1: Maritime Boundary Seulement
Treatywîth Canada and Ex. Y, 96-1: Agreement on East Coast Fîshery Resources with
Canada, 15 and l7 April 1980. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980,
p. 62.66 GULF OF MAJNE [62-63]

have been concentrated in the portion of the Bank under Canadian daim.
And the second, of equal if not greater importance, is that the depend­
ence of ürnadîan coastal communities upon this fishery îs profound and
not even remotely approached in the United States.

B. THE CONTEMPORARY CANAD1AN FISHER Y ON GEORGES BANK

1. Introduction

122. The following description of the contemporary Canadian
fishery on Georges Bank is based largely on catch statistics for the

tcn-year pcriod preceding the conclusion of the Special Agreement: the
years from 1969 to 1978. This period has been selected as one that is long
enough to convey a representative pîcture that avoids .distortions resulting
from short-term fluctuations, yet short enough to focus attention upon
the contemporary rcality of the fishery. lts appropriateness is under­
scored by the fact that throughout almost ail of this period, patterns of
fishing on Georges Bank followed their natural course unconstrained by

jurisdictional barriers.
123. A word in anticipation of the historica! section of this chap­

tcr will help to place the statistics in context. The 1950s and 1960s were a
pcriod of growth and modernization in Canada's Atlantic fishery, ref­
lected in the strengthening of the offshore sectors of the Canadian lleet
- a fleet that in the immediately preceding decades had been more
hcavily weighted toward its inshore component. The revitalization of the
offshore flect meant that Georges Bank took on a gradually increasing
importance for the Canadian fishery during the J950s and 1960s, espe­

cially for the vessels of southwest Nova Seotîa. The period of expansion
was brought to a close in the early 1970s, and since then the size of
Canada's lleet of large offshore vessels has remained stable. This has
been largely the product of a scheme of..management contrais rcstricting
both the entry of new vessels and the replacement of old vessels in the
fleet.

124. White this account is mainly devoted to the contemporary
fisherics of Canada and the United States on Georges Bank, it should be
noted that a number of the commercial species of the Bank were heavily
fished during most of the 1969-1978 period by distant-water fleets from
both Eastern and Western Europe. This was most dramatically the case

with herring, a resource that was virtually depleted during this period. As
well, there were substantial (in some cases excessive) catches by the
distant-water fleets of specics like mackerel, hakc, squid and argentine.
But for scallops, by far the most valuable single resource, the two coastal
States remained the exclusive exploîters. And for the other species, a
coastal State dominance short of exclusivity was maintained.

125. Fishery statistics are maintained on the basis of a grid estab­
lished pursuant to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlan­
tic Fisheries - the 1949 convention that constituted the International

Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, or ICNAF ~ a mul­
tilatcral agency for the management and conservation of the fisheries of [63-66] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 67

this area6• This grid, apart from its more northern and eastern areas, is
illustrated in Figure 22. Georges Bank, it will be noted, is entirely con­
® tained within subdivision 5Ze, a part of subarea 5'.

126. Subdivision SZe as a whole comprises not only Georges Bank

but also the area of the Great South Channel and Nantucket Shoa\s -
grounds off the coast of Massachusetts in which Canada has no major
traditiona! interest. Fortunately, the SZe area has been partitioned into
the finer statistica\ units shown in Figure 23. lt will be seen that units
@
5Zeh, 5Zen, 5Zej and 5Zem encompass Georges Bank; and while they
extend beyond the Bank itself (especially on the seaward side), virtually
ail the commercial fishing within them is conducted on the Bank. The
statistics compiled with respect to these four units therefore provide an

essentially complete and accurate picture of Georges Bank fishing pat­
terns. Similarly, units 5Zeo and 5Zeg correspond in terms of fishing pat­
terns to Nantucket Shoals and the Great South Channel arca, and' units
5Zej and 52cm correspond in the same manner to the area claimed by
Canada. The information given in this section is based largely upon the
8
catch records that have been maintained for these statistical units •

2. The Basic Characterislics of the Canadian Fishery on Georges Bank

127. The total annual value of the Canadian fishery on Georges

Bank is im9ressive. Landed values for 1978, for example, totalled over
$65 million .

128. Canadian Iandings from Georges Bank represcnted over one­
quàrter of the value of total Nova Scotia landings during the period from
1969 to 1978. At recent Canadian prices for unprocessed landings, the

average yearly catches from this area by Canadian fishermen during10he
1969-1978 base period would yield over $64 million a year • Even on a
more conservative valuation, usîng the actual historical price for each
species year by year, with no adjustment for inflation, the average annual
Canadian catches from Georges Bank during the base period were worth

about $25.l million per year. This cornes to over 27 percent of the aver­
age province-wide total landings of $92,400,000 during the same period.

• ICN AF ceascd to exist at the end of 1978. Il was replaced by NAFO. the Northwest
Atlantic Fisherics Organization, under a convention designed to renect the new reality of
200-mile fisheries jurisdiction. This Convention on Future Multilateral Co-operation in
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries is now in force. NAFO's headquarters arc at Dart­
mouth, Nova Scotia, as wereCNAF's. The NAFO convention incorporates the ICNAF
statistical grid, which was a!so to have been used in the 1979 Canada-UniStates
Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources. Canada is a part.y to the NAFO convention
and its depositary government. The United States has no! become a contracting party
of this time. See Annexes, Vol. I, Annex l and Annex 9. for the texts of thesc conven­
tions.
' Since l968, fishing stalistics for subdivision 5Ze have been segrega ted from those of sub­
division 5Zw (off Rhode Islandndthe south shore of Cape Cod).
3
which the calculations set out in this presentation have been made are given in thepon
Annexes, Vol. IV, Section Il, Annexes 3 and 4.
9
. Ali values are given in Canadian dollars.
10i.e., 198l.prices, the last full year for which annual average prices are availa ble.68 GULF OF MAINE [66-67]

129. In dollar terms, it is the scallop resource that represents the
single most important component of Canada's fishery on Georges Bank,
generally accounting for well over 85 percent of the total landed value. Ii:i,
1978 alone, Nova Scotia 's scallop landings from the Bank were worth
about $58 million. Using unadjusted year by year landed values, the aver­

age Canadian scallop harvest from the Bank from 1969 to 1978 was
worth about $22 million per year. The Canadian fleet took over 95 per­
cent of the total scallop catch in the disputed area during this period.

130. The other sectors of this fishery, amounting in the aggregate
to several million dollars a year in landed value, have their own independ­
ent importance for the fishermen who take these catches and the plants
that depend upon. them 1• Although scallops clearly have a far greater
landed value in the Canadian Georges Bank fishery than ait other species
combined, these other species generally require more processing than

scallops and tend to create proportionally more employment in the
onshore plants. Groundfish - cod, haddock, pollock and similar species
- make up the bulk of Canada's non-scallop landings from the Bank.
Most of these groundfish landings have been taken by large offshore
trawlers. However, Georges Bank also figures significantly in the fishing
patterns of the smalt boat fishery of southwest Nova Scotia, whose spe­
cial characteristics are dealt with separately in paragraphs 143 to 148.

131. Finally, the Canadian lobster fishery on the Bank is quite
distinct from both the scallop and the trawler fleets. It is a trap fishery
largely conducted in Corsair Canyon, on the Southern edge of the dis­

puted part of Georges Bank. A number of specialized offshore vessels rely
on this resource in whole or in part. It is worth in the order of $1 million
per year at current prices.

132. The contemporary Canadian fishery on Georges Bank has
always been concentrated in the eastern portion of the Bank, the area
under Ca nad ian daim. Indeed, during the 1969-197 8 period well over 9S
percent of Canada's Georges Bank catches by value were taken in this
area. While these catches have generally been taken in the more north­
erly portions of the disputed area, from the tip of the Bank to the
Canadian line, tl).erehave been significant catches to the south as well.

3. The Canadian Fishery on Georges Bank Compared with that of the

United States

133. The statistical record indicates that Canada's demonstrated
interest in the fishery resources of Georges Bank as a whole (both the dis­
puted and the undisputed portions) is at least e9ual to, an~ by some
measures substantially greater than that of the Umted States m terms of
economic value. In terms of weight alone - not the most revealing
indicator because of the wide discrepancies in the value of the various
specîes - Canada took a very substantial proportion of the coastal State
catches from Georges Bank during the 1969-19 78 period. Just how grea t

11At reccnt Canadian prices, the average 1969-1978 Canadian catches of species other
than lobsters are worth in the order of $3 million per year (without processing), or
$2,863,000 using unadjusted year by year prices prevailîng during that period. Cod and
haddock are thewo leading species (rough!y $1 million a year each at recent prices).
and average po!locklandi11gscorne to about $450,000 on the same basis.

"(67-68} MEMORIAL OF CANADA 69

a proportion depends in part upon how scallop catches arc measurcd, hav­
ing regard to the importance _of this species in the Canadian fishery.
When scallops are measured in terms of meat weight without their she\Js
(as they are in the statistical system currently in use), Canada took over
one-third by weight of the average coastal State harvest of ail species

from Georges Bank during the 1969-1978 period. If, on the other hand,
scaHops are measured like ail other species of fish in terms of "round
weight" - i.e., in the form in which they are taken from the sea - the
Canadian share of the coastal State fishery on the Bank during this
period amounts to over 60 percent of the total by weight 12•

134. The scallop is by far the most valuable single fishery
resource on Georges Bank, representîng at least half the total value of
landings made by the fishermen of both countries from Georges Bank
during l969- l978u. The Canadian scallop fishery (conducted almost
entirely in the portion of the Bank claimed by Canada) accounted for the

overwhelming majority· of the Georges Bank scallop catches during this
period. There were no scallop catches by countries other than Canada
and the United States. The United States took the larger portion of the
aggregate coastal State catches of the remaining species on the Bank;
though in the dîsputed area itself the coasta\ State harvest of these varî­

ous other species was far more evenly divided, with14anada taking the
greater share of a number of important stocks •

135. The most signifïcant measure of the importance of each
country's stake in the Georges Bank fishery is in the actual value of the
total harvest. The Figures that appear in the following paragraph show

that by even the most conservative valuation, the average Canadian har­
vest on the Bank in the decade freceding the signature of the Special
Agreement represented fully ha! the total coastal State fishery; and if
the catches of both countries are valued according to a common measure,
the Canadian share of the coastal State fishery on Georges Bank as a

whole accounted for substantially more than one-half of the total during
this ten~year period.

136. The first of the three graphie illustrations set out below
(Figure 24) shows the comparative value of the average 1969-1978 cat­
ches of each country calculated according to United States prices, using
the actual historie prices in each year as applied to the volume of landings

12When scallops are measured in terms of meat weight, the Canadian share of the average
coastal State fishery on Georges Bank (ail species) from 1969 amounts to an average of
18,8 l7.90 metric tons per year of a total of 54,715.90. or 34.4 percent. When scallops are
measured in terms of round weight (unshelled), the average Canadian share is 67.308.88
metric tons out of a total of 108,389.15, or 62 percent.
" At year by year United States prices (applied to the actual volume of landings in each
year) scal!ops represent about 50 percent of the total Georges Bank Canada/United
States fishery averaged over the 1969-1978 period.
14Canada took about 90 percent of the Georges Bank scallops in the decade 1969- l978,
and almost ail of the scallop catch in the disputed area itself. The United States took
about three-quarterby volume of the coastal State catch of the other species combined
from the Bank as a whole; but within the disputed area itself the United States share
represented only about 58 percent of the total coastal Sta te catch of the species other
than scailops. Recorded Canadian and United States catches of cod and haddock in the
disputed area were a"D?ut.even\y divided, while Canada took ~y far the greater share of
po!lock, cusk and herrmg m th1s part of the Bank, and the Umted States took almost ail
the yellowiI flounder.70 GULF OF MAINE [68-69]

for each species in that year s. Here, it will be seen, the Canadian share
represents about 58 percent by value of the coastal State fishery on

Georges Bank. The second illustration (Figure 25) applies exactly the
same method using Canadian prices; and here the Canadîan share of the
Georges Bank fishery is substantially higher at 71 percent. These two
methods of valuation have the merit of valuîng the catches of both coun­
tries according to the same prices, establishing a common denominator

that eliminates price variations in different markets. The third illustra­
tion (Figure 26), however, uses Canadian prices for Canadian landings 16
and United States prices for United States landings - again calculated
according to the actual historie prices in each year applied to the volume
of landings in that year - and here, though the Canadian share is

smaller, it still represents fully one-half of the to7al coastal State fishery
on the Bank during the 1969-1978 base period' •The essential point con­
veyed by al! these comparisons is that by any reasonable economic meas­
ure, the Canadian harvest of the fishery resources of Georges Bank was
equal to or greater than that of the United States in the decade leading
up to the signature of the Special Agreement. Accordingly, though the

Canadian fishery îs centred in the portion of the Bank that is claimed by
Canada, its strength is such that Canada's stake in the resources of
Georges Bank as a whole is at least on a par with that of the United
States.

137. Since the Special Agreement and the 1979 East Coast Fish­
ery Resources Agreement were signed, United States catches on Georges

Bank have attained higher levels than those that prevailed in the years
before the extension of jurisdîction and the conclusion of these agree­
ments. The origins of this development, which emerged in the late stages
of the evolution of the dispute, are outlined in paragraph 233. These
increased United States catches, it wiH be seen, made attempts to settle
the dispute more difficult and have posed a conservation threat to the

stocks. But it is to the prevai!ing trends before the _conclusion of the
agreements, in the Canadîan submission, that attention should properly
be directed. And the Canadian fishery on Georges Bank has in any event
maintained its basic economic importance; indeed it attained a levcl as
high as $79.6 million in 1981 at Canadian prices.

138. The United States fishery in subdivision 5Ze as a whole (see

1iThe value of Jandings information is based on the landings data for statistical units 5Zcj,
5Zem, 5Zeh and 5Zen of ICNAF subdivision 5Ze. The values have been calculated by
multiplying the annuai volume of landings by the applicable prices on a species by specîes
basis. These annual values have then been aggregated and divided by 10 to give the
annual average of landîngs for the ten-year period. See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section Il,
Annexes 3 and 4.
'°Canadian values have been converted to United States dollars at prevailing average
annualex.change rates in order to a!low a direct comparison to be made. For a few spe­
ciesnot caught by the Canadian neet (not among the important commercial stocks of the
Bank}, there is no Canadian price of record; in these cases United States prices are used
in the ca!cu!ation depicteFigure 25,
11The differences between the three comparisons are mainly attributable to the fact that
groundfish landings generally attract higher prices in the United States market. (There is
much Jess difference between scallop prices in the two countries.) Because groundfish
!andings form a comparatively higher proportion of the Unitedes catch than of the
Canadian catch, the use of United States prices increases the relative United States share
in the fishery in terms of valuparticularly when Canadian prices are used to value
the Canadian catches as Figure 26. [69-70] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 71

@ Figure 22) has been predominantly centred in the undisputcd fishing
grounds adjacent to the Massachusetts coast: the waters of western
Georges Bank, the Great South Channel area and Nantucket Shoals -
units 5Zch and SZen, and SZeg and SZeo respectively in Figure 23. The
®
Great South Channel and Nantucket Shoals are productive fishing areas.
Not surprisingly, in view of the proximity of these two grounds to the
Massachusetts coast, the bulk of the United States landings from subdivi­
sion 5Ze of many of the more important commercial species - cod, sca!­
lops and po\lock for example - have been taken from those areas. Dur­
ing the 1969-1978 period, close to three-quarters of the United States

.landings from the 5Ze area as a whole were attributable to thé undis­
puted area west of the Canadian claim 1.

139. This description of the Canadian and United States shares in
the Georges Bank fishery tells the full story for the scallop resource on
the Bank during the decade from 1969 to 1978, since there has never
been a distant water fishery for that stock. As noted at the beginnîng of
this section, however, there were major foreign fisheries during the same

period for a nurnber of the free-swimmîng species, and consequently the
shares of the two coastal States in the harvest of the other species of
Georges Bank represent only a part of the entire fishery during that
period. Under the 200-milc regime, of course, the access of the distant­
water f\cets is restricted to the portion of the a\lowable catch for these
stocks that is surplus to coastal State harvesting capacity19,

140. This factor points up a significant qualitative difference in
the character of the two countries' respective interests in the Georges

Bank fisheries. The Canadian intercst has been centred primarily on the
scallops of the area under Canadian claim: a resource that bas always
been an cxclusivcly coastal State fishery. For the United States, on the
other hand, the principal focus of interest in Georges Bank has generally
been the frec-swimming specîes whose availability is not as loca!ized as

the scallop resource, not as decisively tied to any particular fishing
ground. And for these species, the preferentia! regime of the 200-mile
zone crcatcs new opportunities, cspecially in the longer tcrm as the stocks
are restored. These frce-swimming species - including those that have
traditîonally been exploited mainly by distant-water vessels - are avail­
able to United States fishermen in that portion of Georges Bank, over
half of the whole, to which Canada has no daim; and they arc available

without the intense foreign competition that prevailed until a very few
years ago. Fish productivity is high throughout the Bank, and the undis­
puted part of Georges Bank gives the United States an ample resource
base to sustain a healthy fishery and allow potentîal for future growth.

'" ln terms of metric tons, 46,703.80 of 63,867.90 average annual United States 5Ze land­
ings from 1969 to 1978 (73 percent).
" Under a modus vivendrespecting the disputed area, foreign fishing vessels arc not cur­
rently being grantcdess to the disputed area pending settlement of the boundary. Sta­
tisticsr foreign catches by statistical areas within subdivithe units shown in
@ Figure 23 - are not available, and it is therefore not possible to provide exact data on
the historical incidence of these catches on Georges Bank itself. Foreign catches for the
5Ze areaas a wholeinclude the following {as a proportion of the total catch, averaged
for the 1969-1978 period): hcrring: 98 percent; mackerel:nt; silvcr hake: 92 per­
cent; redfish: 30 percent; squid: 99 percent; red hake: 99 percent; argentine: 100 percent;
cod: 24 percent; pol!ock: 19 percent; haddock: 8 percent.72 GULF Of MAINE (70-711

141. Georges Bank normally provides over 80 percent of Nova

Scotia's entirc scallop landings, sometimes rising to over 90 percent. The
sca!lop is the province's most valuable fishery, and the remaining Nova
Scotia grounds, obviously very secondary in their importance, are fully
utilized and allow no room for expansion. In contrast, the United States
has other scallop grounds to rely upon and it is these other areas - the

undisputed western part of Georges Bank, the Great South Channel area,
and the Mid-Atlantic Grounds - that have traditiona!ly attracted the
bulk of its fleet. Indeed, in the mid-1970s, the Mid-Atlantic Grounds
accounted for alrnost two-thirds of the United States scallop catch, far
more than both Georges Bank and the Great South Channel area, and

almost half of this Mid-Atlantic catch was taken by New England ves­
sels20.As noted in paragraph 129, moreover, only a srnall portion of the
scallop catches in the disputed area during the decade 1969-1978 were
made by United States fishermen. ·

142. There is another distinction in kind between the Canadian
and the United States scallop fieets. The America n vesse\s have tradition­
aIly been designed for grea ter versatility and are accustomed ta switching

their opcrations from one species ta another as opportunities arise. The
Canadian fleet, on the other hand, is a specialized one equipped exclu­
sive!y for scallopîng. The United States scallopers, accordingly, have two
kinds of flexibility - a greater availabîlity of other grounds and an abil­
ity to switch to other species - that are without counterpart in Canada.

Thus the special dependence of the Nova Scotia scallop fleet on Georges
Bank is manifest not only in its overwhelmingly dominant share of the
recent historical catch, but in thesc other important factors.

4. The Offshore Fishery of the Small Vesse/ Fieet of Southwest Nova

Scotia

143. One important feature of the southwest Nova Scotia fishing
industry is its substantial fleet of small vessels that fish the offshore
banks 2• Much ·or this fleet is harboured in the small villages strung out
along the extreme southwestern coast of the province, a rural area that

depends almost exclusively on the fishery for its Jivelihood. Though the
larger vessels take the greater proportion of Canada's catches from
Georges Bank in terms of volume and dollar values, the offshore fishery
cond ucted by the small vesse! nect makes a contrî bution tha t is vital in
the context of the one-dimensional economy of many of these rural com­
munîties; and Georges Bank figures significantly in the fishing patterns

20
CanadaEnon East Coast Fishery Resources.tWashington, Department of Statc, Apriland
1980. On p. 104, it is sta ted:

"In the !975-77 period, 36 percent of the U.S. [scallop] catch came from the two
areas on Georges Bank while 64 percent came from the Mid-Atlantic grounds. New
percent of the Mid-Atlantic catch." 100 percent of the Georges Bank catch and 48
11
The expression "small" vessels is customarily used in the industry to tofvcssels
under 19.8 metres in length (i.e., in traditional industry usage, 65 feet). The small vesscls
capable of fishing offshore {i.e.. more than 12 miles from land) are main!y in the range of
1l to 20 metres in length (i.e.. the 35 to 65 foot range). The offshore fleet, apart from
this "small vessel" category, is customarily divided into two sectors: the large offshore
and 30.5 metres in lcngth (i.e.• 65 to 100 feet).d an intermediate category between 19.8[71-72] MEMORIALOF CANADA 73

of this fleet at certain limes of the year. There are several hundred of
these boats in southwest Nova Scotia.

J44. 1t is from the extreme southwestern end of Nova Scotia -
Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby counties (shown in Figure I J) - that

most of the small boat fishery on Georges Bank is carried out, large\y
because distance is of particular importance to vessels of thîs class. The
small boat fishery on the Bank is mainly conducted in the summer
because the area îs unsafo for such boats in the winter. Cod îs the most
important single species taken by this fleet on the Bank, though other

groundfish - haddock and cusk, in particular - rank not too far behind.
Much of the cod is salted for export at the small local plants, a labour­
intensive activity that provides employment during the winter months
when the small-boat fishery is restricted in its operation.

145. The dependence of the small boat fleet of these three coun­
ties on Georges Bank is significant: according to the official statistics, for
example, the Bank provided about one-quarter of the summer cod land­

ings by the small offshore boats of the area in 1978. ln Shelburne county,
over 35 percent of the cod landed by this fleet from the offshore banks in
the summer season·that year came from Georges Bank 22•Weil over one­
third of the Shelburne county small boat fleet involved in offshore
groundfish operations, and almost one-quarter of this fleet in Digby
county, made trips to Georges Bank in 1978 2•

146. The importance of access to Georges Bank for these vessels

can only be fully appreciated in the larger context of the regional fishery.
It is a seasonally crucial part of a set of fishing strategies the fishermen
use, turning their efforts from one bank to another at different seasons in
order to keep their boats operating for as much of the year as possible.
Other fishing grounds in the area are already heavily used, and any dis­

placement of small boats from the eastern Georges Bank fishery could
lead to serious overcrowding on other banks in the summer months.

147. Not surprisingly, the part of Nova Scotia most strongly
represented in the small boat Georges Bank fîshery is the corner of the
province in closest proximity to the Bank: Cape Sable Island and the
adjacent mainland shores. (Indeed, the smaH boats used in the offshore
fishery are generally of the famous "Cape Islander" design originally
named for Cape Sable Island and still the stock-in-trade of the local boat

builders of the area.) In 1978, well over half the small groundfish vessels
fishing the offshore banks from this district reported at least one trip to
Georges Bank during the year 24•The statistics indicate, moreover, that
roughly 45 percent of the summer cod landings and over 3_0per_centof the

" For 1978, the statistics indicate that l,245,000 of 5,051,000 kilograms (25 percent) of
cod landed in the summer months by this fleet in Digby, Yarmouth and Shelburne coun­
tîes were taken on Georges Bank. In Shelburne county, the proportions were 743,000 out
of 2,087,000 kilograms (35.6 percent). See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section Il, Annex 5 for
Tables relating to the offshore fishery of the small vesse] fleet of Nova Scotia.
21 In Shelburne county, 40 of 106 vessels (37.7 percent); in Digty, 26 of 113 vessels
(23 percent).
2• ln Nova Scotia fisheries district 32 (the Cape Sable Island area and the adjacent main­
land), 28 of 49 vessels in this class were r10ohave made trips to the Bank during
1978 (57.! percent).74 GULF OF MAINE [72-73]

summer haddock landings made by the small offshore vessels of this dis­
25
trict in 1978 were from Georges Bank •
148. The purely statistical record, however, omits one sector of

this fleet and understates the full extent of the Canadian small boat fish­
ery on Georges Bank. Many of the smaller vessels that use the offshore
banks - those under 25.5 gross tons, traditionally classified as "inshore"
- are exempt from the statistical reporting system maintained by the
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and as a result their cat­

ches are not recorded in the statistics compi!ed for the offshore banks.

C. THE ECONOMJC IMPORTANCE OF GEORGES BANK TO CANADA

149. The conventional economîc distinction between the "pri­
mary" sector - agriculture and the initial production of natural
resources - and the "secondary" or manufacturing sector provîdes a
convenient point of departure for an appraisal of the economic impact of ·
the Georges Bank fishery. In this context, of course, the primary sector
means fishing itself, the harvesting of the resource at sea, while the

secondary sector refers to the processing of the raw material ·after it has
been landed. ln the analysis that follows, these two activities wil! be
examined in order and compared in their importance with other compo­
nents of the primary and secondary sectors in the Nova Scotia and south­

west Nova Scotia economy. The importance of the Georges Bank fishery
for dependent industries like boat-building will then be consîdered; and
finally, the cumulative impact of ail these activities upon the broader
economy will be assessed.

J.Fishing - The Primary Sector

150. Employment levels provide a basic measure of economic
performance, in human terms the most important one. ln 1978, fishing
was the clear leader in primary sector employment in Nova Scotia as a
whole:

TABLE2

Percentage of
Number of16 Se<:torEmploymenly
Ma(1978)s (1978)

Fishing 6,377 . 36
Mining 4,900 28
Agriculture 3,550 20
Forestry 2,800 _!§

Total 17,627 100

Source; See AnneiŒs,Volume IV, Section III, Annexes 8 and 22.

11In fisheries district 32, 680,000 of 1,500,000 kilograms (45.3 percent) of reported sum­
mer cod landîngs by this fleet in 1978 were from Georges Bank, and 340,000 of
1,100,000 kilograms (30.9 percent) of the reported summer haddock landings.
1• Employment is expressed in terms of fu!l-time "man-years" of employment to reflect the,
fact that some workers are part-lime or occasional. See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section I-C
(The Measurement of Prîmary Sector Employment) for a fuller explanation. [73-74] MEMORIAL OF CAtiADÀ 75

Weil over half the fishermen in Nova Scotia are residents of the five
southwestern counties.
151. Fishing and mining are the two main primary sector con­
tributors 10 the gross domestic product of Nova Scotia as a whole. ln

some years fishing leads this sector of the provincial economy, as it did in
1978:

TABLE3

Share of Nova
Scotia Percentage of
(1978) GDP Sector GDP {1978)
($millions)

Fishing 139.0 38.3
Agriculture 89.4 24.6
Forestry 27.8 7.7
Mining 106.5 29.4

Total 362.7 100.0

Source: See Annexes, Volume IV, Section Ill, Annex 9.

Though mining often ranks ahead of fishing as a contributor to provincial
gross domestic product in the primary sector (especially when fish prices

are low), there are no signîficant mining developments in southwest Nova
Scotia. Agriculture, moreover, is a marginal sector in this part of the
province, mainly because of poor soils. Forestry, on the othcr hand, does
make a significant contribution to the economy of the five southwestern
counties (though largely through processing rather than primary produc­
tion); but itis one that ranks far behind fishing in its regional impor­

tance.

152. lt is the fishery, thcrefore, that holds an unchallenged posi­
tion as the dominant force in the economic lifeof southwest Nova Scotia.
@) Figures 27 and 28 show the distribution of both inshore and offshore fish
landings throughout the province, first in terms of scallops and lobster,
and then in terms of the finfish - both groundfish and the pelagic spe­
cics21.Three points arc immediately apparent. First, the industry is highly
concentrated in southwest Nova Scotia 28•Secondly, there is a remarkable

continuity in the fishery throughout the length of the southwcst Nova
Scotia coast. And final\y, the illustrations bring out the strong offshore.
orientation of the provincial flect (80 percent of total provincial
!andings), especially in the case of the southwest Nova Scotia scal!op
fishery.

153. Jtis not possible to depict the position of the fishery in the
five-county economy of southwestern Nova Scotia with .quite the statisti­
cal precision that is possible at the provincial levc\, since most of the pub­

lished economic indicators are not broken clown by county. Perhaps the
main point is that if the fishery is a pivotai component of the provincial

21Groundfüh are the bottom-dwelling species like cod and haddock. The pelagics (herring,
mackerel, swordfish) frequent higher strata in the water column and are generally more
migratory in their range.
liSee Annexes, Vol. IV, Section 1-D (The Regional Distribution of Fishing Activity in
Nova Sootia).76 GULF OF MAINE [74-75]

economy as a whole, it obviously plays a far more decisive role in the area
of its greatest concentration - an area without large cities and towns,
and therefore without a strong service sector in its economic composition;

without mines and of insignificant agricultural productivity; and an area
whose forestry industry, though significant, pales in comparison with the
fishery.

154. Though the full array of provincial economic data is not
availab!e at the five-county level, a very approximate indicator of the
relative importance of the prîmary sector occupations in southwest Nova ·
Scotia may be found in the census statistics. 1n 1971, fishing was

reported as an occupation about three times as often as farming and over
five times as often as Jogging by residents of these counties 2• ln Shel­
burne and Yarmouth counties, on the extreme southwest coast, fishing
was overwhelmingly predominant as a reportcd primary sector occupa­
tion - 95 percent and 78 percent respectively.

l55. It is clear, then, tha t the fishery is the lead ing contributor to
employment in the primary sector in the provincial economy as a whole,

and that it has an especially pronounced role in the cconomy of the south­
western part of the province. The contribution of Georges Bank itself to
this industry is an impressive one. Georges Bank landings, as a percent­
age of the Nova Scotia total, attained a level of nearly 20 percent in value
in the mid-] 960s and grew to account for over one-third of the total value

of provincial landings in 1978, as shown in Table 4 be!ow. The buIk of
Canada's Georges Bank catches are landed in southwest Nova Scotia -
about 45 percent by value of the landings în this region in 1978. Seldom
in recent years has Georges Bank contribu ted Jess than one-third of the
total annual value of fish landings in the five countics of southwest Nova

Scotia. ·

TABLE4

The Relathe Importance of the Value of
Georges Bank Landings (1978)

Total Georges Bank Georges Bank
($ millions) as % of total

Atlantic Provinces 386.8 66.5 !7.2
Nova Scotia \95.4 66.5 34.0
Southwest Nova Scotia 141.4 64.9 45.9

Source: See Annexes, Volume IV, Section Ill, Annex 11.

156. · Tables 5 and 6 show the Nova Scotia ports that are depend­

ent on Georges Bank for more than 10 percent of their landings, on the

"' lnthe census statistics, "hunting, trapping and related" were included in the same cate­
gory as fishing; but for this area these related categories may be regarded as insignifi­
cant. For the five-county ar!:jlas a whole, the primary sector breakdown was as follows:

Fishing, Hunting, Trappin&iRelatedbandry 3,830
Forestry& Logging 690
Mining & Quarrying 45

See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section II, Annex 10.[75-76) MEMORIAL OF CANADA 77

basis of 1978 figures, as well as five-year averages (in percentage terms)
for the five ports that head the list. These 19 ports are ail in southwest
Nova Scotia except for Canso and Petit de Grat in eastern Nova Scotia.
Ali the major ports of the area are represented, and it is precisely some of

the most important that are the most heavily - in some cases over­
whelmingly - dependent on Georges Bank.

TABLES

Nova Scolia Ports Dependent on Georges Bank for 10
Percent or More of Total Value of Landings, 1978

Total GeorgesBank ~orges
Value Value Bankas% of
Port {$'000) ($'000) Total Value

Lunenburg_ 37,298 31,186 83.6
Riverport 14,337 11,279 78.7
Saulnierville 10,345 8,157 78.9
Liverpool 5,415 4,768 88.1
Yarmouth 8,022 4,554 60.7
Central Port Mouton 2,399 88] 36.7
Canso 7,503 808 !0.8
Lockeport 3,220 725 22.5
Digby 4,354 551 12.1
Sandy Point 2,220 447 20.1
Shelburne 1,231 389 31.6
919 324 35.3
Centrevi!le
West Head 2,302 314 13.6
Petit de Grat 1,984 269 13.6
Newellton 1,364 214 15.7
Little River 1,565 155 10.0
South Side 859 131 15.3
Westport 744 131 17.6
Brier Island 62 12 19.4

Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, unpublislled landings data, 1978.

TABLE6

Georges Bank Landings as a Percentage of Total
Landings (in Value) at the Five Leading
Georges Bank Fishing Ports in Southwest Nova Scotia,
1974-1978

Five
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Vear
% % % % % Average

Lunenburg 72.5 79.3 78.5 81.3 83.6 79.04
Riverport ·66.2 70.0 72.2 77.0 78.7 72.82
Saulnierville 71.3 78.4 78.9 82.2 78.9 77.90
Liverpool 64.4 77.4 75.1 83.6 88.1 77.72
Yarmouth 79.4 66.6 71.4 58.9 60.7 67.40

Source: See A1me1Œs, olume IV, Section II, Annex 6.78 [77]
GULF OF MAINE

157. The scallop fishery is Nova Scotia 's principal cash crop from
the sea 3; and, as noted in paragra ph 141, Georges Bank generally pro­
vides upwards of 80 percent of Nova Scotia's scallop landings. In 1978,
for example, the total value of s.callop landings in Nova Scotia was almost
twice as great as the value of Jandîngs of either lobs.ter or cod, the next
most valuable sectors of the fishing industry of the province. The scallop

fishery is one that unlike many others operates through most of the year,
providing regular employment in an industry fraught with instability. The
Nova Scotia offshore scallop fleet, moreover, is designed and fitted espe­
cially to fish the Georges Bank resource. lt is a fleet whose growth has
been carefully controlled by the Government of Canada through a system
of "entry limitation" licence requirements. originally imposed in 1973.

This specialized offshore scallop fleet now stands at around 70 vessels
whose dependence on eastern Georges Bank is virtually absolute.
158. But the economic importance of the Georges. Bank scallop

harvest cannot be appreciated in isolation from its impact on the rest of
the industry. lt was largely on the strength of revenues from scallops - a
product that provides relatively hîgh returns - that the ten or so compa­
nies most active in Canada's. Atlantic fîshery were able to expand and
diversify their operations during the 1960s and early 1970s. Today these
companies continue to rcly heavîly on the profits. generated by s.callops to
cover Jessprofitable groundfish operations.

159. Though scallops represent the bulk of the Canadian catches
on Georges Bank (over 85 percent by value), the economic val.ue of land­

ings.of other species from this area is also significant. The importance of
Georges Bank groundfish to the smalt boat fleet in the villages scattered
along the coast has already been described in paragraphs 143 to 148. For
the larger trawlers, groundfish catches on Georges Bank contribute to the
maintenance of an essential margîn of economîc vîability in this hard­
pressed industry. These catches could not be replaced without adding to
the pressure on the resources. of the other Canadian grounds.

2. Processing - The Secondary Sector

160. In the province of Nova Scotia as a whole, fish processing
led ail other manufacturing industries in terms of employment in 1978,
accounting for about l S percent of total manufacturing employment - a
level about twice as great as that of the provincial pulp and paper indus­
try31. The provincial economy îs heavily dependent upon external mar­
kets, and fish products are the leading export:

io See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section 1-E (The Relative Importance of Scallops to the Nova
Scotia Fishery).

Jifollows: fish products: I5.3 percent; rubber and plastic products: 8.3 percent; transporta­
tion equipment: 7.9 percent; paper and allied industries: 9.7 percent (including pulp and
paperat 7.2 percent); other industries: 58.8 percent. See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section III,
Annexes 12 and 14 (Source B).[78] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 79

TABLE7
Distribution of Exporls by Product Group, Nova Scolia, 1978

Value % of
Product Group ($ millions) Total

Fish Products (fishmeal excluded) 263.9 30
Transportation Equipment 164.4 19
Papcr and Paperboard 107.1 12
Wood Pulp 99.5 11
Ali Other 250.8
...M
885.7 100
Total

S_ource:Sec Annexes, Volume IV, Section IIl, Annex 13.

161. In southwest Nova Scotia, the concentration of fish process­
ing facilities parallels that of the provincial fleet: about 75 percent of the
provincial processing industry is situated in this area 32. Figure 29 shows
the distribution of fish processing plant facilities, and· Figure 30 shows
the density of plant employment. It is significant that insets arerequired

in each case in order to accommodate the clusters of processing facilities
in the extreme southwest corner of the province, the coastal strip in clos­
est proximity to eastern Georges Bank. The range in the scale of these
plants is enormous: from the biggest, the modern National Sea plant at
Lunenburg (contributing substantially to ~he largest "wedge" in Figure
30), to the smaller facilities found in many'of the coastal villages.

162. Despite the obvious strength of the processing sector in this
area, its size is limited by two factors. First, sca\lops require Jess process­
33
ing than groundfish for conversion to mar keta ble form •Secondly, the
Nova Scotia industry is highly dependent upon exports, and the United
States is the principal market. The United States tariff favours the entry
of "raw" or semi-processed groundfish, and in consequence a substantial
proportion of Canadian landings are exported as raw materials for New

England plants (generally as frozen blocks) with very little Canadian
value-added.
163. But even .with these limitations, the fish products industry of
southwest Nova Scotia has attained a considerable degree of importance.

Although not ail the statistical indicators are available at the sub­
provincial Ieve\, there are two (compiled on the basis of 1976 data) that
are indicative. Fish processing in that year accounted for almost one•third
of wages and salaries in the manufacturing sector and over 40 percent of
the total value of shipments from manufacturing establishments in the
southwest of, the province 4. These are substantial proportions by any

standards, the more so in light of the statistica\ impact of the large
Michelin Tire plant at Bridgewater.

164. Though much of the income generated by the fish processing
industry is attributable to t~e industrial-scale plants of the area, smaller

" To be exact, about 75 percent of the total number of plants, 79 percent of the filleting
capacity, and 64 percent of the manpower requirements. (Departmentf Fisheries and
Oceans, unpublished data.)
" See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section I-F (Processing Employment by.Species).

3"See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section 1-G (Fisb Processing in the Context of Total Manufactur­
ing Activity in Southwest Nova Scotia).80 GULF OF MAINE (79]

faci!ities in dozens of coastal villages have a social and economic impor­
tance that is Jesseasily quantified. Entire stretches of coastline, especially
at the far southwestern corner of the province, are characterized by a
rural economy that is totally dedicated to the fishery as a way of life.
These coastal villages depend on their local plants - and the fish that

provide their raw material - for their survival and social cohesion. The
income the plants provide is widely dispersed and crucial to the undiversi­
fied rural economies of these coastal areas. The smaller plants are often
economically marginal enterprises, however, and every source of fish sup­
ply that is available to them - including the Georges Bank landings
from the sma Il boat fleet described in paragra phs 143 to 148 - must be
regarded as indispensable.

3. Dependent Industries and Indirect Effects

165. The fishing industry, like any other, is a buyer of goods and
services. Throughout southwest Nova Scotia, the suppliers of the industry

represent a pervasive feature of the regional economy. The nature of
these undertakings - many of them small enterprises - can easily be
surmised: boat builders and their suppliers, manufacturers of nets and
other gear, electronic equipment for the boats, machine shops and equip­
ment maintenance plants. lt is estimated that in the manufacturîng sector
alone, busînesses that are wholly or substantially dependent on the fishing
5
industry account for roughly 5 percent of total area employment.i • As
well (though the available statistical information does not permit a quan­
titative estîmate), there is obviously a considerable amount of indirect
employment generated in the many firms that sell supplies or provide ser­
vices to the fishing industry.

166. In the town of Lunenburg, for example, about half the com­
merce is generated by the fishery, especially the scallop fishery 3• The
average offshore scallop dragger costs in the order of $150,000 to
$200,000 per year for refit and maintenance; $130,000 per year for fuel;

$50,000 for crew supplies; and $70,000 for fishing gear. Most of these
goods and services are supplied by the local economy, and even those
goods that are produced elsewhere, like fuel, are generally sold through
local firms.

4. The Broader Impact on the Total Economy

167. Beyond the tangible quantity of the fishery itself and the
firms and businesses that serve and depend upon the industry, there is the
equally important factor of the impact of the revenues of these sectors
upon the regional and provincial economy as a whole: what is commonly
known as the multiplier effect. The money generated by the fishery is
spent upon the whole spectrum of goods and services, public and private,

that characterize a modern economy: on food and clothing and other con·
sumer goods in the local stores; on houses and the construction and main-

15
See Annexes, Vol. IV, Section l-H (Fishing Industry Share of Total Employment at the
County Level).
16 Shipbuilding alone almost exclusively dependent on the fisheemploys 200 per­
sons in Lunenburg town - over 20 percent of the town's manufacturing employees,
încluding those the National Sea processing plant.[80] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 81

tenance of plants; and as taxes to pay for educatfon, roads, police and
other public services. ln the aggregate, this broader economy far out­
weighs any single contributing sector, including the fishery; but the
important point is that the fishery provides the foundation without which
the total economy would be gravely impaired.

168. · ln a resource-based and mainly rural economy like that of
Nova Scotia, it is the goods-producing capacity of the economy, and espe­
cia\ly the wealth created by the exploitation of its natural resources, that

drives and sustains the whole. Fishing and fish processing together make
up about 15 percent of gross domestic product in the goods-producing
sector in the province 37•

169. Although gross domestic product figures are not available at
the county level, records of employment in the fishing industry also pro­
vides a reasonable yardstick of economic performance. lt is conservatively

estimated that about 15 percent of the labour force in southwest Nova
Scotia is employed in fishing and fish processing taken together, ranging
to as high as 25 percent in Shelburne county in .the extreme southwest.
Related manufacturing industries, as already qoted in paragraph 165,
account for a further 5 percent3 8• Thus, withouf even countîng its role in

sustaining the broader economy, including the dependence of non­
manufacturing businesses that provide services and supplies to the indus­
try, the fishery generates about one-fifth of al! employment in southwest
Nova Scotia. And what is of even greater importance is that, as the lead­
ing basic industry in an area with very little economic diversity, the fish­
ery is the fondamental underpinning for the regional economy as a whole.

lt is the base upon which the economîc superstructure must very largely
rest.
170. The scale of the contribution that Georges Bank itself makes

to the regional fishery has already been described in paragraphs 155 and
156: ranging to over 45 percent of the total value of southwest Nova
Scotia landings, and seldom less than a third; and in the order of 65 to 80
percent of the total value of landings at the larger fishing ports of the
area. Though the proportion of employment generated by Georges Bank

as a percentage of the total îndustry labour force would be somewhat
lower than these figures, partly because proc19sing requirements. for scal­
lops are not as great as for groundfish , the relative importance of
Georges Bank in the context of the southwest Nova Scotia fishery in its
entirety is readily apparent.

171. T_heemployment percentages given in this chapter have been
calculated on a conservatîve basis, .by converting employment into terms
of full-time "man-years". Since there are substantial numbers of part­
time and seasonal workers in the fishing industry, the number of
individuals actually involved in the industry work force is higher than the

percentages tend to suggest. Further, labour force participation rates are
low in this part of the province - partly because work opportunities for
women are largely restricted to the fish plants - and unemployment

J7 See Annexes, Vol. IV, SectIll,Annex 14,
38See Annei.es, Vol. IV, Section 1-H (Fishing lndustry Share of Total Employment at the
County Level).
39 The approximate estimates explained in the Annexes, Vol. IV, Section I-F (Processing
Employment by Species) indîcate that rougbly one man-year per 75 metric tons is
'required for scallop processing, and one man-year per 40 metric tons for groundfïsh.82 GULF OF MAINE [81)

rates are high in comparison to the national average. ln consequence, the
number of non-working dependents supported by each worker is rela­
tively high. Moreover, income from non-employment sources - govern­
ment transfer payments and unemployment insurance - amounts to an
estimated 31 percent of the total money income of area residents, 10 per­
centage points higher than the Canadian average. The importance of

maintaining a strong base for the productive sector of the regîonal
economy is evident. ·

172. A factor that lends a special importance to the fishery in the
southwest Nova Scotia economy is that its benefits are widely distributed
throughout the region. In the most rural areas of the regîon - above ail
in Shelburne county in the far southwest - the dependence of the local
economy on the fishery is especîally pronounced. For the smaller coastal
villages of southwest Nova Scotia, the role of the fishery can only be
properly appreciated in human' rather than purely econoinic terms. ln
much of the area there is no other basic industry at ail; and without the

fishery dozens of villages and towns would simply cease to exist. Many of
these villages rely on Georges Bank for at least some of their landings,
often for a significant proportion in the summer months when the small
boat fleet descrîbed in paragraphs 143 to 148 is most active on the off­
shore banks.
1
173. lceland and Norway, especial\y the former, are classic exam-
ples of countries where the fishery is of special importance to the
economy 40•Though national and regional comparisons are never exact,
they can provide a sense of scale. The importance of the fishing industry
in lce\and far exceeds that of the Nova Scotia industry according to cer­

tain measures: in value of exports, for example, it amounts to over 75 per­
cent. But in terms of employment generated, the lcelandic proportion -
about 15 percent in fishing and fish processing combîned - is roughly
the same as in southwest Nova Scotia. The comparîson, it is submitted,
serves to show that dependence on a single îndustry to generate as much
as 15 percent of total employment in an economy is a substantial degree
of dependence.

174. In Norway, the fishing industry accounts for 2 to 3 percent
of total employment, much Jess than the corresponding proportions for
Nova Scotia. Offshore oil, of course, has had a major impact on the
Norwegian economy, and a regional comparison may be more representa­
tive. The economy of northern Norway (the counties of Nordland, Troms

and Finnmark) is considered, to be heavily dependent on the fishing
industry; and in that region, the fishin_gindustry accounts for about 10 to
15 percent of total employment - a proportion in roughly the same
range as the correspondîng figure for southwest Nova Scotia, or perhaps
somewhat Jess.

5. Hydrocarbon Development

175. Although only the future can tell what if any impact hydro­
carbon resources may have on the regîonal economy in the Atlantic Prov·
inces, two points may be noted. First, ail hydrocarbon development in the

'°the Annexes, Vol.IV, Section III, Annex 15(lceland) and Annex 16 (Norway). are found in[82) MEMORIAL OF CANADA 83

offshore arcas adjacent to Nova Scotia will be joîntly managed by the
ferlerai and provincial governments under an agreement concluded on 2
March 1982, and ail or a major portion of the royalty revenues will

accrue to the province undcr that agreement (already referred to in para­
graph 45). Sccondly, offshore hydrocarbon devclopment poses environ­
mental dangers a!ong with the economic benefits it offers. In the case of
eastern Georges Bank, the ocean currents prcvailing in the spring could
circulate any surface oil that might be spilled to the Canadian coast and
the inshore waters off southwest Nova Scotia, according to scientific
41
models produced at the University of Rhode Island • Unless the hydro­
carbon resources are developed by Canada, the fishermen of southwest
Nova Scotia would find themselves exposed to a risk for which no com­
mensurate benefits would accrue to Canada.

6. New England: A Brief Comparison

176. The basic facts have a!ready been set out in paragraphs 59 to
62 and 133 to 142. There is a clear-cut distinction between the fisheries
of the state of Maine and those of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In
Maine, inshore fishing patterns have traditionally prevailed, rescmbling
thosc of the adjacent province of New Brunswick. There has been little

rcliance on Georges Bank, partly no doubt becausc of Maine's relatively
grea ter distance from the Bank, and parti y becausc of the avai!abîlity of
valuable fisheries doser to home. Accordingly, though eastern Maine has
a significant dependcnce on fisheries, its flcct concentrates upon the hcr­
rîng, lobstcr and redfish of the inner Gulf of Maine.

177. It is from a very few ports of the statcs of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island that most of the United States Georges Bank fishery is car­
ried out - substantially, though not exclusively, in the undîsputed area

- and in the dîversified industrial and tourist economy of those states,
the fishery is no more than a drop in the proverbial buckct. For example,
total employment in the fishing and processing industries in the state of
Massachusetts would appear to be only about one-half of one percent of
the labour force, roughly one-tenth the corresponding figure in Nova
Scotia 42.

178. Even in the handful of New England ports in which the
Georges Bank fishery is concentrated, the îndustry Jacks the importance

it has for the Nova Scotia fishing ports. New Bedford, for example, is
Massachusetts' leading fishing port in landed value, accounting for the
bulk of its Georges Bank landings. Yet even here the fishery occupies a
very secondary ro!e in the diversified economy that one would cxpect in a
mature New England city of about !00,000. In short, the contrast
between the economy of those areas of New England from which the

United States Georges Bank fisheries are conducted and the rural
economy of southwest Nova Scotia, so highly depcndent on the fishery,
could hardly be greater.

41 EricL. Anderson and Malcolm L. Spaulding: "Application of an Oil Spill Fates Mode]
to Environmental Management on Georges Bank." (The Environmemai Professional,
Vol. 3, Nos. l /2, 1981, pp. 119-! 32.)
42 See Annexes, Vol. lV, Section 111,Anncx 17. 1n !978 the estimated Nova Scotia fishing
industry sharc of cmployment was about l 1,928 (man-years) of a total of about 254,827
or about 5 percent. See Annexes, Vol. IV, SectionAnnexes 8, 14 (Source B) and 22.84 GULF OF MAINE (83]

Section II. Historical Evolution of Canada's Presence in the Georges

Bank Fishery

A. THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
179. The central position or Georges Bank in the Nova Scotia
fishery is the product or a long evolutionary process. Canada's presence

on the Bank had its beginnings in the nineteenth century and attained its
present level or importance arter World War II.

180. The extent of the early Canadian fishery is incapable of
exact measurement. There are a number of factors that rule out any pre­
cision in the reconstruction of the early character of the fishery - the
natural reticence of skippers on the location of their best fishing grounds,
the absence or the mandatory reporting requirements and elaborate

bureaucracies that exist today to monitor the industry, and the hazards to
which local archives are inevitably exposed. The evidence is orten sketchy
until the systematic collection of statistics on the location and quantities
of catches was first begun in recent years; but within these limitations, at
\east some of the broad historical patterns can still be discerned with
reasonable clarity.

181. The New Englanders probably appeared first on Georges
Bank in the 1830s, though it is not clear to what extent these initial
efforts involved the eastern sectors of the Bank. Canadians also fre­
quented Georges Bank in the nineteenth century. ln 1867, the .year of
Confederation, a Report on the Fisheries of Nova Scotia by Thomas ·p,

Knight indicated that "The most westerly bank to which our fishermen
repair is St. George's Bank", a "favourite resort" of United States fisher­
men as well because of its large extent 4• At about the sarne time, on 19
February 1868, a report from the Department of Marine and Fisheries
office in Halifax to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in Ottawa gave
a general overview of the state of the Nova Scotia fisheries. After review­
ing the state of the river fisheries, the report went on to indicate that

Nova Scotia occupied "the firstplace among the Provinces of the Domin­
ion in the extent and value of the Sea Fisheries", and described the banks
of Nova Scotia within 5 to 20 nautical miles of the coast. lt then added:
"Besides these there are others at a greater distance from the coast,
among which the most important are St. George's, La Have, Sable, Sam­
bro, and St. Pierre Banks 44."

182. The southwestern fishing grounds of Nova Scotia, which
include Western, La Have, Browns, and Georges banks, took on a grow­

ing importance for Canadian fishermen in the last quarter of the nine­
teenth century, as the southern mackerel fishery and the fresh fishery
(centred largely on haddock and so called to distinguish it from the salt

" Thomas F. Knight: Report 011the Fisheriei1Nova Scotia. Halifax, A. Grant, 1867,
p. 3. Georges Bank was often referred to at this time, at least in Nova Scotia, as St.
George's Bank, an appellation that appeared on some of the early charts. See Annexes,
Vol. 11,Annex 1.
44Letter from Mr. H. W. Johnston, Department of Marine and Fisheries, Halifax, to the
Honourable P. Mitchell, Mînister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, 19 February 1868,
records of the Nova Scotia Department of Fîsheries, Public Archives of Nova Sootîa, RG
15,Vot. 26, No..14647,p. 7. See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 2.[84] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 85

cod fishery) became lucrative pursuits. The proximity of these fishing
grounds to the ports of southwest Nova Scotia was an important factor.
The Pubnicos, Yarmouth and Lockeport, for instance, are between 90 to
104 nautical miles from the northeastern part of Georges Bank. The rela­
tive proximity of southwest Nova Scotia to the major markets in the
United States was also a factor, and the two nineteenth-century periods

of free trade in fish products between Canada and the United States
(1854-1866 and 1871-1885) provided a major stimulus to the develop­ 4
ment in Canada of a distinct offshore fleet for the southwestern banks s.
Nova Scotians gradually developed a pattern of fishing that involved not
so much exclusive reliance on a single area, but a systematic ranging over
a sequence of banks - Georges, Browns, La Have and others - in an
effort to capitalize on the opportunities as they arose from season to sea­
son. These grounds were of major importance in the diversification of the
Nova Scotia fishing industry in the late nineteenth century into products
other than sait cod.

B. 1900 TO 1945

183. During the first quarter of the twentieth century, fleets of
schooners and steam trawlers from the southwestern ports of Nova Scotia
were engaged in the year-round exploitation of several major groundfish
species on the same sequence of fishing banks, including Georges. The
growth of the fresh fish market in Boston and New York during these
years helped to stimulate the expansion of Canadian activity on Georges
Bank. The southwestern banks met nearly ail the requirements of a com­
plete fishing economy. The range of ~pecies they offered over the fishing
year, beginning with haddock in the fall and winter, halibut in the late
winter and·spring, and cod and mackerel in spring and summer, made it
possible for the Canadian fleet, subject to the constraints of supply and
demand, to satisfy its markets in the West Indies (for sait cod), central
Canada (smoked haddock), and New York and Boston (haddock and
halibut). Vessels from southwest Nova Scotia carrying lobsters to Boston
took groundfish on Georges Bank on their return voyages.

184. Digby on the Fundy coast of Nova Scotia was one major
centre of this fishery, especially the "finnan haddie" or smoked haddock
trade that was aimed at both central Canadian and American markets. In
1914, the editor of the Canadian Fisherman described Digby's exploita­
tion of the southwestern banks in the following terms:

"Digby's fishing skippers are celebrated for the big stocks in the
fresh fishing and their 95 ton schooners, small enough for winter
fishing compared with the big craft out of Boston and Gloucester,
have made names for themselves among the trawlers from Georges
to Western Bank''ii."

45 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 and the Treaty of Washington of 1871 provided for
Canadian access to the United States market.
"4lF. William Wallace: "Haddocking on Brown's Bank.(Canadlan Fisherman,Vol. I,
No. 5, May 1914, p. 141.) See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 3.86 GULF OF MAINE (85]

Again, in 1916, a report carried in both the Canadian Fisherman and the
Digby Weekly Courier predicted:

"If the haddock have not already startcd, they will soon begin to
move away from the shores and for the next landings of any impor­

tance we shall likely have to depend on t47 off-shore vessels fishing
on Brown's, Georges and Western Banks .''

The same reliance on Georges Bank was indicated in many contemporary
newspapers and other documents. In 1922, a story in the Canadian

Fisherman acknowledged that the Maritime Fish Corporation - one of
the largest firms in the fishery of the day - had chosen Digby for one of
its two branches because of its proximity to a number of prime fishing
grounds, including Georges Bank 48.

185. The same pattern developed at other centres in southwestern

Nova Scotia. The vessels of the Yarmouth and Pubnico fleets fished the
sequence of southwestern banks, including Georges, Browns and La
Have, as a matter of course, movîng from one location to another to max­
imize their catch. This pattern is reflected in a casual newspaper notice

from the Yarmouth Times in 1915, which reports on the annual dogfish
runs encountered by a Yarmouth vesse!, the Eddie James, on a ten-day
trip during which she -

"... covered a good deal of ground but everywhere found the
waters swarming with dogfish. She fished first on the southeast part
of La Have Bank then had a try on George's, and again off Cape
49
Sable, finishing up on the Grand Manan 'Bank ".

It was a common practice in the Yarmouth and Pubnico fleets to fish on
Georges Bank when the annual dogfish "pestilence" was particularly bad
on the other southwestern banks.

186. Liberal trade policies in effect in the United States from
50
1913 to 1922 provided a major stimulus to the export of fresh and
mildly cured fish from the ports of southwest Nova Scotia. Together with
the Hazen-Redfield pact (1918-192 l), which allowed direct landings by
Canadian fishing vessels in United States ports, these liberal policics led
to increased Canadian use of Georges Bank. Although the imposition of a

new tariff by the United States in 1922 curtailed Canadian access to
American markets,, Nova Scotian fishing patterns on the southwestern
banks persisted, albeit at reduced levels and lower profits 51•The 1928

41"The Atlantic Fisherîes. The Twe!ve Months' Tally: Digby, N.S." Special Correspond­
ence. (Camidian f'isherman, Vol. III, No. 2, February 1916, p. 53.) See Annexes.
Vol. Il, Annex S.
41Roy M. Whynacht: "Maritime Fish Corporation."(Canadian Fisherman, Vol. IX, No. 7.
July 1922, p. 142.) See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 6.

••Annexes,nVol.li,Annex 4.(The Digby Week/y Courier, Friday, 25 June 1915.) See
50
The Underwood Tariff of 1913 removed the three quarterofa cent perpound tariff on
Canadian fish.
' Royal Commission Jnvesligating the Fisheries of the Maritime Provinces. Proceedings.
Ottawa, King's Printer, 1927-1928. Vol. 9, p. 3432 and Vol. 10, p. 3476. See Annexes,
Vol. II. Annex 7.[86] ME:MORlAL OF CANADA 87

Report of the Royal Commission lnvestigating the Fisheries of the
Maritime Provinces included Georges Bank in a Jist of what it described
as "the principal fishing grounds of the North Atlantic, resorted to by
fishing-vessels and steam trawlers from the Atlantic ports of Canada, and
by vessels and steam trawlers from other countries 52".

187. During periods when United States markets were protected

by a tarîff barrier, some Nova Scotia entrepreneurs adopted a practice of
acquiring American flag vessels and continuing their registration in the
name of an American owner who often had lîttle more than a nominal
ownership interest. These vessels very often sailed out of Nova Scotia
ports and were substantially if not entîrely crewed by Canadian seamen,
and thus conducted themselves in a manner largely indistinguishable

from Canadian registered vessels. The use of an American registry
became in effect a "flag of convenience" device allowing the direct mar­
keting of the catch in the United States. At times, therefore, the de facto
Canadian fleet significantly exceeded the de jure Canadian fleet, though
the difference in size cannot now be precîsely determined, so many years
after the events in question l.

188. The 1920s and 1930s were apparen tly marked by a decl ine in
groundfish activity by Canadian schooners and trawlers on Georges
Bank, though schooner-and-dory fishermen from Canada continued to

operate on the Bank through these years. The reasons for this decline
included the cancella tion of the Hazen- Redfield pact in 1921 and the
imposition of the prohibitive Fordney Tariff of 1922. At the same timc,
Canadîan government policy itself sought to restrict the offshore steam
trawIer component of the Canadian industry. Regula tions flowing from
the recommendations of the 1928 Royal Commission on the Maritime

Fisheries (which had concluded that the large catches of trawlers tended
to glut fish markets and thus to depress the prîces paid to inshore fisher­
men) haéla severe impact on the offshore fleet. Canadian trawlers were
subjected to prohibitive licence fees 4. Largely as a result of this legisla­
tion, the number of tra w!ers in Atlantic Canada declined progressively.

189. The contraction of world markets .during the Great Depres­
sîon affected United States as well as Canadian entrepreneurs, and the
1930s saw a gerieral decline both in the supply of groundfish and in fish­
ing activity on Georges Bank, During this period, more of Canada's off­

shore fishcrmen turned their attention to the swordfish fishery, which had
been conducted on Georges Bank by Nova Scotian vessels from the early
years of the present century. In the 1930s it became an important indus­
try in which Canadian fishermen were the leadîng producers 55.lt comple­
mented the groundfish fishery, as these two activities were often pursued

siReport of 1heRoyal Commission Investigating the Fisher/es of the Maritime Provinces
and the Magda/en Islands. Ottawa, King's Printer, 1928, p. 7. See Annexes, Vol. II,
51Annex 8.
Frederick William Wallace: Roving Fisherman. An Au.tobiography Recou.nting Persona{
United States19/1-1924.Gardenvale, Quebec, Canadian Fisherman, 1955, pp. l2 ande
101.

:w Steam Trawler Order. P.C. 2196, 30 October 1929. See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 9.
s,S.N. Tibbo, L.R. Day and W. F. Doucet: The swordfish (Xiphias Gladius L.). lis llfe­
history and economic importance in the northwest Atlantic. Ottawa, Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Bulletin No. 130, 1961, p. 20.88 GULF OF MAINE [87]

seasonally by the same vessels. Even after the outbreak of World War II,
the swordfish fishery on Georges Bank continued: thus, for example, in
1942 the Lucille M of Yarmouth, with 1.6 metric tons of swordfish in its
56
hold, was sunk on Georges Bank by a submarine • Sorne of the pioneers
of the Canadian offshore scallop fishery in the post-war period were out­
fitted for swordfish as well, and the latter fishery may in a sense be
regarded as a precursor·of the present scallop industry.

C. THE PosT-WAR PERIOD

190. In the late I930s, Canadia n fishermen became aware of a
potentially lucrative scallop ground on Georges Bank. No significant

development of a scallop fishery occurred at that time, however, because
of the outbreak of World War Il. In 1945, a concerted effort began with
the pioneer voyage of the Mary E. Kenny under Captain John Beck. By
1947, Canadian scallop draggers were making regular trips to Georges
Bank 57, and during the early 1950s the Bank's scallop grounds became a
major engine of growth in the Nova Scotia fishery. At that time, large

new draggers, built especially for the offshore sca\lop fishery, began to
enter the fleet. In a few years, Nova Scotia completely dominated the
scallop fishery on eastern Georges Bank. By 1966, in the words of a docu­
ment prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council in
March 1981, there had been a "virtual abandonment" of eastern Georges
Bank by the United States scallop fleet, and "that area had become a tra­
58
ditional Canadian scallop ground ".
191. The growth of the Canadian Georges Bank scallop fishery

was accompanied by a diversified interest in other fisheries on the Bank,
bath old and new. The Bank continued to be a primary location of the
Canadian swordfish fishery which expanded and prospered until 1971 59,
when Canada and the United States took regulatory action against
swordfish exceeding specified levels of mercury content. Sorne of the ves­
sels which had been employed in that fishery then turned to the develop­

ment of an offshore lobster fishery focused on the Corsair Canyon area of
Georges Bank(,(}.During the 1960s, Canadian vessels were active in
developing a herring fishery on Georges Bank. This fishery prospered

56 Wreck Report, File: East Coast Lucille M, 26 July 1942, Records of the Department of
Transport, Public Archives of Canada, RG 12, VoL887. See Annexes, VoLII, Annex 10.
17 Sorne of the vesselsinvolvedwere the Elaine W from Halifax, the Nepsya, Dale Maxwell
and Janet and Douglas from Lunenburg, the l.G.P. from the Pubnico area and a num­
ber of the lan::erinshore scallop vesselsfrom the port of Digby. See N. Bourne: Scal/ops.
and the Ohshore Fishery of the Maritimes. Ottawa, Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Bulletin No. 145, 1964,p. 22.
13 "Environmental Impact Statement Fishery Management Plan Regulatory Ana!ysis
North West Atlantic Sea Scallops." Boston, New Eng!and Management Council in Con­
sultation with the Mid-Atlantic Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Man­
agement Council, March 1981,pp. A2.2-A2.4.
59 J. F. Caddy: A Review of Sorne Factors Relevant to Managemeof Swordfish Fisheries
in the Northwest Atlantic. Technical Report No. 633. St. Andrews, New Brunswick,
Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Develop­
ment Directorate, 1976, pp. 9-10, 21.
60 D. G. Wilder and D. E. Graham: Offshore lobster Trap Fishing, July /0 ~oAugust JO,
1971. Manuscript Report Series No. 1236. St. Andrews,. New Brunswick, Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, 1973, p. 2.[88] MEMORIAL Of CANADA 89
61
until the early l970s , when overfishing by distant-water fleets led to the
virtual extinction of the Georges Bank herring stock. There have also
been sporadic Iandings of mackerel, tuna and squid from the Bank by
Canadian fishermen during the post-war period. ·

192. Apart from scallops, the most important Canadian fishery on
Georges Bank in recent years has been for groundfish. The growing
importance of the Bank to the Nova Scotia groundfish industry forms
part of a broader development marking a major change in the character

of the Canadian Atlantic fishery. Until the 1930s, Nova Scotia fishermen
operated extensively in offshore areas, mainly with dory schooners. The
inshore fishery, however, was also important, and it was precisely for the
promotion and protection of this labour-intensive activity that measures
were imposed between the wars to curtail the early expansion of the off­
shore trawler fleet. Events in the post-war period brought about a revital­
ization of the offshore fishery, and the growing demand for fish and

increased competition for the resources lying off Canada's shores pro­
vided the impetus for the development of a modern offshore fleet. Thus
an offshore fleet of modern vessels supplanted the dory schooners on
which Nova Scotia had traditionally relied. The trend towards the off­
shore fishery in Atlantic Canada was most pronounced in Nova Scotia:
by 1978 the province was home to more than one-half of the Atlantic off­
shore fleet, which accounted for 80 percent of the total provincial land­

ings.
193. The growth of this modern offshore fleet bas been reflected

in growing Canadian groundfish Jandings from Georges Bank. Cod and
haddock landings rose to record levels in 1966 and significant quantities
of pollock, cusk, flounder and redfish were also taken. However, ground­
fish catch levels on Georges Bank and indeed throughout the Northwest
Atlantic decreased after 1966 as a result of the activities of distant-water
fleets. This trend bas only been reversed with the extension of coastal
State jurisdiction to 200 miles in 1977.

194. The Canadian groundfish fishery on Georges Bank in the
post-war period bas had two quîte distinct components. In addition to the

large trawlers. increasing use has been made of the Bank during the sum­
mer months by smaller vèssels - in particular the "Cape Islanders" -
from the ports on the extreme southwestern coast of Nova Scotia most
proximate to Georges Bank. This represents the continuation of a local
small boat fishery which can be dated from at least as early as the 1920s.

D. CANADIAN fISHERIES RESEARCH

195. Canada's participation in the Georges Bank fishery is mani­
fested as well by its strong record of scientific research. Much of this
research effort has been concentrated in the field of fisheries biology and
to a lesser degree in oceanography, and almost ail of it has been spon­
sored and funded by the Government of Canada to provide a scientific

basis for the conservation and management of the living resources of
Georges Bank. Research programs have been characterized throughout

61
R. G. Hal\iday: "A descripofCanadian fisheries in Subarea 5 and Statistîcal Area 6,
1969-72." (ICNAF, Serial No. 3174, Research Document 74/27, 1974.) 90 GULF OF MAINE [89]

by spirit of international scientific cooperation, principally between
Canadian scientists and those of the United States, but extending as well
to their counterparts from other countries whose vessels participated in
the fishery in the years before the 200-mile limit. Thus there has been
intensive collaboration over the years between Canadian and American
scientists at specialized institutions such as the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada Biologica\ Station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and the
Woods Hole Laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries Service in
Massachusetts. ·

196. Research vessels owned or chartered by the Government of
Canada have made numerous scientific cruises to the Georges Bank area
from the 1950s on, complemented by visits of Canadian research workers
on board ordinary commercial fishing vessels to observe their operations
and to collect technical information. For entirely pragmatic reasons there
has been a degree of international specialization in these efforts, with
Canada generatly taking the lead in research related to the scallops and
.large pelagic fishes of the Bank (especially swordfisb and tuna), and
playing an only slightly Jess decisive role with respect to herring. In the
case of haddock, on the other band, it bas been the United States that has
carried out most of the work at sea through its major program at Woods

Hole, with Canadian scientists providirrg strong support in the equally
important work of analyzing and interpreting the raw data.

E.ICNAF

197. Sorne Canadian scientific research has been transla ted into
the purely domestic conservation measures Canada bas imposed upon its
fishe.rmenoperating on Georges Bank. For many years, however, much of
it was dedicated to the work of the International Commission for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), as the multilateral organization
charged with the conservation of the living resources of this area of the
sea. The technical work for Georges Bank under the aegis of ICNAF was
carried out within "panel 5", vested under the convention with responsi­
bility for subarea 5, of which Georges Bank is a part. (See Figure 22.)
® Canada and the United States were the sole charter members of panel 5
under the convention as adopted in 1949, in contrast to the broader origi-
nal membership of the other four panels. ·

198. This recognition of the special interest of Canada and the
United States reflected the criteria set out in Article IV of the convention
for membership in the panels; in brief, eligibility requîred either "current
substantial exploitation" of the fisheries, or a "coastline adjacent to" the
subarea concerned 6• But what is of even greater significance in the pro­
cess whereby ICNAF panel membership was established is the fact that
it was the United States, in its "Draft International Convention for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries" (dated I October 1948), that proposed
both the principle of coastal State membership in subarea panels and the

6l See Annexes, Vol. I, Anl,for the texl of the International Convention for the North­
west Atlantic Fisheries.[90] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 91

63
joint control of subarea 5 by Canada and the United States .Indeed, the
United States looked upon the full participation of coastal States in panel
decisions as an essential means of protecting the rights of small fishing
vessels operating from countries adjacent to each subarea 64.

199. Both Canada and the United States, as the two coastal State
partners in this area of the sea, played especially significant rotes

throughout the history of ICNAF in the development and implementa·
tion of conservation measures for the fisheries of Georges Bank. The
nature of this cooperative relationship was equally apparent in the
approach adopted within ICNAF for the establishment of national quotas

for Georges Bank fish stocks. Again, the general trend was to treat both
Canada and the United States without question as the coastal States for
this area, especially as distant-water fleets became increasingly concen­
trated on Georges Bank during the 1960s and 1970s, creating problems

of allocation that were both nove! and acute. The application of the
guidelines used to establish allocations for the Bank also saw the United
States recognizing Canadian coastal status in arguing, as both countries
often did before the commission, that nations with a coastal interest had
a special concern that overrode the claims of distant-water fishing

nations".1.

61International Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Conference, Proceedings, 26 January to 5
Febmary 1949, Public Archives of Canada, RG 23, Vol. 1597, File 784-6-8[1 J,Docu­
ment 1, 1October 1948, p. 7, Article IV, p. 7, para. 6 and Annex, p. 24, para. 2, Suhsec­
tîon (D). (Subarea 4 in the draft convention was subsequently renumbered as subarea 5
consequent ta the division of the original subarea I into two parts.) Also Document lS,
pp. 5-6, paras. 29-36, and Document 16, pp. 10-12, paras. 72-82. For a statement of the
Canadîan view see Document 16, p. 9, para. 59, and Document 40, p. 2, para. 10. For
United States views on the relative importance of the criteria for panel membership see
Document 20, p. 5, r.aras. 51-53, and p. 6, paras. 54-56. For Documents15,16, 20 and
40 see Annexes, Vo. Il, Annexes 1l, 12, 13,14and 15.
64Ibid.,Document 20, p. 5, paras. 52-53.
65Thus, for example, at the January 1973 specia! meeting of ICNAF, the United States
submined a paper proposing fishing e_ffortreductions for various member States in suh­
areas 5 and 6. The.paper stressed that "coastal fishing interests should be given high pri­
orit;(lt exempted both Canada and the United States from any effort reductions and
explicitly noted that "because Canada and the United States are coastal fishing nations,
their effort was not reduced". (Special Meeting, January 1973, Proceedings No. 4,
Appendix l, reproduced in Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 26.) At the October 1973 special
meeting, in a "Working Group on Catch Allocations for Subarea 5 and Statistical Arca
6", Canada and the United States made several joint pronouncements indicative of their
coastal State partnershipn respect of these areas. For example:
"The delegates of the United States and Canada pointed out that reduction of catch
to less than 900,000 tons is necessary to begin recovery of the biomass, and that
coastal fishermen have already suffered economically through depletion ofhe stocks
and are not mobile." (Special Meeting, October 1973, Proceedings No. 5, p. 1, repro­
duced in Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 27.)

At the January 1974 special meeting, in discussions on national allocations in panel S
with respect to mackerel in subarea 5 and statistica! area 6, the United States delegate
"proposed that the needs of the coastal states be fîxed first and the remainder of the TAC
[total allowable catch] divided in someequîtah\e manner among the other countries". The
delegates of the United States and Canada agreed ta proposed mackerel al!ocations
"under reservation of their rights as coastal states". (Fourth Special Commission Meet­
ing, January 1974,Proceedings No. 3,p. 3, reproduced in Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 28.)92 GULF Of MAINE [91]

Section III.Conclusion
200. As demonstrated in Section l of this chapter, the fishery is
the main pillar of the southwest Nova Scotia economy, and the resources
of Georges Bank are vital toits prosperity. The regional dominance of the
fishing industry has endured since colonial times to become a stable fea­
ture of economic and social life. And a variety of powerful geographical
and economic forces - the limited natural resources of southwest Nova
Scotia, its maritime character and extensive coast, and its distance from
the North American industrial heartland - ail point toward a strong
commitment to this industry in the years to corne.

201. An industry of this importance cannot but have a profound
impact on the entire social fabric of the area. lndeed, it was only in the
1960s, wben the growth of Nova Scotia's modern offshore fleet had
become an established reality, that the graduai exodus of the productive
population from southwest Nova Scotia was finally arrested; and it is on
the maintenance of a strong fishery that the area's future must very
largely depend. Though by no means wealthy, the area today is far from
depressed. The fishery bas allowed its inhabitants to achieve a modest
level of economic well-being and stability; but it is a fragile economic
base, precisely because it is so heavily committed to this single industry.
Against this background, eastern Georges Bank can only be described as
crucial to the region most heavily dependent on its exploitation.

202. The historical evolution of Canada's presence in the fisheries
of Georges Bank shows that the Canadian presence is a deeply rooted one
- despite natural fluctuations in its intensity over the years - and that
the trend since World War li bas been one of growth. Moreover, in
assessing the weight and importance of Canada's attachment to the Bank,
it must be borne in mind that it is the eastern portion - the area claimed
by Canada - that bas been the focal point of the traditional Canadian
interest. The patterns that emerged in the years before the assertion of
exclusive jurisdiction express natural geographic factors and economic
forces, and the strength of the Canadian fishery on the eastern part of
Georges Bank may be said to reflect a natural division of the Bank
between the two nations. [92] 93

CHAPI'ER IV. HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE

Section I. The General Political and Diplomatie Record

A. CONTINENT AL SHELF ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO THE EXTENSION OF
F1SHER1ES JURISDICTION

203. The Government of Canada first enacted regulations author­
izing oil and gas operations in offshore areas in l960 1•These regulations
empowered the appropriate authorities of the Government of Canada to

issue permits for exp\oratory work in areas defined in the regulations as
"Canada Lands" - federal Crown lands, in other words, including sub­
merged lands under the sea. The permits, granted upon application by an
indîvidual or corporation, could be converted at the option of the permit­

tee into 21-year leases with oil and gas production rights. The areas
under permit were illustrated upon maps that could be obtained for a
small charge at offices of the Government of Canada.

204. The first offshore oil and gas exploratory permits in the
vicinity of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were issued not long after
the 1960 regulations came into force 2•lt was in 1964, in the context of

the graduai implementation of the system established by these regula­
tions, that a number of companies began to submit applications for per­
mits Jn the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank area, including the area now in
dispute. And it was in that year that the Canadian Government began to
issue permits for this area, up to a line of equidistance controlled

throughout by the nearest point of land on each coast3,

205. From its inception in 1960, the Canadian oil and gas permit

system has been based on the use of rectangular "grid areas". A number
·of permits grantcd at the beginning of 1965 covered rectangular grids

1 Canada Oil and Gas Regi,/ations, P.C. 1960-474, l3 April 1960, published in Canada
Gazelle, Part Il, Vot 94, No. 9, 11 May 1960, revokcd and replaced by the Canada Oil
and Gas Land Regu/ations, P.C. 1961-797, 6 June 1961, published in Canada Gazelle,
Part Il, VoL95, No. 12, 28 June l961.
2 Tn Socony Mobil Oil of.Canada Ltd., now Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., on 15July 1960.
1 The first permits issued by Canada in the Gulf of Maine area were granted on 20 May
1964 tn Texaco Exploration Company (now Texaco Canada Inc.). Further permits were
issued on 30 December 1964,and on 13and 14January l965 to the California Standard
Company (now Chevron Canada Limited), and on 15.January 1965 to Sncony Mobil
Oil of Canada Ltd. {now Mobil Oil Canada Ltd.). Permits have been issued since the
above dates to John 1. Tavel on 16July965 (transferredtnTexaco Exploration Com­
pany, now Texaco Canada, Inc., on 14September 1965};to Chevron Standard Limited
(now Chevron Canada Limited) on 28 December 1966;10 Ronald G. Belfoi on 260ctober
1967(transferred to Transalta Oil and Gas Ltd. nn 21 November 1967and now held by
Chevrnn Canada Limited, Dorne Petroleum Limitcd and Transa!ta Oil and Gas Ltd.); to
Siebens Oil and Gas Ltd. on6and !ONovember 1967,21November 1968,3February 1969,
and 12Nov'ember 1971;and to J. François Lemieux on 24 November 197l (transferred to
Fairholme Development Limited on 4 April 1972).These offshore permits cover a total of
3.1 million hectares. See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 49. 94
GULF OF MAINE (93]

that straddled the equidistance line on Georges Bank, and similar permits
were issued in subsequent years•. Because these particular grid areas
extended beyond the equidistance line into a part of the continental shelf
not then claimed by Canada, the permîts were endorsed with the follow­
ing "caveat" or cautionary statement:

"This permit is issued subject to the lands contained in the grid
area being Canada Lands."

Only the permits covering areas extending beyond the equidistance line
carried this clause, and the permits issued for other grid areas in portions
of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank since claimed by the United
States were not qualified by any such cautionary statement.

206. These Canadian administrative activities respecting the Gulf
of Maine and Georges Bank led to an exchange of correspondence
between the authorities of the two countries in 1965. A letter dated
l April l965 from the Bureau of Land Management of the United States
Department of the lnterior addressed to what was then the Canadian

Department. of Northem Affairs and National Resources, sought infor­
mation on two Canadian peanits issued for Georges Bank, at a location
said to be "approximately 125 nautical miles east of Cape Cod 5". The let­
ter began by identifying the Bureau of Land Management as the agency
"charged with the responsibility for minerai leasing on the Outer Conti­
nental Shelf pertaining to the United States of America", and went on to
say that the bureau "would like to identify these two leases with reference
'~
to the median line as defined in Article 6 of the Convention on the Conti­
nental Shelf ... ". The letter forwarded a set of United States Outer Con­
tinental Shelf leasing maps, and noted that the United States leasing
blocks did not cross the median line in the offshore area adjacent to
Canada in the vicinity of the British Columbia-Washington state border
on the Pacifie coast. No United States leases had then been granted on
the Atlantic coast.

207. The Canadian Department of Northern Affairs and
National Resources replîed by a letter dated 8 Aprîl 1965, enclosing the
Canadian regulations and transmitting under separate cover maps show­

ing oil7and gas permîts issued by Canada off both the east and west
coasts • This letter also indicated that these materials were available to
the public at the offices of the Resources Division of the department.

• Specifically, apart from the 15 January 1965 permits issu10 Socony Mobil Oil of
Canada Ltd. (now Mobil Oil Canada Ltd.), one of the permits issued to Ronald G. Belfoi
on 26 October 1967, !l of the permits issued to Siebens Oil and Gas Ltd. on 6 !Od
November l967, two of the permits issued to the same company on 3 February 1969, and
two of the permits issued to .that company on 12 November 1971, covercd grid areas
5 straddling the then equidistance line.
See Anne:\es, Vol. III, Annex l for the full text of this letter.
6 There îs a difference in terminology in Canadian and United States legislation and prac­
tice. Under Canadian regulations in force at the relevant time (the Canada Oil and Gas
Land Regulatians. P.C. 1961-797, 6 June 1961), the right of a person to explore the sub­
merged lands adjacent to Canada's coasts is contained in an :·exploratory permit". Under
the Outer Continental She/f. Titlc 43, Code of Federal Regulations, 23 July 1964), the
corresponding right is contained in a "lease".
1 See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 2. [94-95) MEMORIAL Of CANADA 95

208. This information elicited a response from the United States
Bureau of Land Management on 14 May 1965, the substantive passages

of which read as follows:
"As a matter of some concern tous, we believe that you have issued

offshore permits on the Outer Continental Shelf pertaining to the
United States. We believe this is the case in the Gulf of Maine, off
the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and Dixon Entrance. We are unable to
comment on the permits you have issued in the Arctic Ocean as we
do not have a map showing their locations.

Inasmuch as the location of a median line might be subject to dif­
ferent interpretations, we suggest that you check the locations of

your permits which approach submerged lands under United States
jurisdiction to see if they are within Canadian jurisdiction under an
application of Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf
of the 1958 Geneva Conference.

This communication is being written solely in the interest of seeing
if there is a basis for disagreement as to the location of a median
line separating our respective jurisdictions on the Outer Continen­

tal Shelf. As an operating Bureau, we, of course, have no authority
toenter into any formai discussion of the location of a median line
in case of a dispute. However, we are hopeful that there could be a
simple misunderstanding on either our part or yours, of the e\e­
ments positioning a median line. Ifthis is the case, then the matter
could be amîcably determined without resort to hîgh authority 8."

Shortly therea fter, on 16 June 1965, the Department of Northern Affairs
and National Resources replied to this letter, assuring the United States
authorities that a median line had indeed been used, and explainîng the
cautionary statcment (that certain pcrmits wcre subject to the lands

being Canada Lands) attached to those9permits covcring rectangular grid
areas that straddled the mcdian line .

209. Thcre was no furthcr reaction or rcsponse by the United
States authorîtîes to the information transmittcd to them by the
@ Canadian,Government. Figure 31 shows the permits issued by Canada in
the Gulf of Maine area when thîs exchange took place. The "caveated"
permits, under the grid system as explained in paragraph 205, are shown
in rcd and the remainder in blue.

210. For 14 months following this initial exchange in 1965, the

matter remained entirely dormant. On 16 August 1966, however, the
United States Embassy in Ottawa sent a letter10o the Canadian Depart­
ment of Mines and Technical Surveys asking for information on
Canadian exploration on the Pacifie coast and in the Gulf of Maine area,

" See Annexes, Vol. III, Anne:,;4.
' See Annexes, Vol. III, Anne:,;6.
10The two Canadian departments of government mentioned so far in this accouthe-
Departmcnt of Northcrn Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Mines
and Tcchnical Surveys -were dissolved in 1966. Their functions, as they relate to this
dispute, were then taken over by the newly-created Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources, which still continues to exercise these functions.96 GtJLF OF MAINE [96]

and on the operational plans and schedules of oil companies holding per­
mits11.The letter was referred to the Department of External Affairs, and

a reply from the Under-Secretary of that Department on 30 August 1966
outlin12 the Canadian practices and policies that have been described
above •As before, a map was attached to the letter showing the seabed
areas covered by the Canadian permits. Again, no reaction or response
was received from the United States authorities.

211. It was nearly two years later, on 10 May 1968, that the mat­
ter was formally raised by the United States in an aide-mémoire, but not
in a manner that in any way intimated that a major boundary dispute
13
was in the making •The accent, in fact, was on the protection of fisher­
men from threats of environmental harm that might result from oil an<i
gas operations.

212. The United States aide-mémoire addressed itself without dis­
tinction to bath the maritime area off the British Columbia-Washington
state border on the west coast (where the United States bas continued to
advocate an equidistance boundary) and the Gulf of Maine area. It pro­
posed that since minerai interests in both countries were ''urgently" seek­

ing to begin exploration, early discussions should be undertaken with a
view to reaching agreement on the location of the dividing lines in both
areas. At the same time, it was suggested that the two governments
should consult on steps to protect the living resources of the sea against
pollution, in order that some reassurance might be given to the fishing
interests involved. Finally, it was suggested that there should be a "tem­

porary suspension of exploration and exploitation activities with regard to
minerai resources in the area of the northern half of Georges Bank toper­
mit consultation to take place and to provide time to seek an agreement
on the exact location of the boundary in this area". (Ita/ics added.)
When the aide-mémoire was handed to Canadian Embassy personnel in
Washington, there was a supplementary discussion during which State

Department officiais stressed the need to allay the concerns of fishermen
about the effect of offshore operations on their activities. No indication
was given, however, of any divergence of views on the prînciples appli­
cable to the boundary itself.

213. No steps appear to have been taken as an immedia te result
of this communication from the United States, although the Canadian
Embassy did transmit copies of Canadian regulations on offshore
exploration to the State Department in September of 1968 4.The United
States Government did not comment on these materials, and t·here were

no further developments between the two go"'.ernments in this matter
until late 1969.

214. From 1965 on, therefore, the Canadian use of an equidis­
tance line in the Gulf of Maine area was accepted by the United States
authorities, who evidently shared the view that the maritime boundary
was to be based upon the equidistance method. (The legal significance of
this United States conduct is dealt with in Part II of this Memorial.) The

11See Annexes, Vol. Ill, Annex 7.
11See Annexes, Vol. III. Annex 8.

u See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 11.
". See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 12.[97] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 97

first clear signais that a dispute was in the making were received when
the United States gave Canada an aide-mémoire dated 5 November
I969 1.

215. This document, after referrîng to the oil spill off Santa Bar­
bara in California earlier that year, agaîn proposed a moratorium on ail
minerai exploration and exploitation in the entire Gulf of Maine area -

or, "at a minimum", a moratorium on ail drilling - until agreement on
the "exact location" of the shelf boundary could be reached and mutually
acceptable regulations safeguarding the fisheries of the area from pollu­
tion could be formulated. The aide-mémoire went on to say that the
United States would hold Canada completely liable for pollution result­
ing from activities authorized by Canada, and further set out a general

reservation of United States interests in the following terms:
"Until the exact location of the United States-Canada conti­

nental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Maine is agreed upon, the
United States cannot acquiesce in any Canadian authorization of
exploration or exploitation of the natural resources of the Georges
Bank continental shelf. The United States Government, therefore,
cannot recognize the validity of Canadian permits for any part of
the Georges Bank, reserves its rights and the rights of its nationals

to this continental shelf area, and intends to make its position a
matter of public record in the Federal Register so that individuals
and companies concerned with exploration and exploitation in the
area may be aware of this position."

Beyond this reservation, however, no specîfic United States daim was put

forward.
216. A Canadîan reply dated I December 1969, recalied that the

United States had never in t16 past protested against the issuance of
Canadian oil and gas permits •Canada welcomed the proposa! for con­
sultations concerning the protection of fisheries in the Gulf of Maine
area, and agreed as well to consider dates for negotiations on continental
shelf boundaries. lt was again emphasized that Canada had not agreed to
a moratorium on minerai exploitation on Georges Bank (as originally

proposed by the United States on 10 May 1968), and that the Govern­
ment of Canada was unable to accept the suggestion that a temporary
suspension, pending agreement on the boundary line, should be imposed
on ail minerai exploration and exploitation activities in this area.

2t7. The Government of Canada on 8 March 1970 ratified the
1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, to which the United States
was already a contracting party. The Canadian ratification was accom­
panied by the following declaration concerning Article 1 of the conven­

tion:
"In the view of the Canadian Government the presence of an acci­

dentai feature such as a depression or a channel in a submerged
area shou]d not be regarded as constituting an interruption in the

15See Annexes, VolIll,Annex !3.
1,See Annexes. Vol. 1II. Annex l4. 98 GULF OF MAINE (98]

natural prolongation of the land territory of the coastal state into
and under the sea 1'."

The Unit.:d States responded to that declaration on· 16 July 1970
(approxima tely one week after the first set of bilateral talks on delimita­

tion) in the following words:

"The Government of the United States does not find acceptable the
declaration made by the Government of Canada with respect to
Article I of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The United
States considers that Convention to be in force and applicable
between it and Canada, but such application does not in any man­

ner constitute any concurrence by the United States in the sub­
stance of the declaration made by Canada with respect to Article 1
of that Convention 18.''

Neither side has entered reservations to the convention and ît remains in
force as between the two Parties.

218. The timing of the Canadian ratifica tian of the Continental
Shelf Convention, although related in part to international developments,
was equally a consequence of the evolution of certain federal-provincial

disputes on offshore resources. It had originally been hoped that these
differences could be resolved before ratifying the convention, and in 1967
the Supreme Court of Canada gave a decision upholding the federal
claim to continental shelf ownership and jurisdiction off the Pacifie
coast19• The Canadian Government took the view that the principles of

this decision were equally applicable to the Atlantic coast and, after fur­
ther unsuccessful attempts to sett\e the issue with the provinces in 1969,
determined to proceed with ratification.

219. No United States exploration or production permits have
ever been issued with respect to the disputed portion of the Gulf of Maine
area; as shown in Figure 4 in the Introduction to this Memorial, the only
© outstanding permits in this area are Canadian. Seismic surveys on

Georges Bank, however, extending from the United States side·into the
Canadian-claimed portion of the Bank, were carried out in 1968, 1969
and 1975 by private United States companies. In each case, the company
concerned was notified by the Canadian authorities of its obligations
under Canadian law to obtain a ferlerai exploratory licence, to submit a

notice of its program, and to supply the results of that part of the survey
undertaken in the Canadian portion of the Gulf of Maine area to the
Canadian authorities 20•

220. In 1974 there was an exchange of diplomatie correspondence
on this subject. In a reply of 16 October 1974 21to a protest by the Gov­
ernment of Canada respecting activities to be carried out in an area

17
United Nations, Multilatera{ Treaties in Respect of which the Secretary General Per­
lorms Depository Frmctions,452, Doc. ST/LEG /SER.D / 13, 1980, p. 583.
13United Nations, Multilateral Treaties in Respect of which the Secretary General Per­
forms Depository.Functions,Doc. ST/LEG /SER.D / 13, 1980,p.586.
1~Canada, Re: Offshore Minerai Rights of British Columbia, [1967] Supreme Court
Reports, p. 792.
20See Annexes.Vol. Il, Annex 50.
11See Annexes,Vot. 111,Annex21.[99] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 99
22
under Canadian permit , the Department of State referred to its
diplomatie note of 5 November 1969, and stated that it "continues to be
the United States position that the exploration and exploitation of the
natural resources of the areas of the Continental Shelf subject to the per­
mit referred to by the Department of External Affairs are subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States". Despite the suggestion that this was no

more than the reaffirmation of an earlier position, this note was the first
formai communication received by Canada setting forth anything resem­
bling a positive and explicit claim of jurisdiction to what is now the dis­
puted area. The earlier aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969 stopped short
of the actual assertion of a claim, and was restricted in its terms to a gen­
eral reservation of a potentiaI United States interest.

221. When the United States first began its initial preparations
for an auction of oil and gas Ieases in the Georges Bank area in 1975,
Canada took the position that itcould not acquiesce in acts by the United
States intended to constitute an exercise of jurisdiction in respect of any
2
part of the continental shelf under Canadian jurisdiction 3.ln 1976, these
United States preparations had advanced to the point where a number of
tracts on Georges Bank, including 28 that were located in the area then
claimed by Canada, were selected by the American authorities for
"intensive study" in the process of preparing the draft environmental
impact statement required before leasing could be carried out. Canada
2
protested these plans in a diplomatie note dated 2 February 1976 4,and
the United States ultimately withdrew the conten25ous tracts from the
proposed sale of leases on 7 December 1976 •

222. Although Canada declined to commit itself to an agreed
moratorium respecting oil and gas operations in the disputed area, the
boundary dispute has naturally had an inhibiting effect on exploration for
and exploitation of the minerai resources of this area. In order to avoid
any aggravation of the dispute that might have made a negotiated seule­
ment more difficult (particularly if oil and gas were actually discovered),
and taking into account the large investments of private capital that are

required in order to carry out such operations, Canada has unilaterally
exempted its permittees from the work requirements that are normally
demanded by Canadian regulations. The result of this measure (origi­
nally taken in 1971) bas been that no drilling has been carried out in the
disputed area and the minerai resource potential of the area remains to
be fully determined.

8. THE INTRODUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EXTENDED

fISHERIES JURISDICTION
223. The nature of the dispute was at once expanded and trans­

formed at the beginning of 1977 with the measures taken by both coun-

22
Canadian diplomatie note no. 1126 of 19 September 1974. See Annexes, Vol. IIl, Annex
20.
23 United States diplomatie note of 15 May 1975 and Canadian note no. 180 of 3 June
1975. See Annexes, Vol. III, Annexes 22 and 23.
14 See Annexes, Vol. 111,Annex 25.
21 See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 31. GULF OF MAINE [100]
100

tries to create 200-mile fishing zones pursuant to the consensus on the
exclusive economic zone reached at the Third United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea.

224. ln the United States, the Fishery Conservation and Man·
agement Act of 1976 \ enacted on 13 April 1976, provided for the crea­
tion of a 200-mile fishing zone on 1 March 1977. ln Canada, the neces­
sary legislative authority already existed in the Territorial Sea and
2
Fishing Zones Act 1, which authorizes the creation of fishing zones in
areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada by Ortler in Council. The
Act requires any such Ortler in Council to be.published in the Canada
Gazette at least 60 days before the final order is made. Accordingly, on

l November 1976, the text of the proposed order (which included lists of
geographical coordinates defining the limits of the future Canadian zone
for the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank and for the two west coast
boundary regions) was published in the Canada Gazettel 8• The notice

referred to the Canada-United States boundary consultations and con­
tained the following preambular statement:

"... the limits of the fishing zones of Canada as established in the
annexed order are intended to be without prejudice to any negotia­
tions or to any positions which may have been or may be adopted

respecting the limits of maritime jurisdiction in such areas".

When the definitive Ortler in Council was actually made on l January
1977 9,the same coordinates were used 30•

225. The publication of this advance notice had been the subject
of prior consultations with United States officiais. ln response, the Gov·

ernment of the United States published a notice in the f.lnited States
Federal Register of 4 November 1976 3, setting out, with respect to

26 16United States Code, s. 1801et seq. (1976).
27
Statutes of Canada 1964-1965, chap. 22. (See Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 17.) Canada
established a 9-mile fishing zone in 1964and the United States did soin 1966. The 9-mile
fishing zone was subsumed wîthin the territorial sea in 1970, when Canada'adopted the
12-mile Jimit for territorial waters. (See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 23.) ln 1911 Canada
also enclosed certain bodies of water, including the Bayof Fundy, within "fishery closing
lines". (See Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 24.) Tbese initial extensions of jurisdiction by
Canada and the United States were followed by reciprocal fishing privîleges agreements
that avoided problems arising from unsettled boundary questions. (See Anneites,. !,
28 Annexes 10to 19.)
Proposed Fishîng Zones of Canada (Zones 4 ami 5) Order, published in Canada Gazette,
Part I, Vol. 110, Extra, No. 101, J November 1976. See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 29.
29Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 4 and 5) Order, P.C. 1977-1, ! January !977, publîshed
in Canada Gazette, Part Il, Vol. 111, Extra, 1 January 1977. See Annexes, Vol. Il,
Annex 33.
30 There are two Canada-United States offshore boundary areas on the west coast, one at
the southern end of British Columbia, off Juan de Fuca Strait and Cape Flattery, and
the other at the northern end in Dixon Entrance. As well, there is an offshore boundary
area in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska and the Yukon; this area was not affected by the ini­
tial extension of Canadian jurisdiction on 1 January 1977 or by the Canada Gazette
notice of 1 November 1976 but was the subject of a subsequenl extension of 200-mile
fisheries jurisdictinn effecIiMarch 1977.
31"Maritime Boundaries of the United States and Canada." Department of State, Public
Notice No. 506. Published in Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 214, 4 November 1976,
pp. 48619-48620.See Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 30. [101] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 101

coastal areas in proximity to Canada, the lateral limits of the 200-mile .
zone which the United States intended to daim as of 1 March 1977 pur­
suant to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. This
notice - which indicated that the published limits were applicable to the

continental shelf as well as to the 200-mile fishing zones that were the
immediate occasion of the publication - contained statements identical
to the preambular recitals in the Canadian notice.

226. lt was thus in the fisheries context that the Parties first offi­
cially promulgated precise coordinates for their respective zones in the
boundary region, although Canada of course had used an equidistance
line controlled throughout by the nearest point of land on each coast for
the issuance of offshore oil and gas permits from 1964 on. Thus, a
Canadian diplomatie note of 22 December 1976 pointed out that the
coordinates in the published Canadian Order in Council "encompass
areas of the continental shelf, over which Canada has exercised jurisdic­
tion for a number of years3".

227. This diplomatie note set out the Canadian response to the
limits published by the United States for the Gulf of Maine area as well
as the other three Canada-United States offshore boundary regions. It
outlined the essence of the Canadiail position on each area and noted that
"Canada has used the median or equidistance approach in each case

except where the boundary has already been regulated by international
agreement or international arbitral award". Charts were attached setting
out the limits of more extensive Canadian daims that could be asserted,
"based on the same principles as those on which the United States daims
are based, and which would be relevant in the event of a reference of this
question to third-party settlement". The note also reiterated the pream­
bular statement from the notice published on 1 November 1976, namely,
that the limits as then set out were to be without prejudice to current or
future Canadian positions. The United States responded with a reaffir­
mation of its position on 18 February 197733.

228. The imminent prospect of an extension of fisheries jurisdic­
tion to 200 miles had been a major consideration in the minds of
Canadian and United States negotiators throughou t 1976. The extension
of fisheries jurisdiction threatened the disruption of established fishing

patterns in both countries and carried with it the riskof a "cod war" in
the disputed areas. Beyond these immediate concerns, there was a shared
perception that a coordinated approach to the management and conserva­
tion of a number of fish stocks would be necessary - not only for those
stocks that congregate in the general vicinity of the boundary claims, but
also for those more widely ranging or migratory stocks that wou\d neces­
sarily have to be regarded as shared resources wherever the boundary line
itself might be drawn. There would clearly be a need for some common
ground in the application of conservation measures for these stocks, and
jointly agreed quotas would be required in order to prevent competitive
overfishing.

229. Negotiations on these fisheries questions were therefore
undertaken in the latter half of 1976. However, when Canada brought its

12 See Annexes, Vol. III. Annex 46.
lJSee Annexes. Vol. III, 51.ex 102 GULF OF MAINE (102]

. 200-mile fishing zone into being on 1 January 1977, there was still no
agreed regime in place. ln order to avert the possibility of confrontation
and to maintain an atmosphere conducive to further negotiations, the

Government of Canada unilaterally passed a special regulation a\lowing
United States fishing vessels to continue fishing throughout the new
Canadian 200-mile zone pending the outcome of negotiations 3'.Negotia­
tions were resumed soon after the Canadian extension of jurisdiction with
a view to concluding a one-year agreement as a transitional measure that

would allow time to work out an agreement for the longer term. The
negotiations were conducted in an atmosphere of urgency because of the
impending extension of United States jurisdiction under the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which did not permit an
interim waiver of jurisdiction of the kind granted by Canada.

230. One particularly intractable issue that confronted the

negotiators was how an interîm fisheries agreement should deal with the
boundary areas. The United States took the view that the disputed areas
should be defined and identified in the agreement, with the implication
that the jurisdiction of each Party beyond those areas would then be
irrevocably recognized. Canada, on the other hand, recalled that both

countries had expressly stated that their provisional fishing zone bound·
aries were "without prejudice" to whatever daims might thereafter be
advanced in the course of negotiations. ln the end, this problem was
resolved by means of a deliberately ambiguous formula that avoided any
final crystallization of the boundary daims.

231. An interim agreement on fisheries, which was applicable to
both Atlantic and Pacifie coasts, was signed on 24 February 1977 35.lt

was provisionally implemented between that date and îts formai entry
into force on 26 July 1977, following the signature by President Carter of
the legislation necessary for its adoption in the United States 3• The basic
objectives of the agreement were twofold: (a) ta allow the fishermen of
both countries to pursue their exîsting fishing patterns that had been

established before the creation of the 200-mile zones; and (b) to avoid
conflict in the boundary regions by providing, first, that there would be
no fishing allowed by vessels of third countries in those areas, and
secondly, that as between Canada and the United States there would be
flag State enforcement - in other words, that the enforcement authori­

ties of each country would exercise their powers only with respect to fish­
ing vessels of their own flag.

232. The overrîding principle of this agreement was to preserve
the status quo - "existing patterns." of fishing in the language actually
used in the agreement. On the Atlantic coast, this principle was given
concrete expression in the interim agreement- through the incorporation

of 1976 ICNAF quotas as the ceiling applicable to transboundary fishing

' Transîtiorw/ United States Fishîng Vesse! licence Exemption RegulatioP.C. 1976-
3179, 23 December 1976, published inCanada Gazelle, Part li,Vol. Ill,No. 1, 23
December 1976. See Annexes, Vol: Il, Annex 32.
11See Annexes, Vol. 1, Annex 18.
16In Canada it was implemented by a new version of the Transilianal United States
Fishîng Vesse! licence Exemption Regulations,P.C. 1977-1148, 28 April 1977, pub­
!ished inCanada Gazelle,Part Il, Vol. 111, No. 9, l l May 1977. See Annexes, li,.
Annex 34.(103) MEMORIAL OF CANADA 103

privilegesJ7. The implementation of this principle of the agreement gave
rise to serious difficul ties in 1977. ln brief, the main problems were the

threat to conservation posed by increased United States catches of certain
species on Georges Bank, as well as the maintenance of Canadian salmon
fishing rights on the Pacifie coast at levels substantially equivalent to
those prevailing before the agreement.

233. The sudden change in the intensity of United States fishing
effort on Georges Bank, which plagued the negotiations until their con­
clusion, was largely attributable to a combination of two causes. The first
was an influx of vessels into the New England fishery, triggered at least
in part 1:)yexpectations resulting from the extension of fisheries jurisdic­
tion and given added impetus by an increase in the price of scallops. At
the same time, the completely new regulatory system under the United

States Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, with its
decentralized and participatory system of regulation_ under a number of
Regional Fishery Management Councils, could apparent\y not be brought
into effective operation until some considerable time after the extension
of jurisdiction had taken place. With the withdrawal of the United States
from ICNAF, the practical result was a virtually total regu\atory vacuum
in t_heNew England fishery during the initial phases of the 200-mile zone

reg1me.
234. Itwas the Canadian view that these higher levels of Georges
Bank catches threatened the future health of the fishery, and that the
United States had undermined at least the spirit of the interim agreement

by disregarding its broad status quo objective as well as the ICNAF quo­
tas referred to in paragraph 232. In sharp contrast to the situation pre­
vailing in the United States, economic pressures toward any undue
expansion of fishing effort in the wake of the 200-mile extension were at
least partially countered in Canada by the application of strict licencing
limitations on participation in the fishery (the size of the Georges Bank
scallop fleet, in particular, had been frozen since 1973), and also by the
comprehensive scheme of Canadian conservation regulations that had

been in place long before 1977.
235. The interim agreement expired at the end of 1977. For the
first few months of 1978, however, the terms and conditions of t,hisagree­

ment were maintained de facto pending negotiations on its renewal. On
11 April 1978, the 1977 agreement was renewed, subject to ratification,
with a series of amendments designed to improve the west coast fishîng
regime and to provide a rudimentary basis for cooperative fisheries man­
agement38. This 1978 renewal agreement, however, never entered into
force. After it was signed, during the period of its provisional implemen­
tation, a number of serious disputes developed between the Parties with
respect to its interpretation and application. These ultimately prevented

the renewal agreement from entering into force and led to an interruption
of reciprocal transboundary fishing.
236. Soon after the conclusion of the 1978 renewal agreement, it

became increasingly apparent to the Government of Canada that the sit~
uatîon was deteriorating to the detriment of Canadian interests, and that

11The United States ceased to be a member of ICNAF at the end of !976 and thus was not
directly bound by these quotas. ·
iaSee Annexes, Vol. 1,Annex l9.104 GULF OF MAINE [104]

there was no hope of an adequate and timely solution. As in the preceding
year, it was the conservation threat posed by unregu1ated United States
catches of a number of the most important commercial stocks found on
Georges Bank - scallops, cod, haddock and pollock - that alarmed the

Canadian Government and its fishing constituencies. Moreover, the posi­
tion taken and the explanations given by the United States made it dear
that the consultative procedures under the renewal agreement offered no
prospect of effective relief within the time frame of the agreement. There
were equally serious problems in the provisional implementation of the
interim agreement on the Pacifie coast.

237. This, then, was the situation that confronted the Parties in
the spring of 1978. Because no solution was in sight, and because the
agreement was operating in a manner that was increasingly damaging to
Canadian interests, the Government of Canada found it necessary to sus­
pend its provisional implementation on 2 June 1978J The Uni•ed States
Government reciprocated immediately and transboundary fishing
ceased 40•lt had been expected to resume upon the ratificatian of the 1979

Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources, but that prospect obviously
disappeared when the latter agreement was withdrawn from the United 41
States Senate by President Reagan, as discussed in paragraph 257 •
238. Despite the 1978 suspension of reciprocal transboundary

fishing privileges, the special boundary area fisheries regime originally
established in the 1977 interim agreement - i.e., no thfrd country fishing
and flag State enforcement by each Party - was maintained by both
Parties on an informai basis pending the expected ratification of the 1979
Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources. This arrangement remained
in place even after it had become dear that the United States would not
ratify the 1979 agreement, and it continues to be observed by bath Par­
ties to this day.

C. THE REVISED CANADIAN CLAIM AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

239. As the dispute between the Parties began to emerge and it
became clear that the United States no longer accepted a boundary line
based on equidistance in the Gulf of Maine area, Canada grew increas­
ingly vigilant in the protection of its rights. This, of course, was a domi­
nant theme in the series of events surrounding the extension of fisheries
jurisdictîon as described in paragra phs 224, 227, 230 and 231: the express
reservation of rights in the preamble to the notice of the Order in Council

extending jurisdiction and in the diplomatie note of 22 December 1976,
and above ail the insistence on a strictly non-prejudicial formulation with
respect to jurisdictional daims in the interim fisheries agreement of Feb­
ruary 1977. The same care is evident in Canadian diplomacy respecting
the continental shelf. Following the assertion of a United States daim in
1974 to areas of Georges Bank already subject to Canadian jurisdiction,
the Government of Canada found it necessary to protect its interests by

i9 Canadian diplomatie note of 2 June 1978. See Annexes, Vol. Ill, Annex 65.
40 United States diplomatie note of 2 June 1978. See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 66.
41
sion (1981).iona{ Rer:orS 6430 (daily edition 17 June 1), 97th Congress, 1st Ses­[105} MEMORIAL OF CANADA 105

protesting a number or exploratory continental shelr activities autliorized
by the United States on both sides of the equidistance line utilized.by
Canada in issuing exploratory permits, and by formally reserving its
rights with respect to areas west of that provisional limit 42.

240. New light was shed on the law of maritime boundary delimi­

tation by the decision in the Anglo-French Continental Shelf award of 30
June 1977 - the first and as yet the only decision by an international tri­
bunal to apply Article 6 of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention. A
major element in that decision was of course the adoption of an abated or
modified equidistance line as between France and the United Kingdom in
the southwestern approaches to the English Channel, in order to elimi­

nate the distorting effect of the Scilly Isles. This application of the law
was relevant to the situation in the Gulf of Maine area, where Cape Cod,
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island would produce a marked dis­
torting effect on an equidistance line controlled throughout by the nearest
point of land on each coast. Canada therefore. adjusted its daim to reflect

these legal developments of 1977.

241. As described in paragraphs 351 and 352, the adjusted
Canadian line is calculated from a basepoint at the northern entrance to
Cape Cod Canal, instead of from the basepoints on Cape Cod and Nan­
tucket Island that had been used to delineate Canada's earlier line 43•The
United States was formally notified of the adjusted Canadian line by a

diplomatie note dated 3 November 1977, the operative passage of which
reads as follows:

"The Government of Canada is of the view that the applica­
tion of the principles of law enunciated and elucidated in the
Anglo-French Award to the factual situation in the Gulf of
Maine/Georges Bank area leads to the conclusion that the further
projection seaward of the exceptionally long promontory of Cape
Cod and of the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, when

superadded to the marked protrusion of the USA coastline south­
east of Boston, constitute· an element of inequity or distortion
material enough to justify the delimitation of a boundary other
than the strict equidistance line. In other words, these coastal pro­
jections constitute 'special circumstances' under Article 6 of the

•i See Annexes, Vol. III: Canadian aide-mémoires of 28 April 1976, Annex 31; 3 June
1976, Annex 33; 19 August 1976, Annex 39; and 26 May 1977, Annex 53. The United
States responded by noting that the activities ît had authorized were to be conducted "on
the United States side the line developed using the principle of equidistance", and that
the United States Government could not be expected to take account of a Canadian
reservation of interest in areas where Canada had not yet asserted a formai claim: United
States aide-mémoireof10September 1976,Annex 40, and 7 July 1977, Annex 56.
•i Apart from these important adjustments in respect of Cape Cod and Nantucket Island,
certain other basepoints for the revised Canadian line vary slightly, for technical reasons,
from those usedin the construction of the first line. The limits of the Canadian daim as
set outin Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 4 and 5) Order, P.C. 1977-1, 1January 1977,
were derived from basepomts scaled from large-scale Canadian and United States nauti­
cal charts. The limîts as set out in Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 4 and 5) Order,
amendment, P.C. 1979-184,25 January 1979, published in Canada Gazette, Part Il, Vol.
113, No. 3, 14 February 1979, were computed from basepoints scaled from Jarge-scale
fieldsurvey sheets of the Canadian coastline and Jarge-scale United States charts. The
overall effect of these minor technical changes amounted to no more than a few metres
displacementof the Canadian claimed line. 106 GULF OF MAINE [106]

1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, the dispropor­
tionate and inequitable effects of which should be abated by an

appropriate adjustment or modification of the strict equidistance
line.1t is the view of the Government of Canada that a Jine drawn
without reference to these coastal projections constitutes an equita­
ble equidistance line and, therefore, the lateral limits of Canada's
continental shelf and fisheries jurisdiction in the Atlantic area sea­
44
ward of the Gulf of Maine ."

242. When the above notice was conveyed to the United States,
negotiations were underway with a view to resolving the full spectrum of
Canada-United States maritime boundary and resource issues. In order
not to impede the progress of these negotiations, which are described in
paragraphs 246 to 259, Canada adopted a policy of restraint with respect

·to the actual exercise of jurisdiction in the area between the new line of
3 November 1977 and its earlier line for reasons explained as follows:

"Nevertheless, in order not to prejudice in any way the con­
duct of the current negotiations referred to above, the Government
of Canada has decided to forego the public assertion of the claim

defined by the annexed coordinates and the exercise of its jurisdic­
tion in areas beyond the published equidistance line, pending the
outcome of these negotia tions's."

The United States rejected the Canadian daim of 3 November by a note
dated 2 December 1977 46•

243. Not long after this exchange between the Parties, a poten­

tially serious development took place. This was an announcement on 30
December 1977 in the United States Federal Register of "North Atlantic
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 42" to be held on 31 Janu­
ary 1978 47• Sorne of the tracts to be offered were in areas formally
claimed by Canada on 3 November 1977, although west of the earlier
3
lîne. A Canadian diplomatie note of 25 January 1978' requested the
United States to withdraw these tracts from the proposed sale. The note
indicated that shou\d the United States proceed with the sale of leases
pertaining to the areas claimed by Canada on 3 November 1977, the
Government of Canada would be obliged to publish that claim in the

Canada Gazette so that interested parties would be on notice before sub­
mitting bids for leases.

244. On 28 January 1978, the United States Department of the
lnterior announced the deletion of the tracts in question as being "within
the area claimed by Canada to be subject to negotiations between the
United States and Canada 49". The same day, a United States court

granted a temporary injunction against the sale on environmental
grounds and the entire sale was therefore postponed. After further envi-

"' See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 59.
45
Canadian diplomatie note of 3 November 1977. See Annexes, V111 ,nnex 59.
" See Annexes, Vol.IllAnnex 60.
41Federal Register. Vol. 42, No. 251, 30 December 1977, pp. 65285-65290. See Annexes,
Vol. Il, Annex 37.
41See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 61.
" See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 38. [107] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 107

ronmental litigation in the United States courts, Outer Continental Shelf

Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 42 was finally held on 18 December 1979,
and lease rights in the undisputed part of Georges Bank were auctioned
for an amount of U.S. $816.5 million. None of the tracts offered at the
sale extend into any part of the Gulf of Maine area claimed by Canada.
Thus the deletion of the tracts within the Canadian line remained in
effect after the internai legal impediments that delayed the sale in the
United States had been removed. Figure 4 shows the extent of both
© Canadian and United States permit coverage after Outer Continental

Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 42.
245. By the late summer of 1978 it had become apparent that a
negotiated sett\ement of the east coast maritime boundary would not be

achieved, and that a public assertion of the Canadian daim of 3 Novem­
ber 1977 was now unavoidable. On 15 September 1978, therefore, the
Government of Canada published in the Canada Gazette a proposed
Order in Council extending the Canadian fishing zone in accordance with
the line of 3 November 1977, together with a notice that the limits as set
out in the proposed order also constituted the limits within which Canada
exercised jurisdiction for continental shelf purposes~ T.e final Order in

Council, identical in its terms to the text published in the September
notice, was made on 25 January J979si.

0. THE NEGOTIATING HISTORY
246. Bilateral talks on continental shelf delimitation, dealing with
both the west coast and the Gulf of Maine area, were conducted on 9

July 1970 without producing any substantive result. No further talks
were held until a second exploratory phase, dealing large!y with the Gulf
of Maine area, was begun with a meeting on 15 December 1975, followed
by four additional sessions in 1976. In addition to the purely legal ele­
ments, the 1976 talks addressed the topic of cooperative fisheries
arrangements and the possibility of establishing zones in which hydrocar­
bon rights would be shared. While these talks provided an opportunity for
a full exploration of the positions held by both sides, no basis for a solu­

tion to the locationof the maritime boundary line was found.
247. The stalemate reached during the boundary negotiations in
1975 and 1976 seemed to call for an entirely fresh approach. lndeed, the

broadening of the dispute into one that encompassed not only the conti­
nental shelf but also the more immediate interests of coastal communities
in the Georges Bank fishery, inevitably led to a new emphasis on the spe­
cific issues of resource allocation and management. Further, not only was
there a need in purely logica\ terms to consider ail of the interrelated
resource and delimitation factors together, but it was also hoped that the
equîtable allocation of fishery resources would make it easier as a politi­
cal matter to reach agreement on the boundary itself.

248. Another fundamental change in the approach to the negotia­

tions was a decision t~ appoint "Special Negotiators" to reach an early

10See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 41.
11See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 42.108 GULF OF MAINE [108]

agreement on the interrelated resource and boundary issues in ail four
maritime boundary areas. Accordingly, the Canadian Secretary of State
for External Affairs and the United States Secretary of State agreed, on
24 June 1977, on the appointment of these special representatives and on
the essential elements of their mandate: to attempt the negotiation of a

comprehensive maritime resource and boundary settlement for the Gulf
of Maine area and the other three Canada-United States maritime
boundary areas within a period of three months.

249. To underline their special character and importance, these
appointments were made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Presi­
dent of the United States respective\y. Prime Minister Trudeau
announced on 27 July 1977 that the Canadian special negotiator wou\d
be Mr. Marcel Cadieux, Canada's most senior diplomat, at that time
52
Ambassador to the European Communities • President Carter's choice
was Mr. Lloyd Cutler, a Washington attorney and later Counsel to the
President of the United States.

250. While the referral of the matter to special negotiators was an
innovation, the fishery component of their mandate was carried out in the
distinctive tradition of contemporary fisheries negotiations between
Canada and the United States. Participation in the talks, rather than
being restricted to diplomats and officiais, extended to large and repre­

sentative advisory groups from all sectors of the fishing and fish process­
ing industries of both countries - unions, corporations, associations of
fishermen and processors, members of the United States Fishery Man­
agement Councils - as well as officiais from provincial and state govern­
ments. The negotiations, in consequence, were very much in the nature of
a participatory process, with as much time and energy devoted to internai

consultations with the advisory groups as to the bilateral negotiations
themselves.
251. On 15 October 1977, the special negotiators submitted a

joint report (approved by both governments on 21 October) setting out
the agreed "principles of a comprehensive settlement encompassing
delîmîtation of maritime boundaries, appropriate complementary fishery
and hydrocar bon arrangements and other related ma tters53".This report
described, in very considerable'detail, the structure, procedures and prin­
ciples that shoùld form the basis of an agreement establishing a joint fish­
eries commission for the cooperative management of fish stocks of corn­

mon concern. The subsequently concluded 1979 Agreement on East
Coast Fishery Resources, discussed in paragraphs 260 to 276, faithfully
reflected the essential elements outlined in this 1977 proposai. (While the
.October report had also set out proposais for shared access hydrocarbon
zones in the boundary areas, the Parties later agreed that the implemen- ·
talion of this concept would be impracticable in·the absence of agreed

boundaries.)
252. Following the approval of the October report by the two gov­

ernments, the negotiations proceeded slowly and with difficulty. The

ii Ambassador Cadieux had previously sel'\ledas Under-Secretary of State for Externa!
Affairs and as Ambassador to the United States, and Jiad been a member of the Interna­
tionaLaw Commission.
>lFor the full text of the Joint Report see Annell,Annex 36.[109] MEMORIAL OF CANADA
109

mandate of the special negotîators was extended on a number of occa­
sions, and it was only in earty 1979, more than a year after the original
deadline, that the substantive negotiations were finally brought to a suc­
cessful conclusion.

253. Article V of the Spccial Agreement precludes any account of
the boundary aspect of the negotiations, and it must suffice to say tha t by
the end of the summer of 1978 it had become clear that a negotia ted
maritime boundary for the Gulf of Maine area would not be achieved. It
is the intricacy of the negotiations on the east coast fisheries, on the other
hand, that rules out anything beyond a very summary review of the most
contentious issues. For Canada, the most important single resource in the
negotiations was Georges Bank scallops. lt became clear at an early stage

that, for Canada, the price of an agreement would be a significant reduc­
tion in the percentage sharc to which Canadian fishermen would be
entitled under the agreement, as compared to the share thcy had takcn in
the years preceding the extension of fisheries jurisdiction. This was a sac­
rifice that Canada was willing to make, however, in exchange for "com­
pensation" in its entitlements for groundfish, and in anticipation that a
negotiated boundary settlement reflecting the Canadian daim wou\d
eventually emerge. The outcomc, it will be seen, fell substantially short of
these expectations, and to this extent the agreement was Jess than fully

satisfactory from the Canadian perspective.
254. Apart from the allocation of specific resources, the Parties

had different views on what the duration of the fîsheries agreement
should be. Late in the negotiations, the United States formally proposed
to Canada that it should continue for only ten years. The essence of the
Canadian response to this proposai was that a Jess than perIT/anent agree­
ment would be acceptable only if the entitlements, particular!y in respect
of scallops, reflected the status quo prevaîling before the extension of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was the Canadian position that such an
agreement would either have to incorporate a Canadian scallop quota
commensurate with Canada 'spre-1977 share, or that it wou!d have to
includc concessions in other fisheries. These conditions were not accept­

able to the United States, and the compromise eventually agrecd upon
was a permanent agreement with variable quotas in accordance with the
scheme described in paragraphs 265 to 267.

255. Even when ît had becomc clear that a Georges Bank bound­
ary would not emerge from the negotiatîons, an agreement to submit the
mat.ter to third-party adjudication required extensive discussion between
the Parties.One matter explored in these discussions was the relationship
of a boundary adjudication treaty to the proposed fisheries agreement.
Canada readily accepted the principle that the two agreements shou!d be
linked together; indeed, the basic premise of the Cadieux-Cutler negotia­
tions was that the boundary and resource issues should be dealt with not
in isolation but as an integrated whole.

256. Following the successful conclusion of the negotiations in
January 1979, the Treaty to Submit to Bindîng Dispute Settlement the
Delimîtation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area and

the Agreement on East Coast Fishery Re.sources were signed on 29
March 1979. The two agreements were linked, not only in substantive but
in political and legal terms as well. Accordîng to th,eir final clauses, they
cou Id only enter into force simultaneously. Signature of these agreements1IO GULF OF MAINE [110]

marked the end of the negotiations between Ambassadors Cadieux and
Cutler under the manda te givcn to them in 1977.

257. The final chapter in the history of these negotiations took
place two years later, in 1981. ln the interval Canada stood ready to
exchange instruments of ratification and expressed concern about the
United States' delay in ratifying the fisheries agreement, which the
Canadian Secretary of State for Extemal Affairs, in an interview with

The New York Times on 11 June 1980, 4escribed as Canada's "most
serious bi!ateral issue with any country5 ". Ratification, however, did not
corne about. President Reagan, advised that the fisheries agreement
would not obtain the advice and consent of the United States Senate if
put to a vote, but that a completely separate boundary adjudication
treaty wou\d be assured of passage, took the unilateral step of wîthdraw­
ing the fishcries trea ty from Sena te considera tion on 6 March 1981 and

suggestcd consequential amendments designed to sever the two instru­
ments55- despite the fact that both were linked by theîr express terms.

258. Ultimately, of course, the Canadian Government accepted
this course of action, although it meant that without a prior negotiated
resolution of fisheries allocations, these questions. would now have to be
resolved entirely through the third-party boundary settlement process. lt
was clear that further delay in resolving the Georges Bank situation could
not be tolerated, particularly, in view of the dangers posed for the conser­
vation of fish stocks in the absence of agreed management measures.

Accordingly, the Government of Canada accepted the severed boundary
settlement trcaty in its new form, and instruments of ratification were
exchanged bringing that treaty into force on 20 November 1981.

259. An essentîal condition of Canada's agreement to accept the
amendments approvcd by the United States Senate was a change in the
manner in which the United States had been implementing the boundary
area modus vivendi with regard to fisheries prior to this time. The United
States had previously refused to apply this policy of flag-State enforce­
mcnt to the area claimed by Canada wcst of îts first, provisional line -
in contrast to the policy of restraint which the United States followed in

respect of hydrocarbon operations in this same area. Canada found this
situation to be inconsistent and obviously unsatisfactory: it meant that
Canadian fishing vessels in areas claimed by Canada could be vulnerable
to arrest and prosecution by the United States authorities. When propos­
ing the "de-linkage" of the agreements to the Canadian Secretary of
State for External Affairs, the United States Secretary of State conveyed
President Reagan's assurances that, upon ratification, the United States

would alter this practîce and implemcnt the fisherîes modus vivendi
throughout the whole disputed area. These assurances were consistent
with an earlier understanding between the special negotiators. Subse­
quent to the exchange of instruments of ratification, the appropriate
instructions were issued to the United States Coast Guard to give effect
to this understanding 6.

" day,15 June 1980, p. 12.) See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 46.(The New York Times, Sun­

}l127 Congressional Record S 4049-S 4050 (daily edition 29 April 1981), 97th Congress,
161st Session (198l).
See Annexes, Vol. Il, Annex 47.[111]
MEMORIAL OF CANADA !li

Section II. The 1979 Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources

A. INTRODUCTION

260. As the preceding account has indicated, the 1979 Agreement
on East Coast Fishery Resources dealt in a very comprehensive way with

the fisheries relationship of the Parties of the Atlantic coast, focusing on
Georges Bank as the most crucial area of shared resource interest. To a
limited extent, of course, the agreement dealt with fishery resources in
undisputed waters and reciprocal rights of access to those resources; to a
somewhat greater extent it dealt with migratory species that would
require bilateral management wherever the boundary might be placed;
but at its core the agreement was a regime for the cooperative manage·
ment and sharing of the fishery resources of Georges Bank 5'.

261. The agreement will never enter into force, and the effect it
might have had upon fisheries cooperation between the two countries -
or the model it might have established for other countries - must remain

forever a matter of conjecture. Nevertheless, through the evidence that its
terms and the circumstances of its negotiation can provide, the agreement
sheds considerable light upon the equities of delimitation in this case.

262. As a treaty in force, the effect of the agreement would have
been to protect the established rights of both Parties and "insulate" their
fisheries interests from the full impact of the boundary decision. This it
would have accomplished by ensuring that any effect the decision might
have upon the allocation of shares in the fishery would be both limited
and deferred, and that fisherme.n could continue to repair to at least some
of their old grounds even where these might have passed to the exclusive

jurisdiction of the other country. Non-ratification of the agreement
means that the consequences of the boundary decision could now be more
sweeping and immediate in their impact.

8. SUMMARY OF THE AGREEMENT
l. General Objectives

263. The l979 fisheries agreement faithfully reflected the
detailed principles of the October l977 joint report of the special negotia­
tors which, it will be recalled, had receîved the express approval of both
governments. The agreement put meat on the bones of these abstract

principles by specifying the treatment to be given to stocks of major spe·
cies of fish in terms of quotas, access to fishing grounds, and regulatory
authorîty. It is a lengthy instrument and only a few of the most signifi­
cant points can be îdentified here.

264. In very general terms, the agreement had three major objec­
tives. First, it would have established an elaborate regulatory system with
a permanent fisheries commission and a dispute settlement procedure

" For the fui! tcxt of the agreement, see Annexes, Vol. 1,Annex 20.112 GULF OF MAINE [112]

desîgned to ensure that shared fish stocks would be properly managed in

accordance with agreed principles. Secondly, it would have established
relatively permanent quotas or "entitlements" both for sharcd fish stocks
and for certain stocks that occur entirely in the undisputed waters of each
country. Final!y, for a number of stocks, the agreement would have
secured to the fishing vessels of each country continued rights of access to
specified waters of the other country, wherever the boundary might ulti­
mately be placed.

2. The Management System
265. The agreement divîded the fish stocks of the area into three
categories. Briefly, "Annex A" stocks werc to be placed under full joint

management by the fisheries commission, with each country participating
in decisions on a footing of equality; "Annex B" stocks were to be under
qua/ified joint management, with one country gîven the "leàd role" in the
preparation of regulations and the other assigned a "burden of proor' in
dispute settlemen t proceed ings conccrn ing those regula tions; and "An nex
C" stocks, found largely in the undisputed waters of a single country,
were to· be placed under exclusive national management, wîth provision
for consultation within the fisheries commission. Virtually every major

Georges Bank fishery was placed under either full or qualified joint man­
agement; moreover, almost all the stocks that would have been subject to
either of these two forms of joint management under the agreement are
stocks that occur on Georges Bank.

266. For the most part, the intermediate category of "Annex B''
was composed of stocks situated partly in the undisputed waters of one
country and partly within the boundary area. It is for this reason that the
majority - in purely numerical terms - of the stocks of ICNAF sub­
division 5Ze (the management arca, it wi!I be recallcd, that comprises the
whole of Georges Bank as well as areas closer to the New England coast,
such as the Great South Channel and Nantucket Shoals) were assigned
to this category, with the United States desîgnated as the country of pri­
mary interest. But in the case of scallops, unquestionably the prime com­

mercial resource of Georges Bank, it was Canada, in view of its clear
dominance in the utilization of the resource, that was made the country
of primary interest for the whole of the Bank east of the Great South
Channel area. A number of other stocks found on Georges Bank, includ­
ing pollock, mackerel and cusk, were to have been placed under full joint
management in accorda nce with the "Annex A" regime.

267. The other salient feature of the management system set out
in the agreement was the mechanism for the determination of regulatory
measures that were not established in the agreement itself. This mech­
anism involved a fairly typîcal fisheries commission, with the superimpo­
sition of a 'unique procedure for binding dispute settlement. This proce­
dure was designed to ensure that, in contrast to the normal rule

applicable to international fisheries organizations, disagreement on the
allowable catch and other yearly conservation measures within the com­
mission would not produce a regulatory vacuum; instcad, the necessary
measures would be imposed through a binding third-party decision. As
welJ, a binding dispute settlement procedure was an essential ingredient
of the "Annex B" concept of a management scheme midway between [113] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 113

unilateral national management on the one hand and full joint manage­
ment on a footing of equalîty on the other. In the case of these "Annex

B" stocks, it would have been incumbent on the country challenging the
regulations proposed by the "party of primary interest" to show that
these were "clearly inconsistent" with the detailed management criteria
and standards set out in the agreement.

3. Entîtlements and Access

268. The agreement wou\d have conferred permanent rights on
the fishing vessels of each Party to harvest specified shares of most of the
important fishery resources of Georges Bank, and to fish for these
resources throughout the Bank wherever the boundary might be ptaced.
The entitlements set out in the agreement, while acceptable to Canada in

the context of a negotiated settlement, tended on the whole to understate
the true extent of the Canadian fishery on Georges Bank and did more
than justice to the United States position. Thus the United States special
negotiator, Mr. Lloyd Cutler, in a prepared statement given before a
Congressional committee on 22 June 1979, made the following observa­
tion about the agreed shares for Georges Bank:

"With one minor exception, each U.S. entitlement to stocks found
on Georges Bank exceeds the share of the total catch which the
U.S. took over the J965-77 periods 8."

269. But even with this departure from contemporary patterns in
favour of the United States, the entitlements set out in the agreement

constitute a recognition that Canada along with the United States has a
major and legitimate coastal State interest inthe fisheries of the Bank. A
few examples will suffice. In the case of the crucial scallop resource,
Canada would have been entitled to nearly three-quarters of the annual
catch for the whole of subdivision 5Ze, including the Great South Chan­
nel, Nantucket Shoals, and other grounds beyond the disputed boundary
area. Substantial Canadian quotas were set for most of the "finfish" spe­

cies like cod, haddock, and cusk, again defined in terms that comprised
the whole of SZe or, in some cases, more extensive areas. And in the case
of herring, where distant-water fishing vessels had taken most of the
Ge~rges Bank catch in the years leading up to the negotiations, Canada
would have been phased into a one-third entitlement after a period of
years. Moreover, in virtually ail these cases, the Canadian fleet would
have had a right in perpetuity to fish from one end of Georges Bank to
59
the other •

18Prepared Statement of Lloyd N. Cutter submitted to the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlîfe Conservation and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish­
eries, United States House of Representatives, 96th Congress, 1st Session on United
States-Canadian Fishing Agreements, 22 June 1979. Washington. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1979,41.
)' Specifîcally, the annua! Canadian scal!op quota for 5Ze as a whole was 73.35 percent of
the catch. Other Canadian quotas inclucod:(for the whole of 5Ze and 5Zw to the
southwest): 17 percent; haddock (for the whole of subarea 5): 21 percent; pollock (from
northeast Nova Scotia to the southern end of New England): 74.4 percent; and cusk
(SZe as a whole): 66 percent.114 GULi' 01'MAINE {l14]

270. These Canadîan entitlements and those of the United States
wcre to have been permanent, but subject to a significant degree of even­
tual adjustment in the light of the boundary decision yet to corne. Essen­
tîally, the agreement providcd for a review of the entitlements every ten

years, wîth provision for arbitration if agreement could not be reached.
The main criterion to be applied in this event was to have been the loca­
tion of the boundary, but the arbitra tor to be appointed under the agree­
ment could have taken social and economic factors into account as well.
There was, howcvcr, an important limitation on the arbitrator's author­
ity: a reduction eould never exceed one-third of the original entitlement,
and there was to have been a more stringent restriction on the maximum

reduction that could be imposed on any entitlement at the end of each
individual ten-year period.

C. SlGNIFICANCE OF THE AGREEMENT

271. Both the 1979 agreement and the October 1977 joint report
whose principles it reflected serve to demonstrate the reality and impor- ·
tance of each country's intcrest in the resources of Georges Bank taken as
a whole. These instruments togethcr constitute a persuasive demonstra­
tion of Canada's geographîc relationship to and historie interest in
Georges Bank, and underline the inconsistency and inequity of the
attempt to appropria te this Bank to the United States. They do soin two

ways. First, as noted above, the agreement was very largely a framework
for the equita ble sharing of the resources of Georges Bank, and its entire
thrust supports the proposition that a substantial portion of this area
properly appertains to Canada and, of course, runs directly counter to the
contention that no part of it appertains to Canada. And secondly, the
institu tional structure the agreement would have established was con­
ccived primarily as a mechanism for the cooperative management of

Georges Bank as a shared fîshing ground by two neighbouring coastal
States.
272. lt would not be appropriate to speculate on ail the reasons

that led the United States Senate to forego the carefully negotiated
régime. of sharing and joint management establîshed by the fîsheries
agreement. Clearly, however, a most important factor was that the
United States is in a favoured position in that access to fish in the eastern
part of Georges Bank is significantly Jess important to the United States
than to Canada (sce paragraph 119). The larger part of Georges Bank is
within the undisputed jurisdiction of the United States and gives the
United States ample access to the resourccs upon which the economic

well-being of its fishery depends.
273. The agreement was anything but nove] in some of its fonda­

mental principles. One of its major objectives was the maintenance of tra­
ditional fishing patterns in the face of a change in the jurisdictional status
of the offshore fisheries. 1n this, the agreement was the direct descendant
not only of the 1977 interim agreement adopted upon the implementation
of the 200-mile limit, but also of an earlier reciprocal fisheries agreement
in cffcct from l970 to J977 60,which allowed traditional fishing to con-

° For the text of the 24 April 1970 agreement, see Annexes, Vol. 1,Anncx 10. For the text
of the 24 February l977 intcri m agreement, see Annexes, Vol. 1, Annex 18.[115-116] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 115

tinue in coastal waters (esscntial!y those between the 3-mile and the
12-mile Iîmits) that the Parties had then brought within their fisheries
jurisdiction. ln a sense, moreover, this whole series of reciprocal fisheries
agreements can trace its ancestry back to the Treaty of Paris of 1783 that
confirmed the independence of the United States and at the same time
rcinstated the American fishery in the territorial waters of Nova Scotia
6
and the other remaining British possessions of North America i.
274. Therc is an even more fondamental respect in which the

agreement reflects an established tradition of North Amerîcan fisheries
relations. It was an instrument for the cooperative management of shared
fishery resources within an institutional framework dcsigned for this spe­
cific purpose, and it was modelled on an impressive series of prccedents.
These prccedcnts includc the North Atlantic Council on Fisheries Investi­
gations, set up by the two countries in 1920 along with France and New­
foundland; the International Pacifie Halibut Commission (set up as a

bilateral organization under the first treaty Canada ever signed as a sov­
ereign. state); the Canada-United States Interna tionaI Pacific Sa1mon
Fisheries Commission; and - with Japan as a third partner - the Inter­
national North Pacifie Fisherîes Commission.

275. By far the most important antecedent of ail, however, was
ICNAF, the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries.
For over a quarter of a century, from 1949 until 1977, Canadian and
United States scientists and fisheries managers collaborated as coastal
State partners - largely although by no means exclusively within the

ICNAF framework, and in particular within panel 5 of that commission
- in the cooperatîve management of the fisheries of Georges Bank and
the Gulf of Maine area.

276. The 1979 Agreement on East Coast Fishcry Resources was
accordingly no historical aberration: it was rather the continuation of a
long bilateral tradition. lt cannot be resurrected. Tt can, howcver, be
tàken into account as evidence of Canada's status as a coastal State in
relation to Georges Bank, of Canada's established share in the Georges
Bank fishery, and of the fundamental justice of a maritime boundary that
wi!l maintain this Canadian presence on the Bank.

" See Annexes, Vol. 1, Historical Introduction. [117-119]
116

PART II. THE LAW

CHAPTER 1. THE LAW OF MARmME DELIMITATION
AND ITS APPLICATION TQ THE PRESENT CASE

Section I. The Legal Framework for the Determination of a Single
Maritime Boundary

A. EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES: THE BASIC RULE OF LAW

277. The Court is requested "to decide, in accordance with the

principles and rules of international law applicable in the matter as
between the Parties ... the course of the single maritime boundary that
<livides the continental shelf and fisheries zones of Canada and the
United States of America ... ". It is the first time that an international
tribunal has had to deal with a maritime boundary of this charactcr: a
boundary that will divide the areas in which each Party may exercise sov­

ereign rights and jurisdiction with respect to the naturai resou,rces of both
the water column and the continental shelf, and that will apply to any
other forms of jurisdiction that might be claimed or exercised by either of
the Parties in these areas.

278. What, then, are the legal principles governing the determina­
tion of a single maritime boundary? In Canada's submissîon, the answer
to this question is as follows: there is an underlying and fondamental
norm or rule of law to be applied to ail maritime delimitations and there­

fore to the single maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area. This sin­
gle rule of law is that maritime boundaries are to be determined in
accordance with equitable prînciples, taking account of ail the relevant
circumstances, in order to achieve an equitable result. And it is Canada's
further submission that in the application of equitable principles as a fun­
damental norm or rule of law, equidistance is the method of delimitation
that will bring about an equitable solution in the circumstances of this

case.
279. Canada's view of the fondamental rule of law to be applied
to ail maritime delimitations is consistent with the jurisprudence of the

Court on continental shelf boundari1s; ît is consistent with the Anglo­
French Continental She/f award ;and it is consistent with the provisions
of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea.

280. The central role of equitable principles has been incontrov­
ertibly established in relation to the continental shelf. The Court recently
reaffirmed the "cardinal importance" of this doctrine in the Tunisia­
Libya Continental Shelf case2• There are, however, two fondamental
legal differences between the present case and the other maritime bound­

ariesthat have been adjudicated by the Court. The first and most funda-

1Arbitra/ion between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ire/and and the
French Republicon rhe De/imitation of the Continental Shelf, Decisions of 1heCourt of
Arbitration dated 30 Ju1977 and 14 March 1978. London. H.M.S.O., Cmnd. 7438.
' I.C.J. Report1982,p. 47, para. 44.[120] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 117

mental difference - diat the object of the present case is a single mari­
time boundary rather than one restricted to the continental shelf - is a

factor whose implications will be touched upon repeatedly in this chapter.
The second difference is that here, in contrast to the North Sea Conti­
nental Shelf cases and the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case, the
Parties are bound by Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Conti­
nental Shelf.

281. The application of the Geneva convention in no sense dero­
gates or departs from the fondamental norm that continental shelf
boundaries are to be determined on equitabte principles, for Article 6 bas

been placed firmly within the context of this norm. Thus, in the Anglo­
French Continental Shelf award, the Court of Arbitration characterized
Article 6 as a single, combined equidistance and special circumstances
rule, with neither branch dominating the other, whose aîm is to ·bring
about an equitable resu\t 1•

282. If the rule set out in Article 6 were no more than an ad hoc
rule of conventional Jaw, its application woutd obviously be restricted to
the continental shelf. But the ru!c has a much broader relevance. The
Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Continental Shelf award con­

strued Article 6 not as a special or narrow rule but rather as a particular
expression of a general norm:

"ln short, the rôle of the 'special circumstances' condition in
Article 6 is to ensure an equitable delimitation; and the combined
'equîdistance-special circumstances rule', in effect, gives particular
expression to a general norm that, failing agreement, the boundary
between States abutting on the same continental shelf is to be
determined on equitabic principles 4."

Thus the Court of Arbitration saw an îdentity of object in the
"equidistance-special circumstances" rule and the rules of customary
international !aw • In the present case, it is this very identity of object,
and the status of the rule as a particular expression of a general norm of
equitabic delimita tîon, tha t justifies the extension of the provisions
embodied in Article 6 to the determînation of a single maritime bound­

ary.
283. Article 6 does not, of course, exhaust the applicable sources

of law. Even if this case were concerned only with the continental shelf,
and not with a single maritime boundary, it would still be necessary to
consider customary law and recent developments in the law of the sea.
For, as was said by the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Con­
tinental Shelf award (as yet the only international adjudication that bas
provided the occasion to apply Article 6 to a delimitation case), "the rules
of customary law are a relevant and even essential means both for inter­
6
preting and completing the provisions of Article 6 ". And although the

J Ang/o-French Continental Shelf award, pp. 48-49, paras. 68 and 70.
• Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p. 48, para. 70.
5 Angfo-French Continental Sheljaward, p. 50, para. 75.
' Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p. 50, para. 75. [121)
118 GULF OF MAINE

Court of Arbitration in 1977 did not adopt the contention that the emer­
gence of the exclusive economic zone concept had overtaken the Conti­
nental Shelf Convention, it said that "the Court has no doubt that it
should take due account of the evolution of the law of the sea in so far as
this may be relevant in the context of the present case'". So tao did this
Court, in the Tunisia-Lîbya Continental Shelf case, recognize the need
to take account of developments at the United Nations Conference on the

Law of the Sea, proprio motu if need be, to the extent that any of the
provisions of what was then a draft convention on the law of the sea
might reflect eîther a pre-existing or emergent rule of customary law8.

284. The nced to consider the reccnt dcvelopmcnt of the law is all
the more evident in the case of a single maritime boundary. The single
maritime boundary to be dctcrmined in this case is one that already
encoQ1passes the most fundamcntal aspects of the exclusive economic
zone - jurisdiction over the resources of both the water column and the
shelf - and that will apply as welt, by virtue of Article 111of the Special
Agreement, to those remaining forms of coastal State jurisdiction within

the 200-mile zone that the contemporary law of the sea has brought into
being. Taken together, the bundle of rights in issue here bears a close
affinity to the concept of the exclusive economic zone. Moreover, the
200-mile fishing zones of the Parties arc thcmselvcs vcry largcly the rcf­
lcction of a consensus reached during ncgotiations at the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. And it is not only in the
200-mile distance factor that these zones reflect the new concept but in
their specific legal content as well: the man ner of their administration,

with coastal State regulation of the fish stocks and the alloca tîon of the
"surplus" to foreign fleets, implements the provisions now found in the
new convention in every fondamental respect.

285. It is clear, therefore, that the law applicable to the dctcrmi­
nation of the single maritime boundary at issue in thîs case must take
account of the new princip!es that have recently emerged with respect to
both the continental shelf itself and the ellclusive economic zone. But the
basic rule of law set out in paragraph 278 remains intact: as a fondamen­
tal norm, it is applicable to maritime boundarics in general, includîng
those that delîmit the newer forms of maritime jurisdiction. There is in
this respect a continuum of law that links the shelf and the water column,
the traditional law of the sea and its contemporary development, and the

convcntional and customary law of maritime delimîtation. Where the
integration of these varîous elements into a single delimitation will e,-ert
a decisive influence is not in the formulation of the basic rule of law itself
but rather in its practîcal application, and above ail in the identification
and balancîng of the circumstances and factors that arc relevant to the
case.

286. The application of these fondamental precepts to the fishery
resources of the water columrt has in fact a!ready receîved the express
approva\ of the Court. In its Judgment in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case
of 1974, the Court held that the. Parties were under an obligation to

1Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p. 40, para. 48.
s J.C.JReports 1982,p. 38, para. 24.[122} MEMORIAL OF CANADA 119

negotiate an equitable solution, an equitable apportionment of the fishing
resources. The Court saw a direct parallel with its approach to continen­
tal shelf delimitation and stated:

"lt is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution, but an
equîtable solution derivéd from the applicable Jaw. As the Court

stated in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases:

'... it is not a question of applyîng equity as a matter of
abstract justice, but of applying a rule of law which itself
requires the application of equitab\e principles' (J.C.J.
Reports 1969, p. 47, para. 85)9."

287. The evidence for this unity in the law of maritime delimita­
tion may be found in the fundamentally similar character of the various
forms of jurisdiction that are its abject. The continental shelf, the exclu­

sive economic zone, and the 200-mile fishing zones of the Parties (which
themsclves represent, in effect, a partial application of the exclusive eco­
nomic zone concept) are ail, in a sense, species of the same genus. They
are offshore zones that are based on the principle of adjacency, that is,
upon the legal relationshîp of the land territory to the sea and the fonda­

mental principle that the land dominates the sea. These zones are analo­
gous in their primarily cconomic character, as expressed by the concept
of sovereign rights over natural resources. And they are alike in their
legal charader as well, for they fall short of full sovereignty and subsîst
side by sidc with many of the traditional freedoms of the hîgh seas. The
logic of the case, therefore, suggests the use of the same basic principles

of delimitation, adapted in their application to reflect the specific factual
and \egal properties of each of these forms of maritime jurisdiction and
their various combinations'°.

288. This conclusion is confirmed by the provisions of the new
Convention on the Law of the Sea. The unity of the law respecting the
delimitation of the shelf and of the exclusive economic zone is reflected in

the parallel wording of Articles 74 and 83 of the new Convention on the
Law of the Sea". In their emphasis on achicving an equitablc solution,
these provisions are consistent with the finding of the Court in the

' Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdv. Jceiand), Merits, Judgmenl, 1.C.J. Report.1
1974, p. 33, para. 78.

'" Further evidence ofthe unity of the law or maritime delimitation is offered by Article 7
of the Gcncva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Rcsourccs of the
cumsta nces adopt unilateral measures of conservation for fish stocks in any area of the
high seas adjacent to ils territorial sca. Parag5 providcs that "the principles of
demarcation as dcfined in Article 12 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone shall be adoptcd whcn coasts of diffcrcnt States arc involved".
11 Article 74 as adoptcd hy the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea on 30 April 1982
reads as follows:

"1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law as
to achievean equitable solution. StatuLe of the International Court of Justice, in order

2. ff no agreement can be rcachcd within a reasonable period of time, the States con­
eerncd shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.120 GULF OF MAINE [123]

Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case that it is the equitable character of
12
the result which is predominant .Moreover, in this same emphasis upon
an equitable solution, with no prescription of the specific principles and
methods to be utilized toward this end, the new articles rule out any false
dichotomy between equidistance on the one hand and equitable prindples
on the other. Finally, they affirm the continued relevance of Article 6 of

the Convention on the Continental Shelf in their adoption of the sources
of law set out in Article 38(l)(a) of the Statute of the Court: rcasserting,
by implication, the proposition that there is a single, combined rule of
equîdistance and special circumstances which is itself a particular expres­

sion of a general norm that delimitation must be effected in accordance
with equitab\e principles, in order to achieve an equitable result.

8. THE LEGAL SOURCES OF T!TLE: THEIR EVOLUTION AND THEIR
RELEVANCE TO DELIMITATION

I. Natural Prolongation

289. To the extent that the continental shelf is included within
and is a component of a single maritime boundary determination, as in

the present case, the lega! character of the continental shelf requires con­
sideration. An important juridical principle, enunciated by the Court in
the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, is that the shelf constitutes the
natural prolongation of the land terri tory of a Statell.

290. The Judgment in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases

identified the concept of natural prolongation as one that may have a
bearing on delimitation: for it held that delimitation ought to be effected
"in such a way as to leave as f\l.UChas possible to each Party ail those
parts of the continental shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its
land territory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the natu­
14
ral prolongation of the land territory of the other ", At the same time,
the Court recognized the distinction between natural prolongation as a
conceptual root of title and the issue of delimitation. As the Judgment in
the Tunisia- Libya Continental Shelf case pointed out:

"The Court also clearly distinguishcd between a principlc whîch
affords the justification for the appurtenaryce of an area to a State

and a rule for determining the extent and limits of such area: 'the
appurtenance of a given area, considered as an entity, in no way

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States eoncerned, in a spirit
of understanding and eo-operation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional
arrangements of a praetieal nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopard­
ize or hamper the reaching of the, tïni>lagreement. Such arrangements shall be with­
out prejudiceo the final delimitation.
4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions
relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone shalletermined in
accordance with the provisionsof that agreement."(A/Conf.62/L.78, 28 August
1981.)

Article83 contains identical provisions'with respect to the delimitation of the continental
shelfetween States with adjacent or opposite coasts.
" l.C.J. Reports/982. p. 59, para. 70.
1 /.C.J. Report/969, p.31, para. 43.
" I.C.J. Report/969, p.53, para. 10! (C)(l).[l24J MEMORIALOF CANADA 121

governs the precise de\imitation of its boundaries' (/.C.J. Reports
1969, p. 32, para. 46) 15."

291. ln practice, the role of natural prolongation in the delimita­
tion of shelf areas has proved to be of limited utility. In the Tunisia­
Libya Continental Shelf case, the Court rcferred to its findings on the
role of natural prolonga tîon in the 1969 Judgment, and made the follow­

ing observations:

"The Court also attributed to that concept a certain role in the
delimitation of shelf areas, in cases in which the geographical situa­
tion made it appropriatc to do so. But while the idea of the natural

prolongation of the land territory defined, in general terms, the
physical abject or location of the rights of the coastal State, it
would not necessarily be sufficient, or even appropriate, in itself to

determine the precisc extent of the r16hts of one State in relation to
thosc of a neighbouring State ."

And in a subsequent passage, it added:

"It wouId be a mistake to suppose tha t it will in ail cases, or even in
the majority of them, be possible or appropriate to establish that
the natural prolongation of one State extends, in relation to the
natural prolongation of another State, just so far and no farther, so
17
that the two prolongations meet along an easily defined line .''

Although the Court recognîzed that the physical factors constituting the

natural prolongation might be takcn into account as "one of several cir­
cumstances considered to be the elements of an equitable solution 18", it
emphasized that "the two considerations - the satisfying of equitable
principles and the identification of the natural prolongation - are not to
9
be placed on a plane of equalityl ".

292. In Canada's view, in spite of the physical underpinnings of
the doctrine of the continental shelf; that doctrine is essentially a juridical
concept designed to dea\ with a juridical question. The importance of

viewing the continental shelf as a notion subject to legal rules, which take
account of but are quite independent of physîcal facts, was recently reas­
serted in the strongest terms by the Court in its Judgment in the Tunisia­
Libya Continental She/f case 20• lt follows, in Canada's submission, that

natural prolongation is itself essentially a juridical concept, though one
that is based on physical relatîonships; for as a legal concept it refers to
the prolongation under the sea not of a continent or a geographical land­
21
mass but of the land terri tory of a State •
15'/.C.J.Reports J982, pp. 46·47, para. 44.
1
• J.C.J.Reports {982, p. 46, para. 43.
17 /.C.J.Reports !982, p. 47, para. 44.
1s /C.J. Reports t982, p. 58, para. 68.
19 /.C.J.Reports /982, p. 47, para. 44.

'" l.C.J.Reports 1982, pp. 45-46, paras. 41-42 and pp. 53-54, para. 61.
21 Ang/o-French Continental Shelfaward, p. 92,para. 191, and p. 93, para. 194, where the
Court of Arbitration said:
"When the question is whether areas of continental shelf, which gcologically may be
considered a natural prolongation of the territories of two States, appertain to one122 GULF OF MAINE [125]

293. Natural prolongation, in its specifically legal sense, cannot
simply be equated with geology and geomorphology. lndeed, as the sepa­
rate opinion of Judge ad hoc Jiménez de Aréchaga in the Tunisia-Libya
Continental Shelf case pointed out, the term as used in the 1969 Judg­

ment shou\d not be interpreted as reintroducing into the definition of the
continental shelf the physical crîteria that had been delîberately omitted
in the development of the 1958 convention 22• And if these factors are not
essential to title, he suggests, they cannot be regarded as independent

grounds of delimitation:

"Since geomorphology and geology were not admitted as the tests
for the existence and recognition of the right to explore and exploit
adjacent submarine areas, they cannot constitute by themselves

valid grounds or applicable criteria for continental shelf delimita­
tion. .lt would be contradictory to recognîze that Chile, Peru or
Norway possess continental shelf rights, as was done in· 1958,
despite the existence of deep depressions and regardless of the geo­

logîcal identity of the rock strata, and at the same time to deny
these same rights to State A or to State B, setting a limit to their
continental shelf rights, on the sole ground of the existence of a
trough or depression, or by reason of the sea-bed contour, or of a
3
certain change in the geological composition of the subsoil2 ."

The United States itself, it must be noted, has exercised continental shelf

rights off the coast of Calîfornia that disregard trenches and canyon24of
very considerable depth in the extension of coastal State title • •

294. The recent evolution of the law of the sea has further weak­
ened the role of natural prolongation in its purely physical sense, at least
in the area within the 200-mile limit, even where the continental shelf is

considered in isolation from the water column; and accordingly the prac­
tica\ relevance of the concept is largely restricted to the area beyond 200
miles. Article 76, paragraph 1 of the new Convention on the Law of the
Sea, by providing that proximity alone shal! suffice as a source of tîtle as

far seaward as the 200-mile limit, has substituted distance for depth as
the principal criterion of coastal State title to the continental shelf2 5•In

State rather than to the other, the legal rules constituting the juridical concept of the
continental shelf take over and determine the question. Consequently. in these cases
the effcct tobe given to the principle of natural prolongalion of the coastal State·s
land territory is always dependent not only onthe particular geographical and other
circumstances but also on any relevant considerations of law and equity."
22/.C.J.Repons 1982. pp. 112-l l3, paras. 45-47.
11
/.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 113, para. 49.
' The United States Department of the Interior has permitted leasing of phosphate depos­
its in the Forty-Mile Bank area of the ocean noor off the coast of California. It has also
extended leases to the Cortez Bank, a rise in the same area, These features are separated
from the coast by trenches some !,200-1,500 metres deep. See Frank J. Barry: "The
Administration of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act."(Natural Resources Lawye,.
Vol. 1, 1968p. 46.)
11Article 76, para. 1 as adopted by the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea on JOApril
1982 reads as follows:

"1. The continental shelf of a co.astal State comprises the sea-bed and subsoil of the
submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sca throughout the natural prolon­
gation of its !and territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance
of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that
distance." (A/Conf.62/L.78, 28 August 1981.) [126] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 123

this respect, as the Court noted in the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf
case, the law modifies the legal concept of the continental shelf as a "spe­
cies of platform" and departs from the principle that natura~ prolonga­
tion is the sole basis of title.

295. It is not only the introduction of the distance criterion that
has diminished the role of geological and geomorphological features in
relation to the continental shelf. lt is equally the express recognition in
Article 76 that coastal State rights extend, regardless of exploitability,

beyond the 200-metre isobath - a depth that was adopted in the 1958
convention partly because it corresponded approximately to the point at
which the shelf "break" at the top of the continental slope most fre­
quently occurs. ln contrast, the new convention now recognizes the ipso
facto title of the coastal State at the much greater depths of the continen­
tal slope and rise as far as the outer !imit of the margin as defined in

Article 76. No longer is the spotlight aimed either exclusively or
primarily at the relatively shal\ow platform that constitutes the continen­
tal shelf proper, in its purely physîcal sense. On the greatly extended
·scale - both geomorphological and geographical, vertical and horizontal
- that is reflected in the new definition, the superficial features of the
shelf platform fade into insignificance. In the Gulf of Maine area, of
course, these principles. are given a very concrete expression, for the ter­

minal points of the 200-mile daims of the Parties lie well beyond the
shelf break at a water depth of about 3,000 metres.

296. ln the present case there is a further, and quite conclusive,
reason why it must be equity as a legal concept, and not the physical facts
of geology or geomorphology, that governs. The Court is not concerned
solely with a continental shelf boundary, but with a single maritime
boundary that will divide the fishing zones of the Parties as weil. Ifthe
physical structure of the seabed has become at best a secondary and

exceptionaJ' factor in the delimitation of the continental shelf, itmust
inevîtably be accorded far Jess weîght - if any - in the case of a single
maritime boundary. The rights in issue and the basis of jurisdiction
rcspecting the resources of the water column are of an entirely dîfferent
order, and unrelated in even a conceptual sense to the physical structure
of the seabed. So too are the equitîes at stake.

2. Adjacency and Proximity

297. Adjacency is the common denominator that links the rights
of the coastal State to the shelf, the 200-mile fishing zone, and the more
comprehensive concept of the exclusive economic zone. The Court
stressed the fondamental character of adjacency in relation to the she\f in

the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case, îdentifying it as the "para­
mount criterion for deter27ning the legal status of the submerged areas"
off the coast of a State •Although the Court made clear in this passage

z;l.C.J. Reports 1982, 48, paras. 47 and 48.

" I.C.J. Reports 1982, 61, para. 73.124 GULF OF MAINE [127]

that it was discussing the basis of legal title rather than delimitation as
such, there must necessarily be some correlation between the two, as the

function of detimitation is precisely to determine the specific area within
which such title exists. Adjacency is ail the more fundamental as the
legal foundation for a 200·mile zone: for here it is the spatial relationship
between the land and the sea, expressed in terms of the 200-mile distance
principle, that provides the sole and exclusive criterion of coastal State
title.

298. Although the Court held in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases that there is "no necessary, and certainly no complete, îdentity
between the notions of adjacency and proximity", it recognized that adja·
cency implies proximity "in a general sense 28". The role of proximity in

this general sense has been greatly strengthened by the new emphasis on
the criterion of distance from the coast as the legal basis of title to conti·
nental shelf rights as far seaward as the 200.mile limit, and as the sole
basis of coastal State rîghts and jurisdiction within the exclusive eco­
nomic zone. The importance gîven to the distance criterion, as an expres­
sion of the more fondamental concept of adjacency, cannot fail to exert
an înnuence on the law of continental shelf delimitation. That influence
must be ail the more profound where the boundary of a 200-mile fishing

ione or an exclusive economic zone, or a single maritime boundary deli­
miting both the water column and shelf, is in issue.

299. There are two closely related implications that flow from the
concepts of adjacency and proximity as the basis of coastal State rights
beyond the territorial sea. The first is that the coast and its relationship
to the jurisdictional zones to be delimited must have a central role in the
delimitation process. The second is that the proximity of these zones to
the adjacent coasts is a factor of great importance in assessing the equi·
ties of delimitation; for where distance is a fondamental defining princi­
ple - the exclusive defining principle in relation to the water column and
in relation to the shelf wîthin 200 miles - proximity clearly takes on a

special importance as the most concrete expression and measure of adja­
cency. And at the same time, the diminished role of natural prolongation
in its physical sense, and its virtual irrelevance where the water column is
concerned, reinforces the primacy that must be accorded to geography -
"two-dimensional" geography - in the ranking of the purely physical
factors that are relevant to delimitation.

Section II. The Relevant Circumstances in the Context of the Gulf
of Maine Area

A. INTRODUCTION

300. Equitable principles cannot be identified or applied in the
abstract. In the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case the Court observed
that it is "the result which is predominant; the principles are subordinate

to the goal", and it went on to add:

is /.C.J. Reports 1969,30, para. 42.[128] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 125

"The equitableness of a principle must be assessed in the light of its
usefulness for the purpose of arriving at an equitable result. It is
not every such principle which is in itself equitable; it may acquire
this quality by reference to the equitableness of the solution. The
principles to be indicated by the Court have to be selected accord­
ing to their appropriateness for reaching an equitable result. From
this consideration it follows that the term 'equitable principles' can­

not be interpreted in the abstract; it refers back to the principles
and rules 29ich may be appropriate in order to achieve an equita­
ble result ."

The Court put the entire matter in a nutshell in the succeeding paragraph
when it said that its task is "to apply equitable principles as part of inter­
national law, and to balance up the various considerations which it
10
regards as relevant in order to produce an equitable result ". The search,
accordingly, is not for equitable principles per se, but for those factors
that are legally relevant to the goal of an equitable solution in the case at
hand.

301. Sorne of the factors that have received attention in the con·
text of continental shelf delimitation are of general applicability and may
easily be transposed to the determination of a single maritime boundary.
Coastal geography and the conduct of the parties are within this cate­

gory. Others - especially geology and geomorphology - are referable to
the continental shelf alone; and white their consideration need not neces­
sarily be ruled out entire\y in the context of a single maritime boundary,
their relative importance must obviously be much reduced. But where the
present case introduces a new and special dimension is in its requirement
that what may be termed the "water column equities" be taken into

account: that these factors - in particular the respective interests of the
two countries in the fisheries of the Gulf of Maine area - be weighed
and integrated in a single balancing-up that will produce an equitable
result overal\. lt is far more than a matter of simply listing all the rele­
vant factors; for as the Court stated in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases-

"... more often than not it is the balancing-up of ail such consider­
ations that will produce this result rather than reliance on one to
the exclusion of ail others. The problem of the relative weight to be

accorded to different considerations naturally varies with the cir­
cumstances of the caseJ'."

302. If the identification of the relevant circumstances depends
large\y on the facts of each case, so too must the balancing-up. In the
present malter, it is the Canadian submission that the fisheries equities
must be given particular weight in the light of the exceptional value of
the fishery resources of the Georges Bank area and their established eco­
nomic importance. When, in the dispositif of the North Sea Continental

Shelf cases, the Court emphasized the importance of the location of natu-

29 l.C.J. Reports 198p. 59, para. 70.
10 /C.J. Reports 1982p. 60, para. 71.

11 1.C.J. Reports 1969, 50, para. 93.126 GULF OF MAINE [129]

2
rai resources "so far as known or readily ascertainablei ",it was no doubt
the importance of established patterns of use, and especially the depend­
ence and vested economic interests that corne to be associated with these
patterns, that it had in mind. In the case of Georges Bank, it is the fish­
ery resources that are known and certain in their extent, and that form
the basis of the patterns of exploitation and dependence that give this dis­

pute much of its real and immediatc importance to Canada. Moreovcr, in
contrast to the non-living resources of the shelf that could be exhausted in
as littleas a generation, the fisheries are renewable resources whose eco­
nomic benefits can be indefinitely prolonged.

B. THE GENERAL CONFIGURATION OF THE CüASTS

303. The Judgment given by the Court in the Tunisia-Libya
Continental Shelj case shows that the coastal geography - the configu­
ration of the coasts - is a leading factor in the law of maritime delimita­
tion, since the coast is bath the basis for title and the point of departure

from which one must set out in any delimitation. This principle was
summed up in the following passage from that Judgment:

"The geographic correlation between coast and submerged areas
off the coast is the basis of the coastal State's 1egal title. As the
Court explained in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases the con­
tinental shelf is a legal concept in which 'the principle is applied
that the land dominates the sea' (/.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51,
para. 96)11."

304. Other sources of law confîrm the importance of coastal geog­

raphy. The combined equidistance and special circumstances rule in
Article 6 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf emphasizes
geographîcal factors in the organization of its structure around the con­
cepts of opposite and adjacent coasts. Similarly, the delimitation provi­
sions of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea reflect the same
preoccupation with coastal relationships in their reference to States with
opposite or adjacent coasts, though the new formulation departs from the
format of Article 6 by merging these two broad geographical categorîes

into a single formulation. Coastal geography was also accorded a pivotai
role in the reasoning of the Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases 4,despite the emphasis upon natural prolongation as the conceptual
basis of the "inherent right" of coastal States to the continental shelf.

305. ln dealing with the role of coastal geography in the delimita­
tion of the continental shelf, the Court in the North Sea Continental
Shelf cases distinguished between the general configuration of the coasts

of the parties, and the presence of incîdental, special or unusual
featuresis. In the Canadian submission the application of the maxim that
"the land dominates the sea" requires that an cquitable delîmitation
faithfully reflect the general configuration of the coasts of the Parties,

n l.C.J. Reports 1969, pp. 53-54, para. 10l(D)(2).

ii /.C.J. Reports 198p,61, para. 73.
i•/.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51. para. 96.
ii l.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 50. para. 91 and pp. 53-54, para. !Ol(D)(l). 127
[1301 MEMORIAL OF CANADA

and that features of the kînd mentioned by the Court have only an influ­
ence proportionate to their geographica! importance and their rea\ con­
nection to the area to be delimited. As paragraphs 33 l to 356 will show,
the Canadian equidistance line has been constructed in a manner that
fu!fills these two requirements. ltreflects the overa\l comparability of the

Canadian and United States coasts in the Gulf of Maine area, while dis­
counting the special or unusual features that would otherwise have a dis­
proportionate and inequitable effect upon the location of an equidistance
line.

C. THE CONTINUITY OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

306. Although the "physical and geological structure" of the con­
tinental shelf was identified in the disposillf of the North Sea Con­
tinental Shelj casesi as a factor of potential relevance to delimitation,
the subsequent development of the Iaw - as outlined in paragraphs 289

to 296 - demonstrates that natural prolongation rarely provides a defin­
ing principle that may be used in order to achieve an equitab\c delimita­
tion. In the case of a single maritime boundary, it should again be noted,
these factors are even Iess likely to be of genuine relevance.

307. Beyond these general considerations of law, the physical
structure of the continental shelf in the present case is such that the
delimitation must necessarily depend upon other factors. The Gulf of
Maine area is characterized by a single, uniform and continuons conti­

nent.al margin common to both Parties, and whatever irregularities may
exist in its seafloor topography are secondary features that in no manner
change or interrupt this basic structural continuity. Though the whole
area abounds in banks and depressions - it is a shclf whose surface has
been scoured by glaciation - thesy are features whose very dispersion

and superficiality rule out theîr relcvance for delimitatîon.
308. ln such a case, the physical evidence of natural prolongation

would be of little assistance even if the delimitation were concerned with
the continental shelf alone. The situation, in this regard, is analogons to
that considered in the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelj case:

"ln the present case, in whîch Libya and Tunisia both derîvc conti­
nental shelf title from a naturai prolongation common to both terri­
tories, the ascertainment of the extent of the areas of shelf apper­
taining to each State must be governed by criteria of international
law other than those taken from physical features 31."

For geomorphological or geo\ogical features to be decisive in determinîng
a continental shelf boundary, they would have to constitute "such a
marked disruption or discontinuance of the sea-bed as to constitute an
indisputable indication of the limits of two separate continental shelves,
or two separate natural prolongations)&". This is astringent test, which no

physical feature in the Gulf of Maine area can begin to meet. There is

1, /.C.J. Reports 196pp. 53-54, para. !Ol(D)(2).
1' I.C.J. Reports 198p. 58, para. 67.
13 I.C.J. Reports 1982,57,para.66.128 GULF OF MAINE (1311

here a single continental shelf that constitutes the natural prolongation of
the land territory of both Parties, and accordingly, as in the circum­
stances of the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case, "no criterion for
delimitation of shelf areas can be derived from the principle of natural
39
prolongation as such ".

309. The situation may also be compared to that considered in the
Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, where the Court of Arbitration
held that to attach critîcal significance to the Hurd Deep-Hurd Deep
Fault Zone "would run counter to the whole tendency of State practice
on the contînen ta! shelf in recent years 40". ltnoted the placement of such
a feature is simply ''a fact of nature" that cannot be equated with spedal
41
circumstances under Article 6 or with inequity under customary law • A
fortiori, physical features of this character are of even Jess assistance in
the delimitation of a single maritime boundary for both the water column
and the continental shelf.

310. lt is true that there may be situations where geomorphologi­
cal structures that do not amount to an interruption in the continuity of
the continental shelf might properly be taken into account as relevant cir­

cumstances in determining the actual course of a boundary, at least
where the continental shelf alone is being delimited. Yet, as the Court
pointed out in Tunisia-Libya Continental Sheif case -

"ln such a situation, however, the physical factor constituting the
natural prolongation is not taken as a legal title, but as one of
several circumstances considered to be the elements of an equitable
solution•i_"

Thus we are brought back to the essential aim of securing an equitable
result (as the Court again implied in subparagraph A(3) of the dis­
positif4J), and no physical feature that might be proferred as a potential
boundary between States adjoining the same shelf could be entertained as
such if contrary to that aim.

D. NATURAL RESOURCES AND EcoNOMIC FACTORS
31l. The circumstances relevant to the determination of the single

maritime boundary that will divide the 200-mile fishing zones of the Par­
ties must obviously înclude their respective interests in the fishery
resources of the boundary area. lndeed, in the Canadian submission, the
economîc dependence associated with established patterns of exploitation
of the fisheries of the disputed area must be given a special weight in the

balancing-up of ail the relevant circumstances if a truly equitable result is
to be achieved.

312. Though this is the first case in which the delimitation of 200-
mile fishing zones or exclusive economic zones has been considered, the

39l.C.J. Reports !982, p. 92, para. 133(A)(2).
• Anglo-French Continental Shelfaward, p. 63, para. 107.
41
Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p. 63, para. 108.
•2J.C.J. Reports /982, p. 58, para. 68.
•iJ.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 92, para. 133.[132] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 129

established legal principles respecting other forms of maritime jurisdic­
tion have a continuing relevance. The international jurisprudence on
these matters bas accorded to actual economic considerations, especially
those arising out of fishing practices, an important and sometimes deci­
sive role. This of course was a central theme in the Fisheries case'4; and it
is one that emerged again in the very different circumstances of the

Fisheries Jurisdiction case. lndeed, it has been said that established eco­
nomic interests have traditional\y outweighed ail others in the general
international law of maritime claims, and that "actual exploitation of the
resources of the disputed atea is probably the most decisive
considera tion4".

313. Fishery resources differ from hydrocarbons in many impor­
tant respects; but the most fondamental difference in the present case is
that the fishery resources of the Gulf of Maine area are fully known and

have become the basis of present live!ihoods and economic dependence,
and these resources are among the most important of the Atlantic sea­
board. Tt is these facts more than anything else that distinguish the fish­
ing interests in this case from the historie fishing rights and unpredictable
economic variables that were discussed in the Tunisia- Libya Continental
Shelf case'•. For here the economic interests in the fishery are direct!y in
issue as the most crucial component of the case, and these interests can­

not be compared with the prospective and hypothetical economic benefits
that might result from a future discovery of as yet unknown resources.
Here too - in further contrast with the circumstances of the Tunisia­
Libya Continental Shelj case - the fishery resources concerned lie
squarely in the area in dispute.

314. There is a further important difference. The continental
shelf rights in dispute have always been exclusive as a matter of.legal
principle, since these are rights that have vested ipso facto and ab initio

as an inherent attribute of coastal State status since the continental shelf
régime was established. The fishery resources of the superjacent waters,
on the other band, formed part of the commons of the higb seas until the
Parties' introduction of 200-mile zones· in 1977, pursuant to a fondamen­
tal innovation in the law of the sea that has only recently gained accept­
ance. The fact that each Party had an unquestioned legal right of access
to the fisheries of the disputed area until very recently suggests, in
Canada's submission, that added weight should be given to established

coastal State patterns of exploitation and dependence as circumstances
that are relevant to the equities of delimitation.

315. Even the law on continental shelf delimitation, in fact,
strongly suggests that established resource interests in the disputed area
are among the most important factors to be taken into account. ln the
North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the Court confirmed the relevance of
the nàtural resources of the areas involved, "so far as known or readily
ascertaina ble 4". And the potential relevance of actual exploitation of

" Fisher/es, Judgment, C.J.Reports 1951,p. 116.
41
A. L. W. Munkman: "Adjudication and Adjustment - International Judicial Decisions
national Law,Vol. 46, 1972-1973p.101.)Boundary Disputes."tish Yearbook of Inter­

•• J.C.J.eports !982, p77, para. 107.
" I.C.J.Reports 1969,pp. 53-54,para.101(D)(2).130 GULF OF MAINE [133]

known resources was alluded to by the Court in the Tunisia-Libya

Continental She/f case as an element that might be taken into account
"in th48process of weighing all relevant factors to achieve an equitable
result ". It is perhaps only now, in the contex.t of a single maritime
boundary that will govern both the fisheries and the shelf as a unified
whole, that this principle can receive îts full ex.pression.

316. Itis not economic interests in the abstract tha t call for con­
sidera tion.The fisheries interests of the Parties operate not in isolation
but in conjunction with the geographic circumstances by showing the
close linkage and affinity between the relevant coasts and the disputed
area. Moreover, the interests that have a legal relevance are those that

have an established reality: interests that are actual not merely conjec­
tural, though not necessarily of the very long duration that might be
required in support of a daim of historie title. lt is actual dependence and
not indeterminate considerations of relative national wealth and poverty
that are relevant and that are in issue here.

317. This analysis suggests that in the case of a single maritime
boundary, where fisheries inferests represent the dominant component of
the interests at stake, a somewhat modified approach to the notion of the
"relevant coasts" may be in order. It is true, of course, that these should
exhibit an appropria te degree of adjacency and proximity to the disputed
area. Itis equally apparent that in a case of this nature it ceases to be

appropriate to identify the relevant coasts and to assess their importance
in a purely geometrical way, in terms of theîr abstract spatial characteris­
tics, without regard to their actual reliance upon the resources of the area
concerned. There must be, in other words, an interaction between the
physical and the economic geography and the manner in which these are
balanced in assessing the equities of delimitation.

318. Georges Bank is by far the most important part of the Gulf
of Maine area in terms of economic value, and it is the focal point of the
present dispute. The strength of the Canadian. fishery on Georges Bank,
and the great dependence of southwest Nova Scotia on that fishery for its
well-being, give the area a special economic significance to Canada that

is entirely without parallel in the United States. The fishing industry is
the leading employer in Nova Scotia in the primary and secondary indus­
trial sectors, and Georges Bank is the single most valuable fishing ground
avaîlable to Nova Scotia fishermen. The heartland of this industry lies in
southwest Nova Scotia, in close prox.imity to Georges Bank. In equity,
these factors must surely be given great weight in the balancing-up of all
the relevant circumstances; for it is the equitable character of the result
that counts.

319. In the Canadian submission, the application of equitable
principles demands that Georges Bank not be allotted in îts entirety to
one or other of the Parties, for it is an area that has always been freely

open to and exploited by fishermen of both coastal States and whose
,present and prospective economic importance has been amply demon­
strated. The boundary line claimed by Canada projects across the central
portion of Georges Bank, and its effect is to leave over one-half of the
Bank subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It is a line that

" J.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 78, para. 107.[1341 MEMORIAL OF CANADA 131

achieves an equitable result in its division of this area, and that respects
the legitimate and vested economic interests of the two Parties. The
United States daim, on the othcr hand, would appropriate the entirety of
Georges Bank to exclusive United States jurîsdiction, excluding Canada
from an offshore area to which Canada has had access and over which
Canada has exercised jurisdiction for many years. lt is a daim that, for

that very reason, fails to meet the most fundamenta\ test of the law of
maritime boundary de!imitation.

E. ÎHE CüNDUCT OF THE PARTIES

320. The Court has recently held that the conduct of the Parties
is a circumstance that may be "highly relevant" to the determination of
the method of delimitation, quîte apart from any considerations of estop­
pel or tacit agreement 4• For as the Court pointed out, the crux of the

matter is the identification of a method of delimitatîon that will ensure an
equitable result, and it follows that 'the search for this method should
"take into account whatever indicia are available of the line or lines
which the Parties themselves may have considered equitable or acted
upon as suchso>'.

321. The equidistance method used in the Canadian daim is one
that meets this test. From l965 onwards until the end of the decade, the
clearly expressed position of the Government of Canada, to the effect

that the equîdistance method produced the correct boundary in law, was
accepted by the United States Government. ltwas accepted not only in
its legal premises, but in the equity of its application in the circumstances
of the Gulf of Maine area. The implications of this pattern of conduct are
discussed in Chapter II below as a ground of estoppel or acquiescence;
but in the Canadian submission it is of at least equal importance as one of

the indicia of the line which both Canada and the United States have
consîdered equitable and have acted upon as such. Even in the wake of
the recent United States leasing programs, the Canadian daim corre­
sponds to the respective areas in which each Party has granted leases or
permits for hydrocarbon operations.

322. lt is important to stress a somewhat different but equally
salient aspect of the conduct of both Parties. For many years, Canada
and the United States have been coastal State partners in relation to the
fisheries of Georges Bank, and have cooperated closely in this capacity.
Canada's active role in the conduct of scientific research aimed at the

management of these resources and the cooperation of government scien­
tîsts of bath countries in these endeavours have been outlined in para­
graphs 195 to 199. So too bas the Canadian record of activity - agaîn,
very often in cooperation with United States agencies - in the practkal
management programs carried out under the aegis of ICNAF's panel 5.
ICNAF itself, to which both Canada and the United States were con­

tracting parties from the outset until the 1977 extension of jurisdiction,
recognized the specia\ coastal State interests of both Canada and the
United States in Georges Bank by naming these two countries - on the

•~ l.C.JRepons 1982, p.83,para.117.
io C.J.Reports 1982, p84,para.118.132 GULF OF MAINE [135]

initiative of the United States - as the sole charter members of the panel
responsible for this portion of the convention area. The who\e pattern of

the relatîonship can only suggest that the Georges Bank fishery was
deemed by the Parties to be a shared resource. There may wel! have been
differences over the precise shares in that fishery to which the fishcrmen
of Canada and the United States were entitled, but of the reality and
legitimacy of the Canadian interest there was ncver any doubt.

323. The mutual acceptance of the equity and legitimacy of

Canada's rights in respect of Georges Bank was confirmed again by the
negotiation and signature of the 1979 East Coast Fishery Resources
Agreement. The agreement was negotiated slowly, arduously, and with
painstaking care by diplomatie representatives endowed with a special
authority and mandate by their governments. It represents the concerted

efforts of these special negotiators, working together in a setting that per­
mitted an objective appraisal of the issues, yet acting at the same lime in
close consultation with the fishermen and other regional interests that
would be affected. The executive branches of both countries, including
the President of the United States and his Secretary of State, viewed the

settlement as a1 appropriate and equitab\e one and gave ît their unquali­
fied support) ; and both countries, of course, signed the agreement.
Accordingly, though not a treaty in force, the agreement provides strong
corroborative evidence of the concrete equities of the fisheries relation­
ship; and it demonstrates, with a clarity and precision not to be found

elsewhere in the record, the Parties' shared perception of the character of
their respective interests in the fisheries of Georges Bank.

324. The terms of the agreement carry an unmistakable message.
Its main emphasis was on the sharing of the fishery resources of Georges
Bank, and on the cooperative management of its principal commercial
species. The allocations set out in the agreement, it wi\l be recalled, gave
Canada a major portion of the fishery resources of Georges Bank as a

whole, with permanent fishing rights throughout the Bank: close to three­
quarters of the scallops found both on Georges Bank itse\f and on the
more westerly grounds of the Great South Channel and Nantucket
Shoals, together with a long list of allocations to a wide variety of other
species. At the same time, itmade Canada and the United States the
joint managers of these resources, with Canada in the lead role for scal­

lops - the key commercial stock of the area ----52throughout Georges
Bank east of the Great South Channel area . The clear implication is
that, in the view of both governments, each of the two Parties has a legiti­
mate claim to a substantial share of the fishery resources of the Bank -
a share that is broadly commensurate with the Canadian daim - and to

a major role in the conservation and management of these resources.

325. The signature of the agreement and the support given to it
by the Government of the United States point to the inequitable - and
11
On !8 Apri1 l979, Pres1dent Carter traitted the east coast fisheries agreement and
the maritime boundary settlement treaty the United States Senate for its advice and
consent prior to ratification. In leHer of transmittal, the President described the
agreements as being "fair to both Parties" and in the "best interests" of the United
(1978), reproduced in the Annexes,L Il, Annex 43.d Stat96th Congress, 1st Session

" See pa'ras. 255-256 and the text of the 1979 agreement in th.e Annexes,Vol. [.
Annex 20. MEMORIAL OF CANADA 133
[136)

totally inconsistent - character of the assertion that Canada should be
deprived of the fishing grounds of eastern Georges Bank that are so vital
to its regional economy. It is no adequate response that the United States
Senate failed in the end to give its consent to the agreement (though it
might also be recalled that the agreement was not actually rejected by
that body). The more important fact, for these present purposes, is that

the agreement was approved and signed by each government, and that it
was strongly endorsed by the President and Secretary of State of the
United States: by the highest authorities, in other words, of the executive
branch of the United States, charged with the conduct of the foreign rela­
tions of that nation. That endorsement was expressly made on the basis
that the result embodied in the agreement was equitable - "fair to both
Parties", in the words of the President's message to the Senate 53•

f. RECAPITULATION

326. In summary, it is submitted that the following relevant cir­
cumstances, when integrated and properly weighed in a single balancing­
up, provide the basis of an equitable delimitation in the present case:

(a) the general configuration of the coasts, the broad comparability of
the relevant coasts of the two Parties, and the continuity of the single
continental shelf;
(b) the known resources of the boundary area, the established patterns
of their utilization, and above ail the relative degrees of economic

dependence associated with these patterns;
(c) the conduct of the Parties as a recognition, both tacit and express, of
the fundamental equity of the equidistance method in the Gulf of
Maine area with respect to both hydrocarbon resources and fisheries.

Sect.ion III.The Method or Methods Most Appropriate in Light of Ali
the Relevant Circumstances

A. THE ÛENERAL fRAMEWORK

327. The Court confirmed in the Tunisia-Libya Continental
She/f case that the search for an appropria te method must begin with an
analysis of the geographica1 situation:

''Any examination of methods, !ike the examination of applicable
rules and principles, must take as starting-point the particular geo­
gra phical situation, and especially the extent and features of the
area found to be relevant to the delimi tation54."

lt is, accordingly, to the coastal geography of the Gulf of Maine area that
this chapter willnow turn. -

" Annexes, Vol. II. Annex 43.
,.. I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 82114.ra.134 GULF OF MAINE [137)

328. The Gulf of Maine area is a geographical and physical con­
tinuum, and the method of delimitation should be consistent with this
essential unity. When the focus is narrowed, however, it is possible to
identify at least two principal components of this general area, not as dis­

crete or self-contained features, but as elements of a larger whole.
329. The first of these is the Gulf of Maine itself, bordered by the
coasts of the two Parties and thus, in a sense, "within" their respective

territoriesss. The second principal component, where Georges Bank is
situated, lies seaward of the Gulf. In this outer part there is an unfolding
in the geography, as the coasts open up to face the outer Atlantic, and the
area to be delimited is more properly described as "off' than as "wîthin"
the territories of the Parties. There is an analogy, imperfect but instruc­
tive, with the situation considered in the Anglo-French Continental Shelf

award, for there the English Channel Jay between the coasts of the
United Kingdom and France, while the Atlantic area or the southwestern
approaches lay off the coasts of these two countries 5.

330. The method of delimitation utilized in the Canadian claim is
one that respects both the continuity of the area as a whole and the dif­
fering characteristics of its inner and outer portions. A single basic
method - the equidistance method - has been used throughout, but the
manner of its application has been varied and adapted as appropriate in

order to take account of particular geographic and other circumstances as
the Canadian line proceeds on its course. The unity of the Gulf of Maine
area thus finds expression in the selection of equidistance as the single
basic method for the entire length of the boundary, while its local varia­
tions are reflected in the adaptation of this method to the distinguishing
characteristics of each portion of the area.

B. THE INNER SEGMENTS OF THE LiNE

33L In Canada's submission, the prevailing geographical rela­
tionship within the Gulf of Maine is largely one of opposite coasts, espe­
cially beyond the innermost part of the Gulf. In the vicinity of Point "A"
an element of oppositeness characterizes the relationship as between

Nova Scotîa and Maine, becoming increasingly dominant further to sea­
ward where the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts face each other
across the Gulf. This opposite relationship is most pronounced in the area
where the boundary passes between Cape Sable and Cape Cod.

332. In the case of opposite States, the equidistance method gen­
erally produces results that accord with equitable principles. Thus the
Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases observed that -

"The continental shelf area off, and dividing, opposite States, can
be claimed by eacl).of them to be a naturai prolongation of its terri­
tory. These prolongations meet and overlap, ·and can therefore-only

15The Gulf of Maine itself may be viewed as comprising two sectors: those waters lying
immediately off New Hampshire, Maine and the Fundy coasts of New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia, and those waters between the facing coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachu-
setts. ·
16Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p. 110.paras. 232-233. [138-139] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 135

be delimited by means of a median line; and, ignoring the presence
of islets, rocks and minor coastal projections, the disproportionally
distorting effect of which can be eliminated by other means, such a
57
line must effect an equal division of the particular area involved ."

Equidistance was applied by the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo­
French Continental She/f award in order to produce an equitable result
in a case involving the opposite coasts of the United Kingdom and France
in the English Channel>~. Similarly, the Court in the Tunisia-Libya

Continental Shelf case noted the weight to be given to the position of an
equidistance line in a geographical situation involving a degree of oppos­
iteness, and gave effect to this factor in its balancing of equitable con­
siderations59. The equidistance method, in consequence, can be said to
occupy a leading position under bath customary law and under the

regime of Article 6 of the 1958 convention, as a means of achieving an
equitable delimitation between opposite States. ·

333. The emphasis, of course, must always be on the actual rela­
tionship of the two coasts and not on any sharp distinction between oppo­
site and adjacent States. There are many geographical situations that
escape an easy assignment to either of these two conceptual categories. 1t
is often a difference more of degree than of kind, and the appropriateness

of equidistance as a method to effect an equitable delimitation is always a
fonction of the geographical and other circumstances. But where the geo­
graphical relationship is reasonably clear, and where oppositeness is the
dominant element, itis generally the median line that will best produce
results in accordance with equitable principles. ln the present case, the

coasts of Nova Scotia and of Maine and Massachusetts face each other
across the Gulf in a relationship whose dominant characteristic is oppos­
iteness, and the use of equidistance as the basic method of delimitation is
therefore in order.

334. lt is important to assess the appropriateness of the Canadian
line not only in terms of the broad geographical patterns of the Gulf, but
in terms of the manner in which it reflects the local geography through­
out its course. Figure 32 depicts the Canadian claim, with construction
@
lines joining the basepoints on both coasts to the relevant turning points
on the Canadian equidistance line. Thus each segment of the line can
easily be correlated with the appropriate pairs of controlling basepoints
on the two coasts.

335. The basepoints on the United States side have been desig­
nated by letters from "a" to "f' inclusive, while thosè on the Canadian
side have been given letters "s" to "y" inclusive. The 1urning points are

indicated by the numbers assigned 60 them in the Canadian Order in
Council promulgating the line • Turning points 1 to 40 inclusive are ail
landward of Point "A" where the adjudicated boundary is to begin and

17 /.CJ. Reports /969, 36,para.57.
ss.A11glo-Fre11chonrinelltaiShe/f awarp.95, para. 201.

60 /.C.J. Repom 1982,p.88, para. 126.
FishingZones ofCa11ada(Zo11es4ond 5)Order,omendme11t. P.C. 1979-184, 25 January
1979, pub!ished in tCanadaGazelle, Part liVol. 113, No. 3, 14 February 1979, and
reproduced inhe Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 42. 136 GULF OF MAINE [140]
do not appear in Figure 32; the series as illustrated accordingly begins at
® turning point 41. Point "A" itself is situated between turning points 41
and 42 at 20.5 nautical miles from basepoint "b" on the United States
coast and basepoint "s" on the Canadian coast, the basepoints that con­
trol the line between those two turning points. Point 52, where the
Canadian claim intersects the 200-mile arc defining the Canadian fishing
zone, is not a turning point as such but simply indicates the terminus of
the Canadian line at the 200-mile limit.

336. In the first segments of the line beyond Point "A", the turn­
ing points are closely grouped. Thisis because of the nearness and irregu­
lar configuration of the adjacent coasts, causing new features to move
into a position of closest proximity to the line at a fairly frequent rate as
its course proceeds seaward. From Point "A" (between turning points 41
and 42) to turning point 45, the succeeding segments of the line are con­
trolled on the United States sicle by a cluster of basepoints - "a", "b"
and "c" - separated by very short distances and situated on rocks and
islands a few miles off the mainland coast of the state of Maine. On the
Canadian coast, most of this inner portion of the line is controlled by two
closely situated points - "s" and "t" - on Machias Sea! Island (south
of New Brunswick's Grand Manan Island), until Trinity Ledge (base­
point "u" off the Digby county coast in Nova Scotia) takes over for the
short segment of the line from turning points 44 to 46. Although the
Canadian line in this inner portion allots Jessocean space to Canada than
would the United States daim (a factor that holds true throughout most
of the Gulf of Maine itself), it is submitted that it bears a perfectly
appropriate relationship to the coastal geography, dividing the space sea­
ward of the controlling basepoints in a roughly equal fashion. (See the
® shaded area in Figure 32.)

ing point 49, is controlled by Mount Desert Rock, designated as base­urn­
point "d". This is a rock that lies 22 nautical miles off the mainland coast
of Maine and about 17.5 nautical miles from Mount Desert Island. On
the Canadian side, the same portion of the line is governed successively
by four basepoints off the Nova Scotia coast. The first two - "u" and
"v" - are situated 6 and 7.6 nautical miles respectively off the Canadian
mainland and contrai about one-half of the boundary from turning points
45 to 49, while basepoints "w" and "x", close to Sea! Island at 14.5
nautical miles off the mainland coast, are utilized for the remainder of
this portion of the line. The point at which the two claimed lines intersect
for a second time and then open out to create the disputed area occurs
between turning v.oints47 and 48.

338. Basepoint "e" on the United States side is Matinicus Rock, a
small islet 17.75 nautical miles off the mainland coast of the state of
Maine. Along wîth basepoint "x" on the Canadian side, itcontrols the
segment of the line from turning point 49 to turning point 50. The \ine
reaches the 200-metre contour on the northern edge or Georges Bank just
©® before turning point 50. (SeeFigures 3 and 32.)
339. Clearly, then, the Canadian line within the Gulf of Maine
bas been constructed in a manner that is equitable to the United States.
Were an equidistance line in this area to be constructed from basepoints
on the United States mainland, the boundary would be shifted further {141] MEMORIAL Of CANADA 137

westward to the disadvantage of the United States; but at no point does
the Canadian methodology use the actual coast of Maine or New Hamp­
shire to determine the course of the line. Instead, through the use of

Mount Desert Rock and Matinicus Rock, the Canadian line is con­
structed from basepoints on the United States side that lie much farther
out to sea than the corresponding basepoints on the Canadian side. The
effect is to avoid encroachment upon areas appertaining to the United
States and to steer the line in a direction that keeps it considerably closer
to the Canadian land mass - an effect especially notable in the long
stretch of the line between turning points 45 and 49. In this way the
greater part of the ocean space within the Gulf of Maine itself is
allocated to the United States, in keepîng with the geographic configura­

tion of this inner area.
340. Thus the concavity of the coast of Maine and New Hamp­
shire (for every bay or gulf implies some degree of concavity) produces no

@) untoward effect. (See Figure 32.) For although there are circumstances
where concavity may be productive of înequity, it largely depends upon
whether the basepoints that contrai the course of the line are within or
outside the concavity. In the present case, a glance at the chart shows
that no point along the concavity of the United States coast between
Matinicus Rock and Cape Cod Canal can have any effect in pulling the
boundary towards the United States coast. To echo the words of the
Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the Canadian line bas

been drawn in a manner that remedies or compensates for whatever
effect this concavity in the United States coast might otherwise have pro­
duced61. And - as will be demonstrated in paragraphs 346 to 350 -
when the outer area, including Georges Bank, is approached, the concave
portion of the United States coast has long since ceased to ex:ercise any
influence on the course of the line; for by that point it is tconvexity of
the "bulge" in the Massachusetts coast southeast of Boston that is the
determining feature.

341. The offlying basepoints used for the Canadian lîne in the
Gulf of Maine thus have the effect of constructing a comparatively regu­
lar United States coastal front, leaving a large expanse of ocean space on
the Jandward side of the United States basepoints. The overall effect, in
the geographica\ circumstances of the Gulf of Maine itself, is to produce

an equidistance line that gives a due and proper effect to the coasts of
both Parties by attributing to them the ocean areas that lie directly in
front of these coasts.

C. THE ÛUTER SEGMENTS OF THE LINE
342. Despite the contînuîty of the Gulf of Maine area as a whole,
the outer area - including Georges Bank ~ exhibiis some distinctive

geographical characteristics. ln particular:
(a) it lies off rather than within the Canadian and United States coasts,
in contrast to the Gulf of Maine itself;

61 J.C.JReports 1969, p. 52, para. 98. Canada has complied with the Court's injunction to
eliminate the distortions resulting from "markedly coneaves, . , ".138 GULF OF MAINE (142)

(b) the changing coastal configurations within the Gulf itself exercisc no
influe.nce upon the equidistance line in the outer area, and in most of

this area the Canadian claim is a line of almost constant bearing
controlled throughout by a limited number of basepoints.

The dedsive characteristic of this outer area, however, is the opcnness of
the sea, so that the course of the boundary is no longer confined withîn an

indentation or concavity of the continental landmass.

343. At the threshold of the outer area and just beyond, as the
line passes between Cape Sable and Cape Cod, the coasts are truly oppo­
site. Furthcr seaward, however, the geography of the outer area lacks the
clear-cut character of oppositeness that prevaîls within the Gulf of Maine
itself. lt is, 1ike many others, a hybrid situa tion whcre elemen ts of oppos­

iteness and adjacency are both in play. ln the North Sea Continental
Shelf cases, the Court recognized that the distinction between opposite
and adjacent coasts may not always be uniform and clear-cut along the
whole length of the boundary and that -

"In certain geographical configurations of which the Parties fur­
nished examples, a given equidistance line may partake in varying
62
degree of the nature both of a medîan and of a lateral line .''

The delimitation provisions of the new Law of the Sea Convention implic­
itly recognize the difficulty of organizing the infinite varîability of physi­

ca\ geography into clear-ly defined legal categories by eliminating the
separate treatment of opposite and adjacent coasts that appears in Article
6 of the Continental Shelf Convention. Indeed, thîs factor is vividly il!us­
trated by the findings of the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case, for
there the Court noted that whi\e the Parties were not in the position of
61
"legal!y opposite States ", the change in direction of the Tunisian coa5t
went "some way, though not the whole way", toward producing an oppo­
site relationship 64•

344. There is in this regard an analogy to the geographical char­
acter of the southwestern approaches or Atlantic area consîdered by the
Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Continental Shelf award.
Thcre the Court of Arbitration noted that although in a legal sense the

Atlanfic region might have been one that fal!s within the terms of para­
graph I rather than paragraph 2 of Article 6, the pure!y geographical sit­
uation was one of two laterally related coasts 6'.But the prccise legal clas­
sification of the region appeared to the Court of Arbitration to be of little

importance, for it held that the rules of delimitation in both paragraphs
of Article 6 arc the same, and that it is the actual geographical relation­
ship of the coasts of the two States that determînes theîr application. The
appropriateness of equidistance, the Court of Arbitration said, is not so
much a matter of classification into the categories of opposite and adja-

62/.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 17, para. 6.
l l.C.J.Reports /982, p. 63, para. 78.
64/.C.J.Reports 1982,p. 88, para. 126.
65Anglo-French Continental Shel/ award, p. 113, para. 241. MEMORIAL OFCANADA 139
[143}

cent States, as "a function or refleètion of the geographical and other
relevant circumstances of the particular case~"; and it concluded that -
"What is important is that, in apprecîating the appropriateness of

the equidistance method as a means of effecting a 'just' or 'equita­
ble' delimitation in the Atlantic region, the Court must have regard
both to the lateral relation of the two coasts as they abut upon the
continental shelf of the region and to the great distance scawards
that this shclf extends from those coasts 67."

345. ln the present case the analogy is clear. Though the relation­
ship of oppositeness as between the coasts that face each other across the
Gulf is obviously maintained, and though the facing coasts of Massachu­
setts and of southwest Nova Scotia are relevant both to the Gulf itself

and to the outer area, the disputed area of Georges Bank is not within
thcse opposite coasts. Further, the abutting coasts that are relevant to the
outer area must clearly includc those that face the open sea on either side
of the entrance points of the Gulf of Maine, and in particular the
stretches of coastline from which the fishery of the disputed area is con­
ducted. lt is evident that these outer coasts are in an cssentially latera\
relationship to each other. Accordingly, the geographical situation in the

more seaward portions of the outer area is a complex one that combines
elements of both oppositeness and adjacency, in varying degree.

346. As the equidistance line proceeds seaward into the Atlantic
Ocean, the projection of Cape Cod and the nearby island of Nantucket
cornes into play. Here the Massachusetts coast makes a sudden, isolated
projection eastwards. The elongated protrusion of Cape Cod, separated
from the Massachusetts mainland by the Cape Cod Canal, is îndîsputab\y
an irregularity of the eastern North American coastline, and its eastward
thrust is who\ly out of alignment with the general direction of the Massa­

chusetts coast within the Gulf of Maine. But because of its location at the
southwestern entrance of the Gulf it occupies a pivotai position in the fix­
ing of the maritime boundary; and, if basepoints on Cape Cod and its
dependencies were to be utilized in the construction of an equidistance
line, the boundary would swing markedly eastward toward the Nova
Scotia coast. Cape Cod and Nantucket thus constîtute special circum­
stances and are creative of inequity requiring an adjustment in the plot­
of the equidistance line.
ting
347. The inequity that could thus be worked by Cape Cod and its
adjacent islands is not simply a malter of their sharp divergence from the

gencral direction of the coast of the Gulf of Maine and the long and nar­
row configuration of the Cape. The real difficulty is that the strategic
location of these features would make them the decisive points on the
United States coast in the construction of an unadjusted equidistancc
boundary, despite their departure from the dominant trends of the geog­
raphy. For Cape Cod and Nantucket by themselves would contrai the
most important and extensive portions of the entire boundary, including

most of the segments that lie within the disputed area and the whole of
Georges Bank.

6oAnglo-French Continental Sheaward, p, 112, para. 239.
61Anglo-French Cominental S heaward, p. 113, para, 242. 140 [144-145]
GULF OF MAINE

@ 348. This rather extraordinary effect is illustrated in Figure 33
showing the area that would be controlled by basepoints on Cape Cod
and Nantucket. The Canadian line is illustrated on this chart as well for
purposes of comparison; itcan be seen that Cape Cod begins to exert an
influence two nautical miles seaward of turning point 49, and it is accord­
ingly at that point that the Canadian line begins to diverge from what

might be called a "strict" equidistance line. The Canadian line changes
direction quite markedly at turning point 50, renecting the convexity of
the "mainland" Massachusetts coast which shifts the course of the line
back toward the east. When Cape Cod is utilized as a controlling coast­
Jine, it can be seen that this swing of the line is amplified; and because
the shift occurs at a point significantly fürther to the north and east, it
produces a far more dramatic and indeed disproportionate effect. The

question is, then, to what degree can the boundary be allowed to veer
toward the east and still produce an equitable delimitation? For the effect
of Cape Cod is by no means simply a malter of abstract geometry, impor­
tant though the purely spatial relationships may be. The real crux of the
matter, in the Canadian submission, is that an exceptional geographic
feature like Cape Cod - one whose economy is iri no way significantly
dependent on the disputed area - should not exert a disproportionate

innuence on the location of the boundary and thus on the disposition of
the vitally important natural resources of Georges Bank. ·

349. The cure for such an inequity has been described in the 1977
Anglo-French Continental She/f award in the following terms:

"The Court notes that in a large proportion of the delimitations
known to it, where a particular geographical feature bas influenced
the course of a continental shelf boundary, the method of delimita­
tion,adopted has been some modification or variant of the equidis­
tance principie rather than its total rejection.sa."

In another passage which has application to the Gulf of Maine situation,
the Court of Arbitration also affirmed:

"What equity calls for is an appropriate abatement of the dispro­
portionate effects of a considerable projection on to the Atlantic
continental shelf of a somewhat attenuated portion of the coast of
69
the United Kingdom ."

A somewhat analogous approach was adopted by this Court in its treat­
ment of the Kerkennah Islands in the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf
case7°. The abatement of disproportionate effects is an approach that
equally commends itself here.

350. ln the case of the coasts that abut upon the Gulf of Maine
area, there is a marked protrusion of the United States coastline south­
east of Boston, even before Cape Cod is reaclied, unmatched by any com­
parable feature on the Canadian coast. But for this change in the direc­

tion of the United States coast, an equidistance line would clearly allow

68Anglo-French Conlinental Sheif award, p. 116, para. 249.
M Anglo-French Continental She/f award, pp. 116-117, para. 249.
10J.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 89, para. 129. [146) MEMORIAL OF CANADA 141

much more of Georges Bank to Canada, The protrusion of the Massachu­
setts coast, north of Cape Cod, in itself places the United States in an
advantageous position with respect to the delimitation of the outer area
.by means of an equidistance line. lt is, however, when Cape Cod and the
islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard are added to this convexity
in the Massachusetts coast, that the effect upon a line constructed in
accordance with equidistance becomes clearly disproportionate. In the
Canadian view, the solution must properly lie in the construction of an

equidistance line drawn without reference to the coastal projections of
Cape Cod and its adjacent islands.
351. The basic princîpie requiring the abaternent or elimina tion of

disproportionate effects finds strong support in the law and practice of
maritime delimitation. But the exact rnethod to be used must be varied in
response to the particular circumstances of each situation. In the circum­
stances of the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case, for example, the
Court disregarded the island of Jerba in assessing the direction of the
coastlinc. ln the present case, in order to offset the distorting effect of
Cape Cod and its adjacent islands, the solution lies in the selection of
basepoints that more accurately express the general direction of the coast

and so produce an equitable result. h is the Canadian submission that a
basepoint at the northeast entrance point to Cape Cod Canal achieves
this goal. This basepoint, as already noted, gives the United States the
benefit of the convexity of the Massachusetts "mainland", but elimînates
the compounding of this effect that would result from the selection of
basepoints placed further to the east. For Cape Cod and the adjacent
islands are features that exhibit a marked divergence from the general
direction of the coast, toward the coast of the other Party 7, The effect, in

other words, is not simply one of projecting the United States coast sea­
ward, but also of diverting it out into the Gulf of Maine and directly
toward the Canadian coast.

352. The detailed construction of the outer segments of the
® Canadian line can be seen in Figure 32. The basepoint at Cape Cod
Canal controls the entire length of the line seaward of turning point 50,
including the whole of Georges Bank. On the Canadian side two base­
points contrai the course of the line in this outer area: points "x" and !'y",
the first Jess than a mile from Sea[ Island and the second on Sea! Island
itself. These two points are so close to each other that the impact of the
change at turning point 51 is negligible, and the entire course of the Iine
from turning point 50 across Georges Bank to the 200-mile limit is virtu­

ally a line of constant bearing.
353. A number of factors !end additional support to the Canadian
daim in the Georges Bank area. The relevant coasts are in a position of

balance and symmetry in terms of the broad geographical features of the
area, though their configuration is, of course, distinctive in each case. The
coasts that may reasonably be said to be relevant in relation to Georges
Bank include the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts that face each

71The Scillies on the other band Jay roughly on the southwesterly course of the Cornish
ooast, and the Court of Arbitration was able to characterize their effect as projecting the.
tal shelf. See A11glo-FrhontinentalShe/f award, p. 117, para. 251. Atlantic continen­ 142 GULF OF MAINE [147-148]

other across the Gulf of Maine: two coasts that are roughly comparable
in their general configuration and in their relation to the boundary area.
As well, the relevant coasts must include those stretches of coastline that
face the open sea outside the Gulf of Maine itself, extending along the
Nova Scotia coast northeast of Cape Sable and along the Massachusetts
coast southwest of Cape Cod, especial!y as these stretches of coastline
exhîbit a genuine link to Georges Bank through their established patterns
of fishing. And again, the dominant characteristic of these outer coasts is
their symmetry, for they both lie along a general northeast-to-southwest

line of direction that is essentîally the samefor both the Canadian and
United States coasts.
354. The general comparability of the coastal relationship is rein­
forced by th~ situation of the basepoints that control the course of the
line on Georges Bank.Each of these basepoints is situated in the vicinity
of what might be described as the hinge-point or fulcrum of the relevant
coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts - the points where the coasts
that form the two sides of the Gulf of Maine abruptly change direction
and turn the corner to extend indcfinitely to the northeast and southwest
respectively. (See Figure 34.) The effect is of two matching pairs of
® coastal fronts, the "wings" of southwest Nova Scotia and Massachusetts,
resembling each other in the broad patterns of their configuration and in
their geographical relationship to Georges Bank. These too are the coasts
that exhibit, though to very different degrees, an established economic
.dependence on the Bank.

355. The overall balance and comparability in the coasts that are
relevant to the outer area !ends strength to the vicw that equidistance is
apt to produce an equitable result in that area, provided the distorting
effect of Cape Cod and Nantucket is eliminated. And in fact this view is
confirmed by the result. The Canadian line is one that leaves to each
Party a broad expanse of ocean space in front of its coast. As the line
beyond its inner segments never cornes doser than 94 nautical miles to
the United States coast, there can be no question of any undue encroach­
ment on the offshore areas adjacent to the United States. Finally, the line
delîmîts Georges Bank in an equitable manner, giving an appropriate
expression to the establîshed economic interest and dependence or the
Parties in this crucial area of the sea. In sum, the physical and the eco­
nomic geography combine in their support of the appropriateness of the
Canadian daim.
356.· The Canadian !ine bas been designed to achieve an equitable
result throughout its course in both the inner and outer portions of the
Gulf or Maine area, through a judicious selection of basepoints. The use
of offlyîng islands to control the inner segments of the line within the
Gulf of Maine itself, on the one band, and of Cape Cod Canal to contrai
the outer segments, on the other hand, are in a sense complementary; for
in each case, the object has been to eliminate any distorting effect that
coastal irregularities might otherwise have produced. In the first case, the
main effect is to straighten out a concavity; in the second, to moderate
the effect of a protruding coastal feature. The cumulative effect is to pro­
duce a general coastal configuration that aptly expresses the dominant
trends of the coastal geography and that provides a setting in which the
equidistance method can operate to translate these trends into an equita­
ble boundary.[149] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 143

D. THE GENERAL ATIRIBUTES OF THE EQUIDISTANCE METHOD
357. The -appropriateness of the equidistance method is alwàys a

fonction of the geographical and other relevant circumstances, and the
foregoing analysis bas·therefore centred on the concrete application of
this method in the Gulf of Maine area and the results it produces in that
situation. There are, at the same time, a number of general attributes of
the equidistance method that tend to reinforce the view that this method
may be expected to produce a reasonable solution in the circumstances of
this case.

358. In the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case the Court

stated:
"Treaty practice, as well as the history of Article 83 of the draft
convention on the Law of the Sea, leads to the conclusion that equi­

distance may be applied if it leads to a12equitable solution; if not,
other methods should be employed ."

The utility of equidistance lies precisely in its aptitude for achieving equi­
table solutions in a variety of geographical situations. As the Court stated

in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, "no other method of delimita­
tion has the same combination of practical convenience and certainty of
application 73". lt is significant that a number of modern delimitation
agreements, employing equidistance or a variation thereof, have recited
in preambular language that the delimitation bas been concluded with
the objective ofapplying "equitable principles 7". ·

359. In the absence of special circumstances requiring the use of
another method, eq uidistance bas the obvious·advantage that it allocates

to each State the offshore areas that lie closest to its coast. Where the
coasts are comparable, moreover, it tends to achieve at least a rough
equality in the division of adjacent maritime areas between neighbourîng
States. In brief, where the circumstances are suitable for its application,
equidistance 'is the method that most aptly fulfills the requirements of
equity. It is, moreover, a method that can be applied with considerable

flexibility and adapted to highly varied geographical situations - includ­
ing situations that may constitute special circumstances - as shown in

12I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 79, para. 109.
73I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 23, para. 23.
• See, for example, The Convention011De/imitation, France and St. Lucia, 4 March 1981.
(Revue généralede droit international public, Tome 85, 1981, p. 654.) which contains
the following recitals in the preamble:
"Conscients de la nécessitéde délimiterde façon préciseles espaces maritimes dans
lesquels les deux !ts exercent respectiverilent des droits souverains;

et prenant en considérationles travauxlaeTroisièmeConférencedes Nations Uniessura matière
le droite la i,1er;

Considérant que l'application dela méthodede l'équidistanceconstitue dans cecas un
mode équitable de délimitation."
In an unratified agreement to establish two maritime boundaries·between Mexico and the
United States (in the Pacifie and in the Gulf of Mexico), the par~ies termed the equidis­
tance line"practical and ~uitable", The United States and Venezuela similarly stated
was agreed to out of the need to establish a "precise and equitable maritime boundary".
Copies ofthcse agreements have been deposited with the Registrar.144 GULF OF MAINE [150]

its adaptation to the circumstances of the present case and in the state­
ments of the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Continental Shelf
award that have been reforred to in paragraph 349. This is not to say that
equidistance bas any a priori quality of necessity or even the status of a

preferred method, but only to underline again its practical utility as a
means of achieving an equitable result in particular circumstances.

360. As noted in paragraph 217, Canada and the United States
are parties to the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. Article 6
of the convention establishes a combined equidistance and special circum­
stances rule, whose object is to secure an equitable delimitation. It indi­

cates·tha t unless another bounda ry is jus tified by special circums tances,
the median or equidistance line should be looked to as the appropriate
metbod of achieving an equitable result, whether the abutting coasts are
opposite or adjacent. It was no doubt in that sense (and certainly not in
derogation of the fondamental norm of equitable principles) that the

Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Continental She/f award
indîcated that "under Article 6 the equidistance principle ultimately pos­
sesses an obligatory force wbich it does not have in the same measure
under the rules of customary law 1".

361. The utility of the equidistance method as a means of achiev­
ing an equitable delimitation has been recognized by the United States

itself, not only in relation to the Gulf of Maine area - until its reversai
of position in 1969 - but also in relation to its delimitation practice gen­
erally76. A series of maritime boundary agreements between the United
States and Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela respectively, and between the
United States and New Zealand in relation to the Cook Islands and

Tokelau, ail demo77trate a reliance on equidistance as the basic method
of delimitation •A factor that !ends a special weight to these precedents
is that they are ail single maritime boundary agreements applicable both
to the continental shelf and to the water column.

75 AngJo-French Conlinental She/f award, p. 48, para. 70.
16 See Mark Feldman and David ColsQfl:"The Maritime Boundaries of the United States."
(American Journal of lnternationùi Law, Vo1. 75, No. 4, 1981, p. 749.) The authors
state:
"Although the U.S. maritime boundary position is based on the concept of 'equitable
principles,' the boundaries that have been negotîated to date genera!ly have been
based on the equidistance method to one degree or another, giving full effect to
islands."

At the 1958 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Miss Marjorie White­
become Article 6 of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, stated that -hat was to

"... article 72 contained as well a provision for delimiting the boundary by a median
line, which would enable equitable apportionment to be made of the seabed area to
each coastal Sta.te concerned. That was an objective standard of reference and might
well provide guidance in arriving agreement on a boundary line even in the presence
71 of special circumstances." (A/Conf.13/42/p.95.) ·
See Appendix to this Memorial. Also of interest are offshore boundary delimitations
between individual states wilhin the United States under the United States Coastal
Energy Impact Program (CEIP), 16 United States Code, Section 1456(1)(a), which has
been put into effect through a 1976 amendment to the Caastal Zone ManagementAct of
1972, 16 United States Code, Section 1451 et seq. Under the program, states are
allocated federal funds by the United States Government according to the amount of
from. ln-ordertofdeterm ine the acreage, 1ateral seaward boundaries have to be estab-re­(151) MEMORIAL OF CANADA 145

362. That the equidistance method produces an equitable result in
the majority of cases can be demonstrated by a careful analysis of general
international practice in the conclusion of delimitation agreements
beyond the territorial sea, involving both opposite and adjacent States.
Out of 94 known maritime boundaries settled by agreement, 66 of them
- almost 71 percent of the total - utilize the equidistance principle or a
78
modification thereof for aUor part of the boundary .Thus, in the Anglo­
French Continental Shelf award, the Court of Arbitration recognized
that in a large proportion of the known delîmîtations, where a particular
geographical feature has influenced the course of a continental shelf
boundary, the method of delimitation adopted bas been some modifica­
79
tion or variant of equidistance •

363. The practical utilîty of the equidistance method as a means
of achieving an equitable result was also noted by this Court in the
Tunisia-Libya Continental She/f case. Thus, after holding the direction
of an equidistance line in the northern sector of the delimitation area to
be a factor of "material signîficance", the Court said that while -

"there is no mandatory rule of customary international law requir­
ing delimitation to be on an equidistance basis, it should be recog­

nized that it is the virtue - though it may also be the weakness -
of the equidistance method to take full account of almost ail varia­
tions in the relevant coastlines 80''.

The Canadian claim has been designed with a view to taking advantage

of this basic strength, while avoiding the weakness that could result from
a too rigid application of the method where coastal variations would pro­
duce a disproportionate effect.

364. Wherever the application of the equidistance method is war­
ranted by the relevant circumstances, such application is consonant with
the doctrine of the Tunisia- Libya Continental Shelf case that the coast is

both the decisive factor for title and the st81ting point for any delimita­
tion: that "the land dominates the sea ". By the same token, the use of
equidistance in this case is consonant with the general concepts of adja­
cency and proximity as the common sources of title to both the seabed
and subsoil and to the superjacent waters, and with the ascendancy of
these concepts in the contemporary law of the sea. In the Canadian view,

there are no sharp discontinuities in the transition from the old to the new
law of the sea in regard to delimitation, but the trend toward the criteria

national law, induding the principles of the Convention on the TerritorialiSea and inter­
Contiguous Zone". In ihe five boundaries ·dealt with to date (New York/Rhode
Island, New Jersey/New York, New Jersey/Delaware, Delaware/Maryland, and Missis­
sippi/Louisiana), considerab!prominence has been given to the method of equidistance
either by means of a strict equidistance line or an equidistance line modifîed ttake
account of special circumstances. SeJ. I. Cbamey: "The Delimitation of Laierai Sea­
ward Boundaries between States in a Domestic Context." (American Journal of Inter­
national Law,Vol.75, 198!, p. 28.)
" See Appendix.
19
80 Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p.116, para. 249.
/.C.J. Reports 1982p. 88, para. 126.
s1 /C.J. Rep~rts 1982, p. 61, paras. 73 and 74.146 GULF OF MAINE [152]

of adjacency and proximity cannot but give new strength to equidistance
as a method of delimitatîon.

365. The Court has referred to this development, in the context of
the continentai shelf, as "the 'trend' towards the distance principle 82".
Distance, of course, is an even more fondamental criterion for title to a
200-mile zone; and with it,in Canada's submission, cornes the implica­
tion that proximity should have considerable weight in the delimitation of
such zones. Not, to be sure, an absolute weight - for the validity of equi­

distance or of any other mèthod ultimately depends upon the equity of
the results it achieves - but undoubtedly a far greater weight than
would have been appropriate in the context of a pure continental shelf
delimitation at an earlier stage of the evolution of that juridical doctrine.

366. There, is a passage in the North Sea Continental Shelj cases
which suggests that where a single maritime boundary, applicable to both
the .seabed and the sùperjacent waters, is in issue, the factor of proximîty
may take on added weight. Thus, sp~aking of territorial waters, the Court
said:

"There is also a direct correlation between the notion of closest
proximity to the coast and the sovereign jurisdiction which the
coastal State is entitled to exercise and must exercise, not only over
the seabed underneath the territorial waters but over the waters
themselves, which does not exist in respect of continental shelf
, areas where there is no jurisdiction over the superjacent waters, and
83
over the seabed only for purposes of exploration and exploitation ."

Much of the general thrÙst of this reasoning can readily be transposed to
the new forms of jurisdiction now exercised in respect of waters beyond
the territorial sea, in addition to thejurisdiction exercised over the seabed
and subsoil beneath those waters. There, is, of course, no question of sov­
ereignty per se; but the greater comprehensiveness of the integrated
water column and shelf jurisdiction to be delimited by a single maritime
boundary suggests an analogy with the thought expressed by the Court in

this passage. For as the range of interests in issue is broadened beyond
the specialized, localized, and highly concentrated operations that are
related to offshore oil and gas extraction, to encompass a more varied and
"everyday" range of maritime activities, there is every reason why the
waters closest to each State should normally be subject to the jurisdictîon
of that State.

Section IV. The Equitable Character of the Overall Result

A. PROPORTIONALITY AN:D D1SPROP0RT10NALITY

367. The element of a reasonable degree of proportionality
between the coastlînes of the parties and the submarine areas to be
attributed to each of them has b~en identified in the jurisprudence on

12l.C.J. Reports /982, p. 49,para. 48.
n I.C.J. Reports /969, p. 37, para. 59. [153] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 147

continental shelf delimitation as a test of the equity of a maritime bound­
ary. In the récentTunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case, this factor was

charact84ized by the Court as "the test of proportionality as an aspect of
equity ". lts fonction is essentially to assess the equitable character of
the method of delimitation used, in the light of the results to which it
lea:ds.
368. In Canada's view, this criterion may also have a useful role
to play as a test of the equity of the result in the case of a single·maritime

boundary. The manner of its application, on the other band, may have to
be modified in certain respects. The relevant circumstances that govern
the delimitation of a single maritime boundary are more extensive and
complex than those applicable to the continental shelf alone, and the
Court bas recently emphasized in the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf
case that proportionality must be applied "taking into account ail the ~
relevant circumstances 85". ·

369. In the case of a single maritime boundary delimitation, espe­
cially where the evolution of the dispute and the character of the interests
at stake show the fisheries dimension to have a paramount importance,
one highly relevant circumstance must surely be the actual connections
that contemporary fishing patterns have established between certain por­
tions of the adjacent coasts and the boundary area, includîng the existing

ecoriomic dependence of the inhabitants of those coasts upon that area.
There is, in other words, a very strong relationship between the economic
and social connections that link the adjacent coastlines and the disputed
area, as a circumstance that is relevant to the case as a whole, and the
manner in which the criterion of proportionality should be considered in
assessing the equity of the result. In Canada's submission, therefore~
geography·in its socio-economic as well as its physical aspects should
properly have a bearing on the identification and treatment of the coastal

. areas that are relevant to Georges Bank, where the fisherîes interests at
stake in this matter are centred.
370. A conceptual distinction between the Gulf of Maine itself
and the outer area is especially appropriate in approaching the test of
proportionalîty in this case. Withm the Gulf of Maine, the geography
!ends itself easily to the application of the test in a fairly straightforward,

mathematical way. As pointed out in paragraph 28, there is here an
approximate equivalence in the coastlines of the two Parties. The
Canadian line, partly because of its use of offshore basepoints in the man­
ner described in paragraphs 335 to 341, allocates to the United States
approximately two-thirds of the total area within the Gulf8 A•cordingly,

M l.C.J. &ports 1982, p. 91, para..131.
u f.C.JReports 1982, p. 91, para. 131.
s6The approximate lengths of the Canadian and United States coastlines méasuredaccoro­
ing to their general direction from the international boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay to
Cape Sable and to the Cape Cod Canal respectively are 287 and 299 nautical miles;
tllese coastal lengths thus stand in a proportion of 49:51 (Canada:United States). For the
purpoi;e of ascertaining sea-area rauos within the Gulf of Maine, a line may be drawn
be.t'!een Cape Sable and the ~theastemextremi~y oÇa]?!:Cod. ~e sea-areas a_pper·
tammg to Canada and the United States respect1vely ms1de that- lme but seaward·of
coast and bay closing lines -al stexcludîng such indentationstas--Minasl Basin,io11of the
Chignecto Bay, Passamaquoddy Bay, Penobscot Bay, Massachusetts Bay anÇitpeCod
Bay - stand in a proportion of 32:68 (Canada:United States) on the bas1s of the
Canadian claimed line. 148 GULF OF MAINE [154]

the Canadian line in the Gulf of Maine clearly produces no inequity in its
effect.

371. In the outer area that includes Georges Bank, a purely math­
ematical application of the proportionality crîterion is far more difficult.
Both the "area" itself and the extent of the environing coastlines are
indeterminate, and there are no natural features (in contrast to the situa­
tion considered in the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case) that pro­
vide clear indications of how the area might logically be bounded and

enclosed. As noted above, the Atlantic seaboard coasts flanking the
entrance points of the Gulf of Maine extend indefinitely to the northeast
and southwest respectively, comprising potentîally the entire Atlantic sea­
board of North America. These seaboard coasts generate maritime zones
,..in an·essentially parallel relationship to each other, precluding the ready
identification of a finite area to which a mathematical calculation could
be meaningfully applied. The indeterminate character of the area is

accentuated by the fact that the outer terminus of the line to be decided
in this case represents only the first of two phases in the delimitation pro­
cess, a process that could give rise to further proceedings under the Spe­
cial Agreement.

372. Indeed, there is here again a certain analogy with the Atlan­
tic region considered by the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French
Continental She/J award; for there, it will be recalled, the Court of Arbi­
tration refraine<Ifrom defining the abutting coasts of the two parties, not­
ing only that while the United Kingdom coast was "more complex in

form and Jess easy perhaps to define", it was "c87parable broadly in its
extent with that of the French Republic ". Similarly, no attempt was
made to define the appurtenant area of shelf, except to refer to the great
distance seaward that the shelf extended from the coasts. It was, perhaps,
this open-endedness that led the Court of Arbitration to remark that the
criterion of a reasonable degree of proportionality is not one for applica·
tion in ail cases; that "it îs disproportion rather than any general principle
of proportionality which is the relevant criterion or factor 88"; and, at the
end of that passage, that -

"Proportionality, therefore, is to be used as a criterion or 'factor
relevant in evaluating the equities of certain geographical situa­

tions, not as a general principle provi9ing an independent source of
rights to areas of continental shelf8 ."

lt is, in short, an "aspect of equity", as the Court said in the Tunisîa­
Libya Continental She/J case; and as such it can never be divorced from
"ail the relevant circumstances" of the partîcular case 9•

373. It would of course be possible to devise a variety of formulas
for the ascertainment of ratios, though in the nature of the case none of
them can be fully satisfactory or decisive. One approach, clearly suppor-

17 Anglo-French Contine,itQ/Shelfaward, p. l 10, para. 234.
81Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, p. 60, para. 101.
19Anglo-French ContinentQ/Shelf award, p. 61, para. JO!.
90l.C.J. Reports 1982, p91,para. 131.[155]
MEMORIAL OF CANADA 149

tive of the Canadian position whatever area of ocean were chosen for its
application, would be to identify as relevant those stretches of adjacent
coast that exhibit a genuine link in economic terms to the resources of the
disputed area, as discussed in paragra phs 32, 316 to 318 and 369. But if a
purely geometrical technique is utilized, whatever point is selected as the
terminus of the relevant coast on the Atlantic seaboard of one country
must suggest a coastline of similar extent on the other: for the Court bas
said that "one must compare like with like", and that the "same
approach" should be "adopted to each of the two coasts 9". The net effect
in the particular geographical circumstances of this case, discounting off­

lying islands or coastal irregularities, is to produce a situation of rough
equivalence where the selection of a given stretch of coast in one country
points towards a similar treatment of the corresponding coast of the other
country. Such a technique is clearly incapable of producing a decisive test
in relation to the course of the boundary; though by the same token, this
rough equivalence is itself a factor that tends to corroborate the equity of
the Canadian daim.

374. More generally, the essential point is that the overall balance
of the relevant Canadian and American coasts rules out any element of
disproportion in the Canadian daim. The claim, in fact, is one that owes
much of its strength to proportionality as a general concept of delimita­
tion, for as the Anglo-French Continental Shelf award stated -

"The factor of proportionality may appear in the form of the ratio
between the areas of continental shelf to the lengths of the respec­
tive coastlines, as in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. But it
may also appear, and more usually does, as a factor for determining
the reasonable or unreasonable ....:.t..he equitable or inequitable -
effects of particular geographical features or configurations upon
92
the course of an equidistance-line boundary ."

It is precisely this formulation of the concept that bas governed the
Canadian selection of a basepoint at Cape Cod Canal to control the
course of the line in the outer area. Further, itis Canada's submission
that in practical terms the question of proportionality should be
addressed not simply as a malter of geometrical measurement, but rather
in terms of whether the area of Georges Bank that the boundary leaves to
each Party is proportionate in the light of all the relevant circumstances
of the case.

B. A SUMMING·UP

375. The appropriateness of a maritime boundary must be judged
in light of the need to reach an equitable result and the dictum of the
Court that "what is reasonable and equitable in any given case must
depend on its particular circumstances 9". The merit of the Canadian
line, it is submitted, resides in the justice it does to both the purely spatial

9' l.C.J. Repom 1982,p. 91, para. 130.
"' Anglo-Fretteh Continental Shelf award,60,para.100.

" l.C.J. Reports 1982, 60, para. 72. 150 GULF OF MAINE [156]

characteristics of the Gulf of Maine area and to the vital economic and
other considerations at stake. lt allocates to each Party a reasonable and
equitable extent of ocean space in front of its coast; it is constructed in a
manner that faithfully reflects the local geography; and it gives an appro­
priate geographical expression to.the established economic interests and
realities of the region, especially in relation to Georges Bank, the crucial
resource-bearing portion of the outer boundary area. Finally, and not
least important, it accords with the indicia of equity revealed by the con­
duct of the Parties in respect of both hydrocarbon and fishery resources.

376. A recapitulation of .the· geographical character of the
Canadian claim will demonstrate the soundness of these general proposi­
tions. Within the Gulf of Maine, the Canadian line allocates the greater
portion of the ocean space to the United States. Indeed, throughout the
Gulf the line traces a course that often runs doser to the Canadian main­
land than to that of the United States. The coasts here are largely oppo­
site, especially in the zone of transition between the Gulf of Maine and
the outer area; but the effect of the coast of Maine and the selection of
basepoints well to seaward of the United States mainland coast pushes
the line towards the Canadian sicleof the Gulf. Within the Gulf of Maine
itself the net result is to leave to the United States an extensive - and
equitable - exparise of ocean in front of its coast.
377. In the Georges Bank area, it is the southwestern coast of
Nova Scotia and the protruding coastline of Massachusetts as it
approaches Cape Cod that move into a controlling position. The impor­
tance accorded to these portions of the coast in determining the boundary
in the outer area is justified by their proximity to the area to be deli­
mited, reinforced by their pivotai situation on the coastline of each coun­
try that exhibits both geographical adjacency and a substantial economic
connection to Georges Bank. ltis the balance and symmetry of the coasts
that are relevant to the outer area - relevant in both a geographic and
an economic sense - that point toward the use of equidistance as a
means of finding an equitable dividing line. For the facing coasts of Nova
Scotia and Massachusetts that border the two sides of the Gulf of Maine
are broadly comparable in their purely geographical character and
extent; and symmetry, moreover, is an equally evident characteristic of
the relationship between the Atlantic seaboard coasts that face the open
sea both northeast and southwest of the entrance points to the Gulf, each
extending in the general direction of the North American coastline.

378. The general direction of the Atlantic coast of North America
© is northeast to southwest, and - as shown in Figure 8 - the coastline
exhibits a more easterly direction north of Long Island. Thus this portion
of the continental landmass of North America faces in a generally south­
southeastward direction onto the open sea. The direction of the continen­
tal coastline is reflected in the parallel trend of the Atlantic continental
margin that fringes the entire coast from northeast to .southwest. Thus it
can be seen that the direction of the Canadian line in the outer area
reflects not only the dominant characteristics of the geographically adja­
cent coasts, but equally the broader trends that are exhibited on a conti­
nental scale.
379. The effect ~ and the equitable character - of the

Canadian claimed line in the outer area is again to bring about a reason-[1571 MEMORIALOFCANADA 151

able division of the adjacent fishing grounds and shelf between the two

Parties. An equidistance line, proceeding on a course midway between
points on the coasts of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, is one that
reflects the equal weight that should properly be attributed to these two
coasts. And the appropriateness of the method is confirmed in the specific
result that ît achieves: Georges Bank - framed by the exclusively
national fishing grounds of the Great South Channel and Nantucket
Shoals on the United States side and of Browns Bank and the adjacent
shoal areas on the Canadian side - is divided in a manifestly reasonable

way, leaving over half of the Bank to the United States. Moreover, the
adaptation of the equidistance method to the special circumstances of
Cape Cod in the Georges Bank area is one that, as a malter of law, quite
aptly expresses the unity of the combined mie of equidistance and special
circums tances.

380. Though the Canadîan method takes appropriate account of
the physical geography, it would not meet the test of an equitable result if
itfaîled to do justice to the economic interests at stake. For the real sub­
ject of this dispute is the natural resources of the sea and the economic
benefits they provide. Among the most relevant circumstances of the area

must sure\y be the reliance on Georges Bank of the fishing communities
of the adjacent coasts, and their established dependence on the prolific
waters of the offlying areas. And ît is Canada's submission that its
claimed line does substantial justice to these important considerations. It
leaves to Canada the fishing grounds of eastern Georges Bank, where its
fishery on the Bank bas been so heavily concentrated and where its fleet
has exhibited a strong and enduring presence. lt leaves the United States
with an ample resource base on the larger, undisputed portion of Georges

Bank. And for the fishing industry of southwest Nova Scotia - an indus­
try for which the disputed area is crucial, in contrast to the situation pre­
vailing in New England - it secures continued access toits most impor­
tant source of supply.

381. In short, the Canadian line is in harmony with the estab­
Iished economic equities of the Gulf of Maine area: for it is Canada that
depends upon the fishery of the disputed area, far more than the United
States. And it is to the fisheries, to the known resources of the disputed
area - a factor emphasized in the dispositif of the North Sea Conii­
nental Shelf cases - that this establîshed pattern of exploitation and
dependence has been directed 94.Further, respect for the stability of these
established patterns is an objective that the Canadîan line achieves in far

greater measure than does that of the United States. lt does so both with
respect to the fishery itself and with respect to the shelf, for itis Canada,
and Canada alone, that has issued resource permîts for the hydrocarbons
of the continental shelf in the disputed area.

382. The Court held in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases
that "proximity may afford one of the tests to be applied and an impor­
tant one in the right conditions s". In the Canadian submission the cir­
cumstances of the present case demonstrate the relevance of this test as
well as the practical advantages of proximity. The inherent logic of this

94 /.C.J. Reports 196pp. 53-54, para. 101(D)(2).
91 /.C.J. Reports /96p. 30, para. 42.152 GULF OF MAINE [158J

factor is borne out by the position that Canada has assumed in the fisher­
ies of the disputed area, and particularly by the fishing patterns of the
small-boat fishermen from the area.of Nova Scotia that lies closest to the
eastern portion of Georges Bank. (See paragraphs 143 to 148.) Further­
more, one effect of the boundary will be to allocate jurisdiction for pur­
poses of pollution contrai, both with respect to continental shelf oil and

gas operations and with respect to those other forms of environmental
jurisdiction that are within the exclusive economic zone concept. As a
general proposition, States have a legitimate interest in the exercise of
this jurisdiction in areas that are nearer to their coasts than to the coasts
of a neighbouring State. Large areas of Georges Bank are doser to Nova
Scotia than to Massachusetts. In fact, apart from the protrusion of Cape
Cod and its offlying islands, the whole of the disputed area lies closer to
Canada than to the United States. Thus the Canadian line meets the test

of proximity to a far greater degree than does the United States daim.
383. Finally, it is the Canadian submission that the conduct of the
Parties is an important factor as one of the "indicia" tha t point to what

the Parties themselves have considered as equitable. It is relevant not
only in relation to the issuing and maintenance of permits and leases
respecting the continental shelf, but equally with respect to the 1979
Agreement on East Coast Fisheries Resources and the fisheries relation­
ship that led to its conclusion. For in each case, the facts speak for them­
selves; and the shared perception they disclose is the equity of a division
of Georges Bank corresponding either in terms or in its practical effect to
the fondamental approach underlying the Canadian clatm.

384. In conclusion, the Canadian line is based upon the applica­
tion of an accepted legal method and is consistent with the conduct of the
Parties. It recognizes the equitable interests of both Parties in allowing

each of them to enjoy contînued access, in fair degree, to the resources of
the Gulf of Maine area and in taking due account of exisling patterns of
usage and dependence. The Canadian line, moreover, achieves a delimita­
tion in accordance with equitable principles by faithfully reflecting the
general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, while at the same time
ensuring that particular coastal configurations do not have a dispropor­
tionate effect on the course of the boundary. The resulting delîmitation
accords with equitable princîples by taking aècount of ail the relevant cir­
cumstances so as to produce an equitable result. lt is, Canada submits,

equitable and reasonable in fact and in law.(159] 153

CHAPTER II.THE LAW OF ACQUIESCENCE, RECOGNIDON
AND ESTOPPEL IN RELATION TO
THE GULF OF MAINE AREA BOUNDARY

Section I. Introduction

385. In J965 the United States Government was informed in the
c\carest terms possible that the Government of Canada considered the
western limit of Canadian rights in the continental shelf of the Gulf of
Maine area to be the equidistance or median line and, further, that this
demarcation was based upon the relevant principles of public interna­
tional law. No protest or reservation of rights was made by the Govern­
ment of the United States for nearly five years.

386. Equally significant is the fact that wbile the Canadian Gov­
ernment utilized the equidistance method in issuing offshore permits on

Georges Bank in December 1964 and January 1965, ithad a\ready issued
permits on Georges Bank, east of the equidistance line, as early as May
1964. These latter permits were issued in an area of the Bank to which
the United States subsequently laid claim in a 1iplomatie note of 16
October 1974 referred to in paragraph 220 • From May 1964 until its
express reservation of rights in November 1969 2, however, the United
States did nothing to challenge either the use of the equidistance or
median line by Canada or Canada's exercise of sovereign rights over the
hydrocarbon resources of eastern Georges Bank.

387. This official silence must be appreciated in the context of a
situation involving notoriety and the exercise of jurisdiction, through the
issuing of offshore oil and gas exploratory permits, with respect to an
area not far removed from the coasts and administrative centres of the
two States, against a background of world competition for oil and gas

resources. In this context, and given the clear information provided to the
United States Government by the Government of Canada, the period
during which the United States refrained from challenging or protesting
Canada's open, public acts was sufficient to be decisive. In ail the circum­
stances this silence constitutes unequivocal evidence of the acquiescence,
the tacit acceptance o_rrecognition on the part of the United States Gov­
ernment of the principle of the equidistance or median line as utilized by
the Government of Canada in the Gulf of Maine area on the basis of
international law,.

388. The diplomatie exchanges of the period 1965-1969 focused
princîpally upon the resources of the continental shelf and the legal prin­
ciples relevant to shelf de!îmitation. Consequently, the basis of those
Canadian rights which vested by reason of the acquiescence of the United
States must be the principles of international law obtaining in 1969.
There can be no presumption that the pertinent principles have subse-

1 See Annexes, Vol. Ill, Annex 21.
2 United States aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969. See Annexes, Vol. Ill. Annex 13.154 GULF OF MAINE [160-161]

quently-changed; at the same time, there can be no presumption that the
equidistance principle as accepted for the continental shelf in the period

1965-1969 must be the basis for the drawing of a single maritime bound­
ary in accordance with the Special Agreement. The correct position is
that such a single maritime boundary shou\d be compatible with the
rights which had vested in Canada as a consequence of the acquiescence
of the United States at the material time.

389. There is another facet of the situation in the years 1965 to
1969. There can be !ittle doubt that the acquiescence of the United States
Government, in face of a Canadian policy expressly based upon legal con­

siderations, stemmed from an acceptance that the position of Canada was
in accordance with international law. The absence of protest on the part
of the United States in ail the circumstances of the years 1965 to 1969
thus constitutes evidence of the legality of the position of Canada on a
key question - the applicability of an equidistance or median line in the
Gulf of Maine area. The toleration of other States evidences the conform­
ity of the given delimitation system. with international law, as was
affirmed by the Court in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case'. Such tol­

eration is of greater weight when the State concerned is loc4ted close to
the zone in issue and has "her own interest in the question ".

390. lt should be noted here that the position of the Canadîan
Government in relation to the prînciple of acquiescence or recognition is
without prejudice to the ro\e of the conduct of the Parties as one of the
relevant circumstances for the purposes of establishing the single mari­
time boundary (discussed in paragraphs 320 to 325) or to the evaluation
of the cvidence in the context of estoppel (discussed in paragra phs 419 to
426).

Section li. The Relevant Diplomatie Correspondence

391. Canada was not a party to the Convention on the Continen­
tal Shelf when the Canadian authorities first began to issue oil and gas
exploratory permits on Georges Bank in the Gulf of Maine area in 1964.
The permits ultimately issued by Canada between 1964 and 1965 on
Georges Bank are shown in Figure 35. The first such permits, 15 in ail,

were issued by Canada to Texaco Exploration Company, a United States
corporation (now Texaco Canada Inc.), on 20 May 1964. These permits
covered a substantial part of Georges Bank but did not extcnd up to the
equidistance line. A further 11 exploratory permits were issued to the
California Standard Company, also a· United States corporation (now
Chevron Canada Limited), on 30 December 1964, followed by-an addi­
tional five permits to the same company on 13 and 14 January 1965. As

Figure 35 shows, seven of the permits issued to California Standard
extended close-to or abutted upon the equidistance lîne. On 15 January
1965, four perniits were issued to Socony Mobil Oil of Canada (now
Mobil Oil Canada Ltd.) on Georges Bank. These latter permits included
areas that extended up to and, because of the grids employed, partially
straddled the equidistance line.

if_C.J.Repons /951,pp. 138-139.
• I.C.JReports !951p. 139. [162) MEMORIAL OF CANADA 155

392. Even though Canada was not yet party to the 1958 conven­
tion, for purposes of delimiting those areas of the continental shelf where
Canada exercised sovereign rights from those areas where ~he United

States exercised such rights, the Canadian authorîties were utilizîng a
line drawn in accordance with the method of equidistance under Article 6
of the convention, controlled throughout by the nearest point of land on
each coast, when the above-noted permits were issued to California
Standard and Socony MobiP.

393. The first reaction of the Government of the United States to
the granting of permits by the Canadian authorities was the letter of
1April 1965 from the.Bureau of Land Management of the United States
Department of the Interior, requesting information on the location of
Canadian oil and gas exploratory permits. This letter read as follows:

"This Bureau is charged with the responsibility for minerai leasing
on the Outer Continental Shelf pertaining to the United States of
America. In this connection, we have information that the
Canadian Federal Government recently has issued offshore permits
for minerai prospecting on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Sorne of the submerged lands we understand you have leased under
offshore permits are approximately 125 nautical miles east of Cape
Cod. We refer specifically to an offshore permit of some 190,657
acres to Secony [sic] Mobil Oil Company of Canada Ltd., and

1,332,753 acres leased to California Standard. We would like to
identify these two leases with reference to the median fine as
defined in Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf.
agreed upon al.the 1958 United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea al Geneva. We understand that this convention came into
full effect on June JO, 1964. Therefore. we would appreciate a
description of the two leases mentioned above.

We also would appreciate a set of your regulations and instructions
pertaining to offshore permits and minerai leasing. For your infor­
mation we have enclosed a copy or our regulations pertaining to
Minerai Leasing and Pipelines on the Outer Continental Shelf We
also are enclosîng a set of our Outer Continental Shelf leasing

maps. These maps represent the Outer Continental Shelf off Wash­
ington to a depth of 500 fathoms. You will note on the sheet show­
ing the Cape Flattery Area that the leasing blacks do not cross the
median fine seaward/rom APll6." (/talies added.)

394. The above-cited letter made a series of statements on mat­
ters of legal principle in the context of a generalized and continuing situa­
tion regarding the exercise of resource jurisdiction by Canada on the
Atlantic coast and by the United States on the Pacifie coast. The subject
matter of the letter was the system of offshore permit-granting by
Canada in the areas of seabed adjacent to the "median line". The use of

5The circumstances and timing of Canada's ratification of the convention are explained in
paras. 217-218.
0See Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 1. 156 GULF OF MAINE [163]

the median line by Canada was referred to in the context of Article 6 of

the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The recognition of the median
line as a legal method and as a general principle is evidenced further by
the reference to its use by the United States in awarding offshore leases
in the Cape Flattery area (off the Juan de Fuca Strait boundary region
on the Pacifie coast) and the enclosure of a set of United States "Outer
Continental Shelf' leasing maps retating to this latter area.

395. The Government of Canada's reply to this request was
.prompt. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources
responded in a letter dated 8 April 1965, as fo\lows:

"Thank you for your Jetter of April l, with which you enclosed a
copy of your Regulations, Minerai Leasing and Pipelines on the
Outer Continental She.Jf, and a set of your leasing maps for the
Cape Flattery and Copalis Beach Areas off the west coast.

The disposition of oil and gas rights for the submerged lands off
Canada's sea-coast is administered by the Department of Northern

Affairs and National Resources. Accordingly, the Department has
issued Canada Oil and Gas Permits off Canada 's Atlantic, Pacifie
and Arctic coasts and in Hudson Bay. The attached small-scale
sketch map indicates the areas in which these off-shore Permits
have been issued.

Enclosed is a copy of the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations, as
amended. We are sending you, under separate caver, complimen­
tary copies of our maps showing off-shore Canada Oil and Gas Per­
® mits issued off the east and west coasts. These materials are avail­

able to the public at the offices of the Resources Division. There is
no charge for the Regulations, but there is a charge of $3.00 per
copy for the maps. Enclosed with the maps you will find an index
listing the holders of off-shore Canada Oil and Gas Permits. Please
note that each Permit is referred to in the index by the co-ordinates
of its northeast corner.

I believe the above materials willmeet the request for information
in your letter. We wîll be pleased to be of further assistance as may
be possible.

We notice that the maps accompanying your letter of April I out­
line your system of leasing blocks but do not show the leases that
have been issued to petroleum companies, for example, those pur­
chased at the Sale of October 1, 1964. We wouId appreciate receiv­
ing maps from you indicating the locations of such Jeases, as well as
maps showing any leases you may have issued off the east coast 7."

396. In a letter dated 14 May 1965, the Assistant Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior,

@) 7Annexes, Vol.111,Annexes 2 and 3 (letter and Canadian maps referred to therein).[164] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 157

wrote to Canadian officiais requesting further information on the method
of delimitation used by Canada in issuing the aforementioned explora tory

permits. That letter reads as follows:
"Thank you for the maps showing locations and holders of the off­
shore oil and gas permits you have issued on the east and west
coasts. Wc also appreciate the copy of your printed oil and gas land
regulations.

As a malter of some concern to us, we believe that you have issued
off-shore permits on the Outer Continental Shelf pertaining to the
United States. We believe this is the case in the Gulf of Maine, off
theStraits of Juan de Fuca, and Dixon Entrance. We are unable to
comment on the permits you have issued in the Arctic Ocean as wc

do not have a map showing their locations.
/nasmuch as the location of a median line might be subject to
different interpretations, we suggest that you check the locations
of your permits which approach submerged lands under United

St_atesjurisdiction to see if they are within Canadian juris.diction
under an application of Article 6 of the Convention on the Con­
tinental Shelf of the 1958 GenevaConference.
This communication is being written sole\y in the interest of seeing
if there is a basis for disagrecment as to the location of a median
fine separating our respective jurisdîctions on the Outer Continen­

tal Shelf. As an operating Bureau, we, of course, have no authority
to enter into any formai discussion of the location of a median line
in case of a dispute . However, we are hopefu! that there could be a
simple misunderstanding on either our part or yours, of the ele­
ments positioning a median line. If this is the case, then the matter
could be amicably determined without resort to higher authority.

In the last paragraph of your letter of April 8 you ask for the loca­
tion of leases we might have issued off the east coast and the State
of Washington. No Federal oil and gas leases on the Outer Conti­
nental Shelf off the cast coast have been issued. However, certain
seismic permits have bcen issued. These permîts al!ow only gco­
physica! activities and no deep drilling. Although a number of
blocks off Washington were leascd as a result of our October 1,
1964 sale, we believe you will be interested in only Blocks 21 N.,
and 61 and 62 W. that are nearest to the Canadian-United States
boundary8." (Jta/ics added.)

397. By letter dated 16 June 1965, the Chief of the Resource
Management Division of the Canadian Department of Northern Affairs
and National Resources replied:

"Thank you for your letter of May 14, conccrning the malter of
Canada Oil and Gas Permits and United States Leases in off-shore
areas on the continental shelf.

a AnnellesVol. IIAnncll4.158 GULF OF MAINE [165]

We can appreciate your concern respectîng the positions of the lines
of demarcation of the resources of the seabed on the continental
shelf off the east and west coasts. We wish ta assure you that we
have utilized a median line as described in the third paragraph of
your letter, constructed in accordance with the equidistance prin­
ciple as defined in Article 6 o.fthe Convention on the Continental

Shelf, to determine the limits of the off-shore- areas within
which to issue Canada Oil and Gas·Permits. lt may help clarify
matters somewhat to explain that since the exact position of such a
median fine may be open to some interpretation, we issue permîts
covcring grîd areas up to and straddling these off-shore median
lines. In the caseof a permit straddling a medîan line, a cautionary
statement is included in the permit to the effect that it is issued
subject to the lands covered thereby being Canada Lands .

.I believe the foregoing answers the various points raised in your let­
ter9." (ltalics added.)

398. By virtuG-of the foregoing exchange of correspondence, the
United States Government, by no later than June t965, had received
from the Canadîan Government two precise items of information:

(a) clear affirmation that in determining the limits of the offshore areas
wherein oil and gas exploratory permits were to be issued in the Gulf
of Maine area, Canada used the legal principle of the equidistance or
median line in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on the
Continental Shelf;

(b) maps showing the exact location and the holders of the offshore oil
and gas permits that Canada had issued up to that tîme in the Gulf
of Maine area.

399. The United States did not respond in any way to the
Canadian letter of 16 June 1965. Indeed, followîng the exchange of let­
ters in May and June 1965, no further information on these matters was
sought and no further communication was made by United. States
authorities until over a year later when, on 16 August 1966, the Second
Secretary at the United States Embassy in Ottawa wrote to the Director,
Resource Development Branch, Canadian Department of Mines and
Technical Surveys, as follows:

"I refer to our telephone conversation of August 16 regarding oil
exploration activities in Canadian continental shelf areas.

lt would be appreciated if you could provide me with available
information on permits îssued for exploration in the Cape Flatiery
and Gulf of Maine areas, as well as information on operational
plans and schedules of oil companies holding permits 1.''

400. In order to leave no possible doubt as to the formai, official
position of the Government of Canada regarding the lateral limits of the

9 Annexes. Vol. III, Annex 6.
10Annexes, Vol. Ill, Annex 7.[166] MEMORIAL OF CANADA
159

offshore areas in which it had issued exploratory permits, the Under­
Secretary of State for External Affaîrs replied to the United States
Embassy's enquiry by Jettcr dated 30 August 1966, as follows:
"1 wish to refer to your letter of August 16 which you
addressed to Mr. J.W. McNeil, Director, Research Development

Branch, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, concerning
Canadîan exploratory permits in that part of the Continental Shelf
whîch is sîtuated off the Eastern Coast of Canada. In view of this
Dcpartment's general interest in the exploration activities beîng
carried out on the Canadîan Continental Shelf in dose proximity to
areas under the jurisdiction of foreign countries, it was deemed
preferable that this Department should answer your query. In order
to avoid unnecessarily long delays, we would very much appreciate

your directing any future enquiries of a similar nature to the Legal
Division of thîs Department.
As we have commented previously in a letter ta the United
States Department of the lnterior, the poliy of the Canadian Gov-

" ernment has been ta issue permîts covering grid areas up to and
straddling the medium (sic) fine which divides the areas of juris­
diction be1ween Canada and the United States since the exact
position of that fine might be open to some interpretation. How­
ever, when such is the case a cautionary statement îs included in
the permit to the effect that it is issued subject to the lands covered
thereby beîng Canada Lands. The a11achedmap and index willpro·
vide you with ail available information concerning permits which

have been issued under the Oil and Gas Land Regulations off the
Southeast Coast of Canada.
As to your request for information on operational plans and
schedules of oil companies holding permits in the above mentioned

areas, our policy has been to regard the question of the publicity to
be given to such plans as the permit holders may have as the exclu­
sive responsibility of the companies concerned. The competîtive
nature of their business is of such scope that only they can reason­
ably establish the criteria for their publicity requirements. The
Canadian Governmcnt is, of course, made aware of these plans but
only insofar.·as it is neccssary to exercise proper jurisdictional con­
trol over such operations in accordance with existing legislation.
While we cannot, therefore, make such information public, the fact
is that a considerable amount of information has over the years

been released through the press and we call your attention in par­
ticular to the trade magazine 'Oilweek'.
Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further
11
assîstance ." (ltalics added.)
401. This reply by the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Depart­
ment of External Affairs constituted, of course, an official diplomatie

communication. lt confirmed and explicitly referred back to the position
of the Government of Canada as set out in the first correspondence in the

1
1Annexes, VoL J11,Annex 8 (letter and attachments).160 GULF OF MAINE [167]

matter in April to June 1965. lt reaffirmed in unambiguous terms
Canada's use of the median line as a matter of law in the Gulf of Maine
area in accordance with the Convention on the Continental Shelf. It
emphasized the legal character of the subject by stating that "we would

very much appreciate your directing your future enquiries of a similar
nature to the Legal Division of this Department". And it also provided an
additional map, further to those transmitted to the United States Govern­
ment in April 1965, showing al! the offshore permit areas and the
individual permits issued off the southwest coast of Nova Scotia.

402. The letters of April 1965, June 1965 and August 1966 con­
vey in the clearest possible fashion Canada's adherence to the use of the
equidistance or median line for shelf delimitation in the Gulf of Maine
area in accordance with international law. The letters follow a consistent

line, refer to the legal implications in each case and reflect a coherent
position of policy maintained by the Government of Canada. Both
individually and cumulatively they could leave the United States in no
possible doubt as to Canada's position in respect of the use of an equidis­
tance or median line for purposes of continental shelf delimitation in the
Gulf of Maine area.

403. In parallel to the diplomatie correspondence, the Canadian
position was clearly apparent from a perusal of the exploratory permits

issued by Canada in the Gulf of Maine area from May 1964. These pub­
lic documents indicated, first, that Canada was exercising jurisdiction
over the resources of the continental shelf adjacent to its coast on
Georges Bank, and, secondly, as regards the permits issued in January
1965, that Canada had used a line constructed on the basis of the equidis­
tance method to demarcate its jurisdiction in this area.

404. In the period between August 1966 and May 1968 the
Canadian position remained unchanged and this position was, at inter­
va!s, confirmed in official correspondence and other public conduct. Thus
on 22 November 1966, the Canadian Department of Energy, Mines and

Resources wrote to an official at the United States Embassy in Ottawa as
follows: -

"ln accordance with our recent telephone conversations, enclosed
please find the following publications:

Canada Oil and Gas Permit Map No. 100- West Coast

Canada Oil and Gas Permit Map No. 150 - East Coast
Index for Water Permits (Except Arctic)

I am sorry for the delay in supplying these materials. As explained
over the telephone, we have just completed bringing the maps and
indexes up-to-date. Additional copies of the maps may be obtained
for $3.00 each - the index is supplied free of charge 1."

The Embassy acknowledged receipt of the permit maps on 28 November
1966 1~.

1iAnnexes, Vol. Ill, Annex 9 (letter and attachments).
•iAnnexes, Vol. Ill, Annel\ 10.[1681 MEMORIAL OF CANADA 161

405. During 1967 and 1968 the Canadian Government continued
its public actîvity in the sphere of issuing permits for offshore oil and gas

exploration activities in the Gulf of Maine area, and the United States
was well aware of this state of affairs. Eventually, by an aide-mémoire
dated 10 May 1968, the United States Government offered to enter into
discussions with Canada relating to continental shelf areas in the Gulf of
Maine area and in the area of the Strait of Juan de Fuca "with a view to
reaching agreement on the location of these dividing lines". The full text
of the Department of State's aide-mémoire is as fo\lows:

"As the Government of Canada is aware, the United States
Government has been considering the desirability of delineating the
boundary between the United States and Canada on the continental
shelf in the Gulf of Maine as weli as in the area of the Straits of
Juan de Fuca. Since the minerai interests in both countries are
urgently seeking to begin exploration of the areas, it appears to the

United States highly desirable that early discussions be undertaken
between the two governments with a view to reaching agreement on
the location of these dividing lines. At the same time, it would also
seem opportune for the two governments to consult with regard to
steps to be taken to protect the living resources of the sea against
the pollution and disturbance which might result from minerai
exploration and exploitation. ln this connection, in order that some
reassurance can be given to the fishing interests involved, it appears
to the United States that particular urgency attaches to the ques­

tion wîth regard to the fishing resources now being exploited by a
number of nations in the area of the Georges Banks.

The United States, therefore, proposes that appropriate rep­
resentatives of the two governments consult at an early date with
regard to the nature and application of possible safeguard measures
before the beginning of exploration for minerai resources or their
exploitation. ln licensing offshore activities in other areas, for
example, the United States Government has applied the safeguards
envisaged in Article V of the Convention on the Continental Shelf
of April 29, 1958, to insure against any 'unjustifiable interference
with ... fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the
sea'. The United States authorities, accordingly, would be plcased

to share with their Canadian co!leagues the benefit of their techni­
cal experience in the application of the safeguards.

The United States also suggests that in the meantime there
be a temporary suspension of exploration and exploitation activities
with regard to minerai resources in the area of the northern half of
the Georges Banks to permit consultation to take place and to pro­
vide tîme to seek an agreement on the exact location of the bound­
ary in this area14."

406. Nothing in the foregoing communication directly or
indirectly indicates in any way that as of 10 May 1968 the United States

did not accept and would not continue to accept the use of the median

14Annex.es,Vol.III, Annex 11.162 GULF OF MAINE [169]

line or the equidistancc method in determining the continental shelf

boundary with Canada in the Gulf of Maine area and on Georges Bank
in particular. The aide-mémoire merely states that the United States con­
sidered it "highly desira ble" that early discussion begin so as to reach
agreement on the "location of these dividing lines". In combination with
the letter from the United States Department of the Interior of 14 May
1965, and in light of the two formai communications from the Govern­
ment of Canada clearly stating Canada 's use of equidistance for delimita­
tion purposes, the aide-mémoire seemed merely to ask for discussions to
agree on the "exact location" of the median or equidistance line, rather

than indicating any disavowal of its use. There is no attempt in the clear
text of this document to challenge the application of the equidistance
principle or method in drawing the boundary line in the Gulf of Maine
area.

407. It was not for another year and a half, five-and-one-half
years after the first Canadian offshore oil and gas exploratory permits
were issued on Georges Bank, that the United States Government finally
denied recognition of the Canadian-claimed line for delimitation pur­
poses. Thus, by an aide-mémoire dateg 5 November 1969, the United
States Government stated:

"The Department of State refers to the aide-mémoire given
to the Canadian Embassy on May 10, 1968, suggesting the suspen­
sion by Canada of exploration and exploitation activîties on the
Georges Bank until agreement cou\d be reached on the exact loca­
tion of the United States-Canada Atlantic continental shelf bound­

ary and to permit consultation on measures to safeguard fisheries
interests from possible oil pollution. The Government of Canada
agreed to a moratorium on minerai exploitation on the Georges
Bank, but dedincd to stop exploratory activities, claiming that
Canadian exploration regulations adequately safeguarded fisheries
resources.

Earlier this year considerable pollution of the seas occurred
as a result of drî!ling operations off Santa Barbara, California. In
l.he light of this incident, continued uncertainty regarding the
United States-Canada continental shelf boundaries, and the impor­
tance of the fîshery resources of the Georges Bank, the Government
of the United States hopes that Canada wîll now agree to a com­
plete moratorium on ail minerai exploration and exploitation in the

entire Gulf of Maine until agreement can be reached on the exact
location of the United States-Canada continental shelf boundary in
this area and mutually acceptable regu!ations safeguarding the
fisheries of the area from pollution can be formulated. IfCanada
cannot agree to a complete suspension of minerai exploration and
exploitation in the Gulf of Maine, the United States hopes that, at
a minimum, Canada will agree to a moratorium on ail drilling in
the area. Until minerai exploration and exploitation are suspended

in the Gulf of Maine and mutualty acceptable regulations safe­
guarding the fisheries of the area are adopted, the United States
will hold the Government of Canada completely liable for any and
ail damages for pollution of the Gulf and the Georges Bank result­
ing from such activities authorized by Canada.[170] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 163

The Government of Canada has already issued exploration
permits for the northern portion of the Géorges Bank continental
shelf. The United States is concerned that, pending settlement of
the boundary question, substantial investment in exploration and
exploitation of the area could greatly increase, the difficulty of
negotiating a satisfactory boundary. For this reason, the United
States has refrained from authorizing minerai exploration or

exploitation in the area.
Until the exact location of the United States-Canada conti­

nental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Maine is agreed upon, the
United States cannot acquiesce in any Canadian authorization of
exploration or exploitation of the natural resources of the Georges
Bank continental shelf. The United States Government, therefore,
cannot recognize the validity of Canadian permits for any part of
the Georges Bank, reserves its rights and the rights of its nationals
to this continental shelf area, and intends to make its position a

matter of public record in the Federal Register so that individua!s
and companies concerned with exploration and exploitation in the
area may be aware of this position.

The United States Government further reserves its rights and
those of its nationals in ail continental shelf areas in the vicinity of
the other boundaries between the United States and Canada pend­
ing agreement on continental shelf boundaries in these areas as
well.

Regarding the suggestion made in its aide-mémoire of May
10 for consultation on measures to safeguard fisheries from possible

oil pollution anywhere in the Gulf of Maine, the United States
Government would welcome a Canadian Government response and
a proposai for a convenient place and time of meeting.

In the near future, the United States Government will suggest
to the Canadian Government dates for the initiation of formai
negotiation of ail of the United States-Canada continental shelf
boundaries 1."

408. 1n its respanse of 1 Decem ber 1969 to the above aide­
mémoire the Government of Canada stated:

"The Canadian Embassy refers to the Note from the Depart­
mcnt of State dated November 5, 1969, concerning activities on the
continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine and the delimitation of
Canada-United States continental shelf boundaries.

The Canadian Government has noted the views expressed by
the United States Government with respect to the Gulf of Maine.
The Government of Canada shares the concern of the Government
of the United States with respect to pollution hazards arising from

11Annexes, VoL Ill, Annex 13.164 GULF OF MAINE [171]

offshore minerai exploration and exploitation. ln response to the
United States Aide-Mémoire of May 10, 1968, on this subject, the
Canadian Embassy on September 23, 1968, transmitted to the
State Department copies of the Canadian regulations concerning
offshore exploration. No pollution damage has resuhed from off­
shore operations under these regulations, and fish kills resulting
from marine seismic surveys have been kept to an acceptable level.

The Canadian Government is unable to accept the suggestion
of the United States Government for a temporary suspension of all
minerai exploration and exploitation or drilling activities in the
Gulf of Maine, pending agreement on the boundary lîne. The
Canadian Government must also emphasize that it has not agreed

at any time to a moratorium on minerai exploitation on Georges
Bank.

With respect to exploration permits issued by the Govern­
mem of Canada in the Gulf of Maine, the Canadian authorities on
a number of occasions have pointed out that the procedure fol­
lowed by Canada was in accordance with the principle of equi­
distance established by the Geneva Conventionon the Continental
Shelf The United States authorities did not register any protest to
this procedure.

The Canadian Government welcomes the proposai of the
United States Government for consultations on measures to safe­
guard fisheries from possible oil pollution in the Gulf of Maine, and

will propose a time and place of meeting for this purpose early in
1970.
The Canadian Government will also be pleased to receive the
suggestions of the United States Government concerning possible

dates for the initiation of formai negotiation of the Canada-United
States continental shelf boundaries. The Canadian Government
proposes, however, that the first phase of the negotiations should
deal only with the offshore boundaries in the Gulf of Maine and the
region of Juan de Fuca Strait 1." (Italicsadded.)

The foregoing official communication once aga in reaffirmed Canada 's
use of equîdistance in delimiting the areas of its continental shelf within
which itissued oil and gas exptoratory permits consistent with the Con­
vention on the Continental Shelf.

409. The sequel to the Canadian diplomatie note of 1 December
1969 was a note from the United States Department of State, dated 19

February 1970, proposing that a first phase of negotiations of continental
shelf boundaries should deal with the offshore boundaries in the Gulf of
Maine area and in the region of the Juan de Fuca Strait. The outcome
was the first round of talles held in Washington in 1970 concerning
delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area, referred to in paragraph 246.

16Anne11es, ol. III, Annex14.(172} MEMORIAL OF CANADA 165

410. ln the years following, the Canadian Government main­

tained its prevîous position on the question of legal principle, and made
prompt protests in face of United States daims which appeared to be
incompatible with the equidistance line in the Gulf of Maine area. The
relevant Canadian protests înclude the following:

Canadian diplomatie note no. 1126, 19 September 1974;
Canadian diplomatie note no. 180, 3 June 1975;
Canadian aide-mémoire, 12 September 1975;
Canadian diplomatie note no. 52, 2 February 1976;
Canadian aide-mémoire, 28 April 1976;
17
Canadian diplomatie note no. 226, 28 May 1976 •
411. The penultimate Canadian protest in this series - the aide­

mémoire of 28 April 1976 - was followed by the United States note of
20 May 1976, in which the Government of the United States recorded its
own view that its first reservation of rights was expressed in the United
States note of 5 November 1969.

Section Ill. The Principle of Acquiescence or Recognition in

International Law
412. The role of acquiescence or recognition in general interna­
tional law is widely acknowledged and, particularly, in the context of the

problems of acquisition of title to territory and of maritime delimitation.
lndeed, aceeptance by conduct by a State of a certain legal position, as a
consequence of an absence of protest in face of public activity affecting
legal rights as between the parties, is very cornmonly stated to be an ele­
ment in the acquisition and Jossof rights in terri tory and in adjacent sub­
marine areas.

413. This principle is aptly summarized in an article by Professor
Hersch Lauterpacht that reads, in part, as follows:

"ln the first instance, the absence of protest on the part of other
states may be fairly interpreted as meaning that they 'accepted as
law' - i.e. as beîng in conformity .with the existing law - the prac­
tîce of other states relating to submarine areas. While that practice

may have justly created the appearance of novelty, it does not fol­
low that the law on which it is based is new. To that extent the
absence of protest, in face of an apparently new departure publicly
proclaimed, provides evidence of the essential conformity of the
new practice with the principles of international law.

However, in addition to providing evidence as to the views of
governments on the existing lega\ position, the absence of protest on
the part of interested states - for in the case of most proclama­
tions and other instruments in the malter of submarine areas there

must have been states actually or potentially directly affected -
may in itself bririg about legal effects. For the absence of protest in

11Annexes, Vol. Ill, Annexes 20, 23, 24, 25,31 and 32a.166 GULF OF MAINE [173]

the past can be adduced not only as showing that in the view of the

complaining state itself the act which is now being made the subject
of challenge was not inconsistent wîth international law. The
absence of protest may, in addition, in itself become a source of
legal right inasmuch as it is related to - or forms a constituent ele­
ment of - estoppel or prescription. Like these two generally recog­
nized legal principles, the far-reaching effect of the failure to pro­
test is not a mere artificialit y of the làw. lt is an essential

requirement of stability - a requirement even more important in
the international than in other spheres; îtis a precept of fair dealing
inasmuch as it prevents states from playing fast and loose with sit­
uations affecting others; and it is in accordance with equity inas­
much as it protects a state from the contingency of incurring
responsibilities and expense, in reliance on the apparent acquies­
cence of others, and being subsequently confronted with a challenge

on the part of those very states.

any such duty to protest is especîally încumbent upon states

directly interested - in the case of the proclamations relating to
submarine areas in particular upon neighbouring states - though
there would be nothing improper, and might be prudent, for other
states to assert their legitimate interest in upholding, through pro­
test, a legal principleof general application. The international law
of both peace and war provides numerous examples of such pro­

tests'8."
414. There is a considerable weight of judicial authority behind
the principle that rights may be affected by acquiescence, that is, by tacit

acceptance of a certain legal position as a result of a failure to make a
reservation of rights at the appropriate juncture. Thus, the absence of
protest on the part of the United Kingdom formed a significant element
in the reasoning of the Court in the Fisheries case. Having observed that
no formai British protest concerning thè Norwegian baselines was made
until 1933, well after promulgation of the relevant Norwegian decrees,
the Court stated:

"The United Kingdom Government has argued that the
Norwegian system of delimitation was not known to it and that the
system therefore lacked the notoriety essential to provide the basis

of an historie title enforceable against it. The Court is unable to
acèept this view. As a coastal State on the North Sea, greatly inter­
ested in the fisheries in this area, as a maritime Power traditionally
concerned with the law of the sea and concerned particularly to
defend the freedom of the seas,the United Kingdom cou/d not have

18H. Lauterpacht: "Sovereîgnty over Submarine Areas." (British Yearbook of Interna­
tionalLaw.Vol. 27, 1950, pp. 395-398.) The foregoing passage by Lauterpacht has been
incorporated by Marjorie Whiteman in M. Whiteman: Digest of InternationLaw.
United States Department of State, Publication 7553. Washington, U.S. Govemment
Printing Office, 1963, Vol. 2, p. 1062. Miss Whiteman was Assistant Legat Advîser to
the Department of State at the time of publication.(174] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 167

been ignorant of the Decree of 1869 which had at once provoked a
request for explanations by the French Government. Nor, knowing
of it, could it have been under any mîsapprehension as to the sig­
nificance of its terms, which clearly described it as constituting the
application of a system. The same observation applies a fortiori to
the Decree of 1889 relating to the delimitation of Romsdal

and Nord more which must have appeared to the United Kingdom as
a reiterated manifestation of the Norwegian practice.

The Court notes that in respect of a situation which could
only be strengthened with the passage of time, the United Kingdom
Government refrained from formulating reservations.

The notoriety of the facts, the genera\ toleration of the inter­
national community, Great Britain's position in the North Sea, her
own interest in the question, and her prolonged abstention would in
any case warrant Norway's enforcement of her system against the
U nîted Kingdom 1." (lta/ics added.)

It Îs clear from these passages and from the relevant parts of the Judg­
ment taken as a wholc that the Court regardcd a failure to protest as
critical even in the short run, in face of a significant legislative act by a
foreign state.

415. The principle of acceptance or recognition by conduct
formed a major element in the decisions of the Court in the Case con­

cernin20the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December
1906 and in the Temple of Preah Vihear case. ln the latter case, the
Court decided that acknowledgement by conduct of a given state of
affairs, and failure to object where circumstances demanded it, amounted
to acquîescence on the part of Thailand respecting the true boundary in
the Temple area as shown on certain maps conveyed to Thaî authorities.
Thus, the Court held that -

"... an acknowlcdgement by conduct was undoubtedly made in a
very definite way; but even if it were otherwise, it is clear that the

circumstances were such as called for somc reaction, withîn a
reasonable period, on the part of the Siamese authorities, if they
wished to disagree with the map or had any serious question to
raise in regard to it. They did not do so, either then or for many
years, and thereby must be held to have acquiesced. Qui tacet
consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset 21."

416. In his separate opinion, Judge Alfaro explained the malter as
follows:

19
J.C.J. Reports 195pp. 138-139.
'° Judgment of18 November 1960, !.C.J. Repor1960, p.192.
' Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judg­
menl of 15 June 1962:I.C.J. Reports !9p. 23.168 GULF Of MAINE [175)

"A State may also be bound by a passive or negative attitude in
respect of rights asserted by another State, which the former State
later on claims to have. Passiveness in front of gîven facts îs the
most general form of acquiescence or tacit consent. Failure of a
State lo assert its right when that right is openly challenged by
another State can only mean abandonment to that rîght. Silence by

a State in the presence of facts, contrary or prejudicial to rights
later on claimed by it before an international tribunal can only be
interpreted as tacit recognition given prior to the litigation. This
interpretation obtains especially in the case of a contractual rela­
tionship directly and exclusively affecting two States. Failure to
protest in circumstances when protest is necessary according to the
general practice of States in order to assert, to preserve or to safe­

guard a right does likewise signify acquiescence or tacît recogni­
tion: theState concerned must be held barred from claiming before
the international tribunal the rights it failed to assert or to preserve
when they were openly challenged by word or deed 2."

417. The legal importance of abstention from protest and other
forms of recognition has been signified in other but allied forms by inter­
national tribunals. In the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf case the

Judgment of the Court carefully considered whether certain unilateral
acts of the respective parties had, as a consequence of acquiescence,
become "opposable" to the other State concerned. lnterestingly, in that
case, the Court found that the existence of the modus vivendi presented
in argument by Libya -

"... resting only on the silence and Jack of protest on the side of
the French authorities responsible for the external relations of
Tunisia, falls short of proving the existence of a recognîzed mari­
time boundary between the two Parties. lndeed, it appears that

Libya is not in fact contending that it had that status, but rather
that the evidence that such a line was employed or respected to a
certain extent is such as to deprive the ZV 45° line of credibility.
But in view of the absence of agreed and clearly specified maritime
boundaries, the respect for the tacit modus vivendi, which was
never formally contested by either side throughciut a long period of
time, could warrant ils acceptance as a historical justification for

the choice of the method for the de/imitation of the continental
she/f between the two States, to the extent that the historie rights
claimed by Tunisia could not in any event be opposable to Libya
east of the modus vivendi line2." (ltalics added.)

In the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, the Court recognized that a failure to

ex.press a reservation of rights in face of a statement of material24acts by
the other party should be given considerable probatîve value •On other
occasions, reference has been made in the jurisprudence of international
tribunals to the general principle of law that a State may not make claims
inconsistent with its previous conduct. Witness the award of the Court of

21 J.C.JReports 1962, p40.
21 I.C.J. Reports 198pp. 70-71, par95.
14 Judgment, /.C.J. Reports 195p. 71.[176) MEMORIAL OF CANADA l69

Arbitration in the Palena case 15• And in the Honduras Borders arbitra­
tion, the arbitrators applied the principle to several aspects of the dispute,
stating, inter alia:

"While no State can acquire jurisdiction over territory in another
State by mere declarations on its own behalf, it is equal\y true that
these assertions of authority by Guatemala ... were public, formai
acts and show clearly the understanding of Guatemala that this was

her territory. These assertions invited opposition on the16art of
Honduras if they were believed to be unwarranted .''
418. It is the common viewof the Parties that the first reservation
of legal rights by the Government of the United States took the form of
27
the aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969 • By that time the United States
had been aware for nearly five years of the Canadian daim to an equidis­
tance line in the Gulf of Maine area and of the issuance of Canadian per­
mits on Georges Bank as early as May 1964. In particular, the official
exchanges of communications in 1965 show in clear terms the extent to
which the United States appreciated what was at stake. The letter from

the United States Department of the Interior of 14 May 1965 is
unequivocal in demonstrating the extent of knowledge of Canadian poli­
des and practices and the legal principles on which they were based.
These communications must be weighed in terms of the evidence they
provide as to the knowledge of the United States Government of the posi­

tion of the Government of Canada. In the context of official correspond­
ence, the presumption is that each official has the appropriate authority
and speaks for the government concerned (see, for instance, the Russian
Jndemnity case 28).The. pertinent United States officiais were well aware
of the situation in the·Gulf of Maine area, and this awareness is exempli­
fied by the request by the United States Embassy in Ottawa, on 16

August 1966, for further information on Canadian exploratory permits in
this area and on the operational plans of permit holders. On several occa­
sions in the 1965-1966 period, the Canadian Government transmitted
maps showing the location of the offshore oil and gas permits. Receipt of
such maps was acknowledged in the letter of 14 May 1965, from the
United States Department of the Interior. In sum, the correspondence as
a whole involved - and demonstrates beyond ail doubt - a patent

l! Argentine-Chile Frontier Case. International Law Reports, Vol.38, 1969, p. 10.
"' Honduras Borders (Guatemala-Honduras), Opinion and Award of the Special Boundary
Tribunal,23 January 1933. United Nations, Reports of international Arbitral Awards,
Vol. II, p. 1327.
27 The United States diplomatie note of 20 May 1976, Annexes, Vol. III, Annex 32, reads
in part as follows:
"The Government of the United States recalls that in its Note of November 5, 1969,
in which it reserved its rîghts and those of its natîonals with respeçt to the Gulf of
Maine continental shelf boundary, it also reserved its rights and those of its nationals
wîth respect to areas in the vîyiof other continental shelf houndaries between the
United States and Canada."
28Award of the arbitral tribunal constituted by virtue of the arbitration agreement signed
at Constantinople between Russia and Turkey. July 22/August 4. 1910. The Hague,
Novembe'r11, 1912. J. B.Scott, ed.: The Hague Court Reports. New York, Oxford Uni­
versity Press, 1916, pp. 322-323. Indeed, in some instances, States may be bound by
actions of minor officiais. ln the Yukon lumber case, for example, Great Britain was
held by the British-American Claims Tribunal set up under the Convention of 1910 to
have been bound as a result of the acts of the Canadian timber and land agent in the
Yukon. H. Lauterpacht: Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law.
Archon Books, 1970, pp. 280-281.170 GULF OF MAINE (1771

appreciation by the United States of the lcgal significance of the matters
on which information was being sought.

Section IV. The Principle of Esloppel in International Law

419. Il is the further submission of the Government of Canada
that the effective silence of the United States in face of Canadian insist­

ence on the use of an equîdistance line in the years 1965 to 1969 creates
an estoppel in favour of Canada. The consequence of thîs estoppel is that
the single maritime boundary which is to be established in accordance
with the Specia! Agreement should be compatible with the rights which
had ·vested in Canada by virtue of United States acceptance of the equi­

distance method in the pcriod 1965 to 1969 in the context of continental
shelf delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area.

420. In the circumstances of the present case the concept of estop­
pel is applicable in either of two forms. In the first and Jess rigorous form,
the concept is an alter ego of acquiescence. ln his scparate opinion in the
Temple of Preah Vihear case, Judge Alfaro, referring to the principle of
law that constituted the essential basîs for the Court's decision, states the

malter thus:

"This principle, as I understand it, îs that a State party to an
international litigation is bound by its previous acts or attitude
when they are in contradiction with its daims in the litigationi9."

421. This formulation of the principle is specifically endorsed in
the report of the Court of Arbitration in the Palena casc 30.ln his separate
opinion in the Temple of Preah Vihear case, Judge Fitzmaurice observed:

"The principle of prec\usion îs the nearcst equivalent in the
field of international law to the common-law rule of cstoppel ... lt
is quite distinct thcoretically from the notion of acquiescence. But

acquiescence can operate as a preclusion or estoppel in certain
cases, for instance where silence, on an occasion where there was a
duty or need to speak or act, implies agreement, or a waivcr of
rights, and can be regardcd as a representation to that effectJ' ... ".

422. ln the passage quoted, Judge Fitzmaurice continues:

"On that basis, it must be held in the present case that Thailand's
silence, in circumstances in which silence meant acquiescence,' or
acted as a representation of acceptance of the map line, opera tes to
preclude or estop her from denying such acceptancen ... ".

2, /.C.J. Reports 1962p. 39. On the same page, the learned Judge States:
"The principle, not infrcqucntly called a doctrine, lias bccn rcfcrred to by the terms of
'estoppel',preclusion', 'forclusion', 'aequiescence'. 1 abMain from adopting any of
theseparticular designations, as I do not bclieve tha! any of thcm. fits exac!ly to the
principle or doctrine as appliintcrna tional cases."
w Argemine-Chile Fromier Caw•, lmernatiunal Law Report!,.Vol. 38, 1969, p. 77.

" l.C.J. Reports 1962, p62.
J' l.C.J. Reports /962pp. 62-63.[178] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 171

This same conclusion îs applicable to the conduct of the Government of
the United States in the ycars 1965 to 1969, when no reservatîon was
made in the face of the clearest possible information on the Canadian
position on delimîtation of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine

area. As the3United States Government ·itse.Jf accepts in its note of 20
May 1976 3, the first reservation of its rights regarding Georges Bank
took place in its aide-mémoire dated 5 November 1969 34.

423. Sorne authorities have asserted that the doctrine of estoppel
in public international law takes a more rigorous form and, in this form,
is not to be·seen as a mere alter ego of the principle of acquiescence but
rather as a separate rule of law with precise criteria. Thus Whiteman's

Digest of International Law~ incorporates passages from an earlie3
article by Dr. Bowett in the British Yearbook of International Law 6,in
which the following conditions are said to be "cssentia\" to the invocation
of estoppel:

"(i) The purported acquisition of some right or interest by State A
in ignorance of State B's conflicting right or interest.
(ii) Actual or constructive knowledge by State B that State A pur­
ports to be acquiring some right or interest in conflict with its

own right or interest.
(iii) Silence or inaction by State B such as to lead State A to sup­
pose it possessed no conflicting right or interest.
(iv) Sorne detrîment to State A as a result of reliance upon the

silence or inaction of State B, or some gain to State· B as a
result of Sta te A'saction."

With regard to the last requirement, in the Temple of Preah Vihear case,
Judge Fitzmaurice in his separate opinion stated that -

"The essential condition of the operation of the rule of preclu"
sion or estoppel, as strictly to be understood, is that the party invok­
ing the rule must have 'relied upon' the statements or conduct of
the other party, either to its own detriment or to the other's advan­
tage"."

424. While the doctrine of ·estoppel in international law is prob­
ably still developing, the facts of the present case certainly satisfy ail the

conditions citcd in the preceding paragraph. In particular, the Canadian
Government was placed in a situation of reliance by the United States'
abstention from protest, in circumstances of close official and diplomatie
contact involving the handing over of maps and other pertinent informa­
tion, in which the attitude of the Government of Canada was clear, public
and open. Thus the Canadian Government for a substantial perîod was

placed in the position of assuming a rightful power to create legal rela­
tionships with Canadîan and foreign persans and corporations by the
grant of permits. While the official correspondence with the United

33Annexes, Vol. 111Annex 32.
34Annexes, Vol. 111,Annex 13.
35 M. Whîteman: Digest of International Law, Vop.2l077. .
36 O. W. Bowett: "Estoppel before International Tribunals afid its Relations to
Acquiescence." (British Yearbookof International Law, Vol.33, 1957,p. 200.)
J7 I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 63: · 172 GULF OF MAINE [179]

States during this period might have indicated, at the very most, that the
precise location of the equidistance line required refinement by means of
negotiation and agreement - a point whîch the Canadian Government
took into account in "caveating" those permits that straddled the then
equidistance line - the fact remains that for a period of more than five
years the United States gave Canada no reason to believe that the princi­
ple or the equidistance line was itself in question. The creation of lega\

relationships in these circumstances constituted a detriment to the Gov­
ernm_entof Canada as a result of its reasonable and necessary reliance
upon the acceptance of its legal .position by the United States. Thus
again, all four of the conditions set forth in Whiteman's Digest (see para­
graph 423) were amply fulfilled.
425. ln the circumstances of the years 1965 to 1969 there was an

additional element of reliance in the fact that, given the apparent
acquiescence of the United States and the absence of any reservation
(much Jessany indication of controversy), the diplomatie and legal stance
of the Government of Canada was maintained at the /evel appropriate to
such acquiescence and the absence'of controversy. This·involved a form
of reliance, a change in the "relative positions" of the parties, which was
given express recognition by Judge Fitzmaurice in the Temple of Preah
Vihear case:

" ... what [the term 'change of position'] really means is that these
statements, or this conduct, must have ·brought about a change in
the relative positions of the parties, worsening that of the one, or
improving that of the other, or both 38."

426. Thus the element of "detriment" does not necessarily involve
only potential material harm or physical Jossbut extends to forms of reli­
ance which cause some relative "disarmament" in the legal posture of the
two States. The nature of the detriment in this sense appears in the
United States aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969, which refers to the sig­
nificance of the issuing of exploratory permits in disputed areas. After a
period of complete acquiescence in the light of full knowledge of
Canadian policies and views on the delimitation in the Gulf or Maine
'area, the United States suddenly changed its stance and reserved its
rights. Meanwhile the Government of Canada, for a period of more than
five years, had been exercising its sovereign rights and conducting its

legal affairs on the basis that there was no controversy on the general
principle of delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area. This relative disarma­
ment in the level of the maintenance of Canadian rights was a direct
result of the evident acceptance of the equidistance or median line by the
Government of the United States. As a consequence of this change in the
relative position of the Parties, the United States now "cannot be heard
to deny what it said or did 19".

i.I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 63.
39To borrow the words of Judge Fitzmaurice, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 64.[180]
MEMORIAL OF CANADA 173

Section V.Conclusi.on

427. · The absence of protest on the part of the United States Gov­
ernment in the period 1964 to 1969 in face of unequivoca\ evidence of the
views and actions of the Government of Canada constitutes in law an
acquiescence in or recognition of the equidistance Iine claimed by Canada
on the basis of international law at the material time. In addition, the
conduct of the United States in the circumstances clearly created an
estoppel in favour of Canada in respect of the line of equidistance in the
Gulf of Maine area.The consequence of these conclusions of law îs that

the single maritime boundary to be established by the Court should be
compatible with and not derogate from the rights which had vested in
Canada in the period from 1964 to 1969.174 [181-184]

PART III.SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

428. The principal conclusions àdvanced in this Memorial may be
summarized as follows:
(a) The single maritime boundary in issue is to be determined in accord·
ance with equitable principles, takjng account of ail relevant factors
pertaining to both the y.rater column and the continental shelf,
appropriately weighed and balanced in order to achieve an equ'itable
result.
(b) The configuration of the coasts in the Gulf of Maine area represents
._thestarting point for an equitable delimitation. The geographical
relationship between the coasts of the Parties and between their
coasts and the Gulf of Maine area in general and Georges Bank in
particular is marked by an overall comparability, except as noted in
sub-paragraph (fJ below.

(c) This geographical relationship is reflected in well-established pat­
terns of exploitation of the fishery resources of the area. These pat­
terns, and the dependence of Canadian coastal communities on the
fishery of Georges Bank, constitute relevant factors of fondamental
importance.
(d) The continental shelf jn the Gulf of Maine area is geologically uni­
form and continuous. There are no discontinuities or geomorphologi­
cal features that are relevant to the determination of the single mari­
time boundary.
(e) The .application of the equidistance method is appropriate in light of
ail of these circumstances.
(f) The geographical relationship between the Parties is distorted by the
exceptional protrusion of Cape Cod and its offlying islands. When
superadded to the general protrusion of the coast of Massachusetts,
this featuce exercises a disproportionate influence upon the course of
the equidistance line and thus produces an înequitable effect upon
the delimitation. The use of an appropriate basepoint on Cape Cod
Canal corrects this distortion.
(g) The application of the equidistance method in this case is consistent
with the conduct of the Parties in terms of both fisheries and conti­
nental shelf resources, with the conventional law in force between
them, and with Canada 'slong-recognized status as a coastal State in
relation to Georges Bank.

(h) The conduct of the United States, moreover, constitutes acquies­
cence in or recognition of the use of the equidistance method in the
Gulf of Maine area and the exercise of Canadian jurisdiction on
Georges Bank, and creates an estoppel jn favour of Canada; and the
single maritime boundary should be compatible with the rights
which have vested in Canada.
(i) The sjngle maritime boundary line claimed by Canada represents an
equitable solution that takes account of all relevant factors and
meets the test of a reasonable degree of proportionality.[185-188] 175

PART IV. SUBMJ.SSION

ln viewof the facts and arguments set out in this Memomayl,il
p/ease the Court to declare and adjudge that:

The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Spe­

cial Agreement concluded by Canada and the United States on
29 March 1979 is defined by geodetic lines connecting the follow­
ing geographical coordinates of points:

44° 1i° 12" N 67° \6 46" w

1 11
44° 08' 51" N 67° 16 20 w

43° 59' 12N 67° 14'3411w

1
43°49'49" N 67° 12 30" w

43° 49' 29N 67° 12 4311w

1 67° 12'24" w
43° 37 33"N

43° 03' 58N 67° 23 55" w

42° 54' 44N 67° 28'3511w

11
42°20' 371N 67° 45·,36 w

41° 56'42" N 67° 51'29" W.

11 1 11
41° 22'07 N 67° 29 09 w

40° 05' 36N . 66° 41' 59"w

27 September 1982 L.H. Legault, Q.C.
Agent for the Government
of Canada176 [189-191]

. APPENDIX

STATE PRACTICE IN MARITIME DELi MITATION

L The followîng continental shelf or maritime boundary agreements
incorporate the equidistance method for ail or parte boundary.

Parties Date of signature

Argentina/Uruguay 19/11/73

2 Australia/ lndonesia (Arafura Sea and
Pacifie Ocean) 18/05/71

3 Australia/Indonesia (Arafura Sea) 12/02/73

4 Burma/Thailand 25/07/80

5 Colombia/Dominican Republic 13/01/78

6 Colombia/ Haiti 17/02/78

7 Colombia/Panama (Carîbbean Sea and
Pacifie Ocean) 20/11/76

8 Costa Rica/ Panama (Caribbean Seaand
Pacifie Ocean) 02/02/80

9 Cuba/Mexico 26/07/76

10 Denmark/ Canada 17/12/73

11 (North Sea)eral Republic of Gennany
09/06/65
12 Denmark /Ferlerai Republic of Germany
(Baltic Sea) 09/06/65

l3 Denmark/Norway (North Sea) 08/12/65

-14 Denmark/Norway (Faeroes) 15/06/79
'
15 Finland/Union of Soviet Soci;ilist Republics 20/05/65

16 Finlan~/Union of Soviet Socialîst Republics,
extension 05/05/67

17 Ferlerai Republic of Germany /United King-
dom 25/11/71[192] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 177

Parties Date of signature

France/ Australîa (Coral Sea a_ndlndian
18
Ocean)· 02/10/80

19 France/Tonga 11/01/80

20 Haiti/Cuba 27/10/77

21 India/ Indonesia 08/08/74

22 India/ lndonesia, exten~ion 14/01/77

23 India/ Maldives 28/12/76

24 India/Sri Lanka (Bay of Bengal and lndian
Ocean) 23'{03/76

25 India /Thailand 22/06/78

26 lndonesia/Papua New Guinea 17/12/79

27 Iran/ Bahrain 17/06/71

28 Iran/Oman 25/07/74

29 Iran/Qatar*
20/09/69

30 Iran/United Arab Emirates* 13/08/74

31 Italy /Greece 24/05/77

32 Italy /Spain 19/02/74

33 Italy/Tunisia 20/08/71

34 Italy /Yugoslavia 08/01/68

35 Japan/Republic of Korea 30/01/74

36 Malaysia/ lndonesia (Malacca Strait and
South China Sea) 27/10/69

37 Malaysia/Thailand (Gulf of Thailand) 24/10/79

38 Mauritius/ France 02/04/80

39 Netherlands/Federal Republic of Germany 01/12/64

40 Nether lands/United Kingdom 06/10/65178 • GULF OF MAINE [193]

Parties Date of signature

41 Norway/United· Kingdorri 10/03/65

42 Norway /United Kingdom, protocol 22/12/78

43 Poland/German Democratic Republic 29/10/68

44 Poland/Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 29/08/69

45 St. Lucia/France 04/03/81

46 Saudi Arabia/Iran 24/10/68

47 Spain/ France 29/01/74

48 Sweden/German Democratic Republic 22/06/78

49 Sweden/Norway** 24/07/68

50 Tokelau/United States of America 02/12/80

51 · Trinidad and Tobago/Venezuela** 26/02/42

52 Turkey /Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 23/06/78

53 United Kingdom/Denmark 03/03/66

54 United States of America/Cook Islands 11/06/80

55 United States of America/Cuba** 16/12/77

56 United States of America/Mexico (Carib-
bean Seaand Pacifie Ocean**) 04/05/78

57 Venezuela /Dominican Republic 03/03/79

58 Venezuela/Netherlands (Aves Island/Saba) 30/03/78

59 Venezuela/United States of America 28/03/78

• ignor.ing islands
0 simplified equidistance[194] MEMORIAL OF CANADA 179
II. Continental shelf or maritime boundary agreements which do not
incorporate the equidistancc mcthod.

Parties Date of signature

Abu Dhabi/Dubai 18/02/68

2 Australia/1 ndonesia 09/10/72

3 Australia/Papua New Guinea 18/12/78

4 Chile/Peru I8/08/52

5 Colombia/Costa Rica 17/03/77

6 Colombia/ Ecuador 23/08/75

7 Ferlerai Republic of Germany / Denmark 28/01/71

8 Finland/Sweden 29/09/72

9 France/ Brazil 30/01/81

10 Malaysia/lndonesia (Malacca Strait, exten-
sion) 21/12/71

11 ern part)lndonesia (South China Sea, east- 27/10/69

12 Malaysia/Thailand (Andaman Sea) 21/12/71

13 Maurîtania/Morocco 14/04/76

14 Netherlands/Federal Republic of Germany 28/01/71

15 Norway/Iceland 22/10/81

16 Norway/Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 29/11/57

17 Peru/Ecuador 18/08/52

18 Portugal/Spain (north and south) 12/02/76

19 Qatar/ Abu Dhabi 20/03/69

20 Saudi Arabia/Bahrain 22/02/58

21 Senegal/The Gambia (north and sonth) 04/06/75

22 Senegal/Guinea Bissau 26/04/60

23 Thailand /Indonesia 17/12/71 GULF OF MAINE
180 [195]

Parties Date of signature

24 Uruguay /Brazî[ 11/05/70

25 Venezuela/France 17/07/80

26 Venezuela/Netherlands (Aruba, Curacao,
Bonaîre) 30/03/78

Note; Copies of all .agreements listed in this Appendill, together with illustrations prepared
by the Canadian Hydrographie Service, have been deposited with the Registrar and
supplied to the Agent for the United States. 181

ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF CANADA

Volume I

CONTEMPORARY TREATIES AFFECTING THE
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC F1SHERJES,
WITH A HiSTORICAL INTRODUCTION182 GULF OF MAINE

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

A. FOREWORD

1. The fisheriès and boundary relations of Canada's Maritime
Provinces and New England have contributed much to internat.ional legal
history. The uncertainties of the boundary dîviding Maine from the
Canadian provinces, as defined in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 that con­
firmed the independence of the United States, brought about a series of

arbitral proceedings that became important precedents in the develop­
ment of modern ideas of international dispute settlement. Chief among
these were the commission set up under Jay's Treaty of 1794 to identify
the St. Croix River boundary between Maine and New Brunswick, in the
southern reaches of the boundary near the coast, and the 1814 Trea ty of

Ghent Commission to settle the sovereignty of certain islands in Pass­
amaquoddy Bay and the Bay of Fundy. Efforts to ascertain the true
boundary further inland were faced with greater difficu[ty and contro­
versy. Itwas not until 1842, through the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, that
the present boundary was finally accepted by the two countries.

2. The equalty contentious struggles over fishing rights and juris­
diction have a much longer provenance in time. The early history of the

fisheries relationship between the two countries, admîttedly, did not con­
cern îtself with Georges Bank itself or with any of the other offshore fish­
ing banks of the region; these were open seas that were free to al! who
chose to fish there. And yet, though the relevance may be indirect it is
nonetheless real; for the course of the Northwest Atlantic fisheries dis­

pute from the outset has shown patterns of continuity that shed light on
.some of the most recent events in îts evolution.

3. There are perhaps two major themes, one adversarial and the
other cooperative in nature, that emerge from this history and have con­
tinued to manifest themselves until recent times. The first of these is the
strong northward pressure constantly exerted by New England fishermen
and traders both in the French and British periods of Nova Scotia's
colonial age 1•The second is that the two cout1tries, at least when states­

manship has been the order of the day, have shown themselves capable of
solid achievements in the cooperative management of shared fishery
resources wîth a view to fostering the prosperity and stabîlity of the
industry on bath sides of the border. The unratified 1979 Agreement on
East Coast Fishery Resources was negotiated in the spirit of this coopera­

tive tradition and is in a direct line of descent from a series of earlier
agreements and arrangements on these matters.

1Harold Adams Innis:The Cod Fisheries. The History of un lmernutional EconNew.
Haven, Yale University Press, 194pp.95-143; Andrew Hill ClarkAcadie. The Geo­
graphy of Early Nova Scotiu lo 1760. Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin
Press, 1968, pp. 179-l 83, 227, 246; John Bartlett The Neutra! Yankees of Nova
Scot/a.A Marginal Colony during the Revolutionary YearNew York, Columbia Uni­
versity Press. 1937, pp. 5-49; John Bartlett BreNew England's Outpost. Acadia
Be/ore the Conques/f Canada. Hamden, Connecticut, Archon Books, 1965; John Bart­
JettBrebner:North At/amie Triangle. The lmerplay of Canada, the United States and
Great Britain.ew Haven, Yale University Press, l945. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 183

4. These major trends are complemented by three other persistent
factors. First, in the faceof the unrelenting northward pressure of New
England vessels, Canada (and, of course,· Great Britain in right of
Canada in the colonial era) has repeatedly shown forbearance in the
exercise of its jurisdictional claims against the American fishing fleet,
especially where a confrontation might have endangered the prospects for
an amicable negotiated seulement of the issues, or generally threateried
relations or a clash of arms. Secondly, in the days when trade relations

were conducted on a purely bilateral basis and without regard to the gen­
eral rules of law and policy that now apply, Canadian (and Newfound­
land) dependence on the United States export market for the sale of fish
was a major factor in the acceptance of an American fishing presence off
the coasts of the British Dominions. A third factor, closely allied to the
second one, was·American dependence on Canadian inshore waters and
ports, first for dryîng facîlities, shelter, hait and supplies, and afterwards,
in the last quarter of the nineteenth centory; for the trans-shipment of

catches and the recruitment of skilled and experienced Nova Scotia
schooner seamen - both fishermen and skippers - to opera:te New Eng­
land vessels and dories.184 GULF OF MAINE

8. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THI: TREATY OF PARIS OF 1783

5. The fishery played a significant part in the events leading up to
the American Revo\ution and the independence of the United States. ln
the rising tensions of 1775, Lord North, the British Prime Minister
known for his harsh policies in regard to the American colonies, induced

Parliament to pass the Restraining Act that curbed the trading activities
of the rebellious provinces and colonies of New England. The Statute
recited that -

"... during the Continuance of the Combinations and Disorders,

which at this Time prevail within the Provinces of Massachusetts
Bay and New Hampshire, and the Colonies of Connecticut and
Rhode Island, to the Obstruction of the Commerce of these King­
doms, and other [of] His Majesty's Dominions, and in Breach and
Violation of the Laws of this Realm, it is hîghly unfit that the
lnhabitants of the said Provinces and Colonies should enjoy the

same Privîleges of Trade, and the same Benefits and Advantages to
which His Majesty's faithful and obedient Subjects are entitled ".

Article VII, in particular, provided that the fishermen of these colonies
might not, on pain of forfeiture of the vesse] and of ail its cargo and
equîpment, carry on any fishery -

".... on the Banks of Newfound/and, the Coast of Labrador, or
within the River or Gulph of Saint Lawrence, or upon the Coast of
Cape Breton, or Nova Scotia, or any other Part of the Coast of
North America. .. 3".

6. The American colonies retaliated by prohibiting their residents

from supplying British fishing vessels wîth provisions. The next step in
this escalation was a British Prohibitory Act of 17764, forbidding ail
nations to trade with the American colonies. Only one month later the
hostilities of the Revolutionary War broke out. The American fishery and
its profitable supply trade to Nova Scotia and other colonies and prov­
inces of British North America were seriously hampered until several
years after the peace.

7. The restoration of American fishing rights off Nova Scotia and
the other British North American colonies figured prominently in the

2 15 Geo.111chap. !O.

3 J5 Geo.111chap. 1O.

• 16 Geo. Il I, c5.p. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 185

negotiations concerning American independence. The matter was of par­
ticular concern to John Adams, who was one of the American commis­
sîoners at the Paris negotiations, along with such other figures of the day
as Benjamin Franklin and John Jay. Article III of the Treaty of Paris of

1783 reinstated the American fisheries off the British coasts of the
Northwest Atlantic in terms that distinguished between the "right" to
fish in the open sea and on the banks of Newfoundland - the bank fish­
eries, in other words, that were not within territorial waters - and the
"liberty" to fish incoastal waters. The distinction wou1d later acquire a

fondamental significance.
8. The fisheries provisions of the Treaty of Paris were generous to

the Americans. The "liberty" of fishing extended throughout the coastal
waters of the British colonies on the Atlantic coast, and carried with it, in
more limited areas, the important ancillary privilege to dry and cure fish
on certain unsettled shores. When the Comte de Vergennes, the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs, saw the provisional articles, he commented

that the British had "bought a peace" rather than. made one, and that
their concessions exceeded anything he had thought possibles. Not sur­
prisingly, the treaty was unpopular in Nova Scotia, with its large popula­
tion of loyalist émigrésfrom the thirteen colonies.

1"Trealies Affecting the NortheasteFisheries." United States Tarif! Commission Report
No. 152,Second Series (l944) (hereinafter referred to as The United States Tariff Commission
Repor1).Washington, U.S. Govemment Printing Office, 1944,p. 16, citîng F. Whaed.:,
The Revolutionary Dip/omaticCorrespondence of the United House$MiscellaneousDoc­
ument 603, 50th Congress, 1st session, 1889, Vol. 6, p. 107. Vergennes had earlier taken the
view, in Septemberf 1779,that the Americans had forfeited their share in the British fisheries
by declaring their independence. See F.Wharton, p._9.186 GULF OF MAINE

C. THE W AR OF 1812 AND ITS DIPLOMATIC ÀFTERMATH

. 9. The fisheries dispute tha't would plague relations between Brit-
ish North America and the United States for a full century was originally

sparked by the hostilities that brnke out in 1812. Great Britain main­
tained that the War of 181.2 haQ abroga ted the fishing privileges gran ted
under the Treaty of Paris. The question was a major tapie in the negotia­
tions leading to the 1814 Treaty of Ghent that ended the war, but it was
caught up with a British demand for the free navigation of the Missis­

sippi and with irreconcilable differences of legal principle respecting the
effect of the war on the Treaty of Paris. The British recognized, seem­
ingly as a right that existed independently of the treaty, that the United
States was free ta take fish on the banks of Newfoundland, and on other
banks in areas·of the open sea beyond territorial waters. But the impor­

tance of the distinction between this right, and the "liberty" granted by
the original Treaty of Paris of 1783 to fish and exercise related privileges
in the coastal waters and upon the shores of British North America, was
strongly insisted upon; and it was that "liberty" that Great Britain held
to have been irrevocably extinguished by the war. The net result was that

the Treaty of Ghent made no mention of the fisheries, and there were sei·
zures of American fishing vessels in British North· American waters in
the ensuing years.

1O. In the course of the diplomatie correspondence that sur­
rounded these events, Lord Bathurst, the British Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, offered to enter into negotiations for a "modified
renewal" of the American fishing liberties. A conference was called at

London to negotiate a settlement upon these terms. The resulting conven­
tion, signed on 20 October 1818, played a prominent part in relations
between Great Britain and the United States throughout the nineteenth
century, and dominated the fisheries relationship in Atlantic North
America. ln brief, the first article of this convention limited the Ameri­
can fisheries to certain stretches of the coast of Newfoundland, to the

Magdalen Islands, to the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and to
the Labrador coast. In ail other areas - including, of course, the entire
coast of Nova Scotia - the United States "renounced forever" the lib­
erty to fish within three marine miles of the "Coasts, Bays, Creeks or
Harbours" of British North America 6.

11. Apart from its substantive importance, one historically signifi­
can t feature of the Convention of 1818 is tha t it was perhaps the earliest
instrument that crystallized the rule of the 3-mile territorial sea 7• But it

was not this aspect of the convention that created difficulties in later
years. Rather, there were two fondamental ambiguities that became the

6British and Foreign Sta/e PapVol. 6, 1818-19. London, James Ridgway, 1835, pp. 3-
5. An accurate account is to be found in A. L. The Unired States, Great Britain
.and British North America.w York, Russell and Russell, 1961, pp. 416-426.
7See D. M: Johnston The lnternationaf Law of FisheriNew Haven, Yale University
Press,· 1965, p. 1981 n. 14. Accordto at ·least one source, the stiputhat the
"renunciation"· extended only to the 3-mile limit was important to the American negotia­
tors bécause the fïshery on the coast of Nova Scotia was conducted at a grea ter distance
from shore than was that of the Labrador coast. Access to the inshore fisheries of Nova
Scotia, in othcr words, was perceived as Jess than essential provided that the limit was not
placed too far out to seaThe United States Tarif/ Commission Repop. 32. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 187

focal point of most of the disputes between the two powers respecting the
coastal fisheries of British North America in the remainder of the nine­
teenth century and in the early part of the present century. The first of
these difficulties was the meaning that should be given to the word
"bays": did the expression mean, as the British contended, that the
Americans were to be excluded from bays of whatever size or configura­

tion, and from the 3-mile belt seaward of a line drawn from headland to
heàdland across their entrances? Or did the treaty support the opposing
view, advocated by the United States, that the 3-mile belt meant 3 miles
from the low-water mark, following the sinuosities of coast, so that ail
bays more than 6 miles broad would be open to the American fisheries?
The other persistent source of conflict in the administration of the agree­
ment was the question whether the "liberty" of engaging in the coastal

flsheries of British North America was one to be exercised in accordance
with the legislation and regulations laid down by the territorial authori­
ties. Or was it intended instead to be subject only to such contrais as the
United States itself might choose to impose?

12. Although the rights and privileges extended by the l818 con­
vention were very extensive indeed, they were Jess generous than those set
forth in the original Treaty of Paris of 1783. Perhaps the greatest single
difference was the restriction of American fishing vessels to areas outside
the 3-mile limit along the coasts of the Maritime Provinces. The most

assertive of the British colonial authorities in this regard, it seems, was
the legislature of Nova Scotia, which in 1836 passed a law commonly
referred to as the Hovering Act, imposing stringent penalties upon unau­
thorized fishermen within the 3-mile limit laid down by the 1818 conven­
tion - including, of course, the waters within the headland to headland
closing lines asserted by the British to be requîred by a proper interpreta~
tian of the convention.

13. One rather threatening incident precipitated by the difference
of views between the two powers with respect to the question of jurisdic­
tion over bays was the seizure of the American schooner Washington in

the Bay of Fundy in 1843. This incident, along with another seizure fur­
ther north in the area of Cape Breton Island, again withîn a headland to
headland closing line, took on dimensions that threatened peaceful rela­
tions in the area and engaged the attention of the high authorities of both
Britain and the United States. The immediate issue was settled, without
any sacrifice of principle, by an undertaking on behalf of Great Britain
that United States fishermen would again be allowed into the Bay of
Fundy. Later, however, in 1853, the matter was referred to an umpire
appointed under a daims convention of 8 February 18538, and his deci­

sion was adverse to the British case.

"One of a number of concilia tory mcasures takcn ~y Great Britain and the United States to
dampen the atmosphere of hostility and promole relations to the point where negotia tions
British Foreign and Srate PapeVol. 42, 1852-1853. London, William Ridgway, 1865,See
p.34.188 GULF OF MAINE

D. THE RECIPROCITY TREATY OF 1854

14. The inte'rests of the inland communitîes of Canada becamc

cntanglcd with the fisheries dispute when it became apparent during the
1840s that Canadîan economic interests of a general character favourcd
reciprocal trade with the United States. American fisheries privileges
began to be seen as part of the quid pro quo for favourable tcrms of
trade, and the two issues became linked in the diplomacy of the day and

remained a persistent theme of both Liberal and Conservative adminis­
trations in Canada until 1899 9•During the same period, tensions over the
enforcement of the British interpreta tion of the Convention of 1818 were
increasing dramatically; and an accord between the British North Ameri­

can colonies was concluded at Toronto in 1851 for the specific purpose of
building up an enforcement fleet for the protection of the Atlantic fisher­
ies. ln 1852, the Imperia! Government itself announced its intention to
despa tch a small navaI force of vessels to enforce the 1818 convention. A
similar force was built up by the United States at Portsmouth, New

Hampshire. Much of this activity, undoubtedly, was in the nature of
"sabre rattlirig". The British naval forces had orders tà continue the car­
lier policy of restraint in the Bay of Fundy, and to exercise their powers
with leniency elsewhere; and Commodore Shubrick of the United States

had. equally concilia tory instructions. But· the dangers were nonetheless
real; and Lord Elgin, the Governor General of Canada, said in a speech
given at about this time that "a single indiscretion on the part of one or
the other of those naval officers would have brought on a conflict involv­
ing all the horrors of war 1".

15. Formai negotiations were undertaken in 1853, and in 1854

Lord Elgin himself look charge of the matter in Washington for the Brit­
ish Government. What emerged was the famous Reciprocity Treaty of
1~54, said to have been "floated through on champagne" by Lord Elgin 11.
lt dealt in a comprehensive manner with both the general trade and the
fisheries questions. American fishing rights along virtually the wholc

coast of British North America were reinstated on essentially the same
basis as had obtained in the Treaty of Paris of 1783. More specifically,
the Reciprocity Treaty granted to the United States fishermen the right
to take fish of every kind, except shellfish, throughout the waters of the
Maritime Provinces of Canada, without being restricted to any particular

distance from shore. In return, fish and fish oil were included in the list of

'Goldwin Smith: The Treaty of Woshing1on, 1871.lthaca, New York, Cornell University
Press, 1941, pp. 3-5; Robert Craig BrCanada's National Policy, 1883-1900.Prince­
ton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1964,-9.
10House Document 1350. 61st Congress; 3rd. Session.p.42, cited in thUnited S1a1es
Tarif/ Commission Report, p. 56.

11Lester Burrell ShippeeCanadian-American Relations, 1849-1874. New Haven, Yale
University Press, l939, pp. 82-83. See the still authoritative book by D. CThes!ers:
Reciprocily Treaty af 185Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, I96pp. 29-61. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 189

commodities subject to free trade between the United States and the Brit­
ish North American colonies. As well, British subjects were to be free to
take fish along the coast of the United States north of 36° north latitude.

16. While the Reciprocity Treaty brought a hait to the dispute
between the two powers on the proper interpretation of American fishing
rights under the 1818 convention, the respite was only temporary. A
number of factors contributed to the eventual abrogation of the treaty
only a decade or so after its adoption. There was no great dissatisfactîon
with the fisherîes provisions of the treaty. lt was rather the general

deterioration of relations between Great Britain and the United States in
the context of the events surrounding the American Civil War, and a
growing climate of protectionism in the United States, that led to its
eventual demise. Canada strongly favoured maintenance of the treaty 12•
It was the United States that took the initiative in abrogating it, effective

17 March 1866. Once aga in, therefore, the parties reverted to the original
position under the profoundly ambiguous Convention of 1818.

17. The abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, however, did not
precipitate the immediate confrontation that might have been feared. The
British and colonial authorities opted instead for a policy of moderation.
Shortly arter abrogation, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies
stated that, notwithstanding the "strict right" of the British Government

to exclude American fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, that right would
not be exercised for the coming fishing season; and further, that Ameri­
can fishermen should not be interfered with in any way unless they were
found within 3 miles of the shore or within 3 miles of a line drawn across
the mouth of any bay or indentation of Jess than 10 miles in width. A

more enduring policy of restraint was instituted by the British govern­
ment shortly thereafter: instead of simply excluding American fishermen
from Canadian waters, a ·system of licences was instituted that allowed
these fishermen to enjoy full fishing privileges on payment of a fee.

18. In 1867, the hand of the. colonial authori ties was strengt hened
by the creation of the Dominion of Canada through the federation of the
four original provinces - Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and
Québec. The "Sea Coast and lnland Fisheries" were among the catego­

rîes of exclusive legislatîve authority given to the central governmcnt of
Canada by the British North America Act of 1867, and in 1868 an Act
for the regulation of foreign fishing vessels was passed by the Parliament
of Canada. 1t was modelled in some respects after the Nova Scotia
Hovering Act of 1836, and applied stringent penalties to foreign fishing
vessels unlawfully found within waters claimed to be under Canadian
13
jurisdîction •

12Of Canada·s attempts to negotiate reciprocity with the United States, a leading authority
on the subject hawritten:"The dreary tale of fruitless pi!grimages to Washington did
not end until the turn of the century. The memory of these humiliating expcriences
exerted a considerable innuence in the repudiation by the Canadian people of the
Laurier-Taft Agreement in !911. "[The American-Canadian Reciprocity Agreement] D.
C. Masters, The Reciprocily Treaty of 1854, p. 183, n. 2!!.

'-'Fishinhy FoffiKn Ve.,·.1l,i,Statutcs of Canada 1868. chap. 61.190 GULF OF MAINE

E. THE 1871 TREAT\' 01• WASHINGTON

19. ln the wake of the American Civil War a wide variety of con­
troversies endangered peaceful relations between Great Britain and the
United States. The fishery itself was not one of the most pressing matters
at this time, but it had sufficient importance that it was included on the
list of negotiating topîcs given in instructions to both the British and the

American members of a joint High Commission appointed in 1871 to
treat on ail questions affecting the relations between the United States
and British North America.

20. During the negotiations of the Joint High Commission ïn
1871, the American negotîators offered to purèhase. in perpetuity the
enjoyment of the British North American inshore fisheries, in common
with British fishermen, for one mil!ion dollars. But the final settlement,
even though it was restricted to the fisheries and fish products, was more

favourable to the Canadian cause, largely because of the efforts of Sir
John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister, who was the colonial
member of the British commission. Instead of a perpetual right, the
Treaty of Washington gave the Americans a right to conduct fisheries in
the inshore waters of British North America for a term of ten years, with
a provision for termination on two years' notice. The free entry of fish

and fish oil was conceded as a quid pro quo; and, as well, British subjects
were to have the right to fish in American territorial waters north of the
39° north latitude. But the essential concession that led to a settlement of
this issue was that, although the United States commis.sioners thought
that the removal of duties on fish and fish oil would be worth more than
the use of the British North American inshore fisheries, they agreed tfoJ.t

the United States wou!d submit the determination of the relative value of
the fisheries provisions of the agreement to a'rbitration and would pay
whatever amount of money might be found necessary to complete an
equivalent 1•

21. That settled the immediate issue of reciprocal fishing rights,
although certainly not to the full satisfaction of Canadian opinion, which
had long perceived the fisheries· to be an integr·a1part of the larger .ques­
tion of reciprocal trade measures ilot addressed by the treaty. Prime Min­

ister Macdonald, who was attacked for having sacririced Canadiail inter­
ests to his own ambition, clearly held deep misgivings about the limited
outcome of the treaty negotiations'S. Nevertheless, he defended the seule­
ment in Parliament in the interests of Imperia! unity, and the necessary
Canadian legislation to gîve effect to the fishery articles was passed.

" John Bassett Moore:History and Digest of the lnternarional Arbitra/ions to which the
United States has been a PartWashington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 1,
p. 741.
,Donald Creighton: John A. Macdonald. The Old Chie/tain. Toronto,' The Maèmil!an
Company of Canada, 1955, pp. 84-105. · ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 191

F. THE FAiLURE OF THE BROWN-THORNTON DRAFf TREATY
AND THE HALIFAX COMMlSSION A WARD

22. lt was some time, however, before agreement could be
obtained on the establishment of the arbitration commission for the
valuation of the Canadian fisheries and the selection of the neutral mem­

ber, as'required by the Treaty of Washington. One factor th~t may have
delayed the institution of the arbitral proceedings was the accession to
power of a new Liberal government in Canada which, under Prime Min­
ister Alexander Mackenzie, felt itself mandated by an angry electorate to

effect changes in the treaty. The Liberals, like Macdonald's Conserva­
tives before them, were committed to a broader reciprocity modeiled on
the agreement of 1854. Encouraged by the initial reactions of the Ameri­
can administration, they commenced negotiations in 1874 with the objec­
tive of waiving the right of compensation for the inshore fisheries in

exchange for a wide range of reciprocal trade measures. The so-called
Brown-Thornton draft trea ty failed, however, to receive the support of
the United States Senate 1• Negotiations resumed once again over the
vexing question of the appointment of a neutral member to the commis­

sion of arbitration provided for by the 1871 Treaty of Washington. The
issue was settled and the proceedings of what ultimately became known
as the Halifax Commission commenced in 1877.

23. One of the issues put before the tribunal was the extent of
American rights in bays along the coast of British North America. On
the value of the inshore fisheries on each side of the border as such, it was
contended by the United States that most of its fisheties off British

North America were conducted on the outer banks, beyond territorial
waters. Indeed, the United States argued that the only fishery operated
by American fishermen within Canadian territorial waters was for mack­
erel, and that only a small fraction of this catch had ever been taken
wîthin these waters 17.The United States also argued that the value of its

inshore fishery that had been made available to Canadîan fishermen was
not inconsiderable. But the British contended that this reciprocal conces­
sion was valueless and that American fishing in Canadian waters was
bôth extensive and critical to the success of their industry. lndeed, the

issue at stake made it incumbent on both parti18 to minimize the value of
the other's inshore waters to their fisheries •

24. The Halifax Commission gave a decision, without written rea­
sons and not concurred in by the American commissîoner, setting the
value of access to the Canadian inshore fisheries to American fishermen
at $5,500,000. ln the end, on 21 November 1878, the United States paid

the required amount to the British authorities, but maintained, nonethe-

16L. B. ShippecCanadian-American Relatians, /849-1874,pp. 460-470.
11
J. B.Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrattorwhich the United
States has been a PartVo!. 1, p. 741.
18"Correspondence Respecting theHalifa:Fisheries Commission",British Parliamentary

University Press, l970,l. 29, pp. l-97, 1.U.P, page num bers 15-l Jl.n, Ireland, ·Irish192 GULF OF MAINE

Jess, that it could not accept the decision of the Halifax Commission as a
just evaluation of the advantages of United States access to the inshore
fisheries of Canada and that it did not acquiesce in that evaluation 19•

25. It was no doubt partly a reaction to the Halifax Commission
award, in combination with a bitter dispute between the inhabitants of
Fortune Bay in Newfoundland and American fishermen exercising their
treaty privileges in that area, that led Congress in 1883 to recommend
the termination of the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.

Notice was accordingly given, and the reciprocal fishing privileges under
this agreement were terminated at the end of 1885.

,. U11i.tedStates Tarif/ Commission Report, p. J.B. Moore, History and Digest of the
Jntemational Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party, p. 753. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 193

G. THE ABORTIVE TREATY OF. 1888 AND THE Moous VIVENDI

26. Once again the position reverted to the Convention of 1818,
and once again the old wounds were re-opened. There was extensive
enforcement action against American vessels within the 3-mile limit by
theCanadian authorities; and in 1887 the Retaliatory Act was passed by
the United States Congress authorizing the President - under an

authority he never exercised - to deny the entry of British North Ameri­
can vessels into United States ports or waters and to impose related trade
sanctions. ·

. 27. The promise of solving the fishing question in the broad con­
text of "the entire commercial relations of the two countries" held out by
the American Secretary of State Bayard, set in motion yet another joint
commission which met in Washington during 188 7 and 1888. But the

Cleveland administration, bent on tariff reform, had not fully reckoned
with the extent of protectionist sentiment in the United States Senate.
Upon meeting with their British and Canadian counterparts, the Ameri­
can commissioners hastily retreated from Bayard's position by insisting
that dîscussi1Jns be confined to the fisheries 2• Despite this major dif­
ficulty, a treaty was signed in February 1888, dealing only with the fish­

eries question. Although Great Britaîn, Canada and Newfoundland rati­
fied the treaty, the United States did not. In èontrast to the Reciprocity
Treaty of 1854 and the Treaty of Washington, the rights granted to
American fishermen along the coast of British North America (and
reciprocally to Canadian and Newfoundland fishermen along the coast of
the United States) did not extend to waters within the 3-mile limit.

Nonetheless, at least some of the old disputes under the Convention of
1818 were to have been avoided by a provision delimiting "territorial"
waters for .the limited purposes of that treaty. The 3-mile lîmit specified
in the 1818 convention would have been measured from the low-water
mark, and in the case of bays and similar indentations, this distance
would have been measured from a straight line from the point at which
21
the width of the indentation ceased to exceed 10 nautical miles •

28. Despite the non-ratification of the treaty of 1888 by the
United States the efforts of the negotiators were not entîrely in vain. At
the time the treaty was signed, the British delegation proposed and the

,oCharles Callan Tansill: Canadian-American Relati1875-1911. New Haven. Yale
University Press, 1943, p. 21; D. Creighton, John A. Macdonald. The Old Chie/tain, p.
490;R. C. Brown, Canada's National Policy, pp. 58-59. Bayard had written Sir Charles
Tupper, the Canadian plenipotentiary to the Washington talks, to proposetheat "...
only way of solving thetio vexata of the fisheries was to treat it in a straight-forward
. . . and liberal statesmanlike plan of the entire commercial relations of the two
countries". R. C. Brown, Canada's Na1ional Po/icy, pp. 58-59, 63-72; and Charles Cal!an
Tansill: The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, New York, Fordham University Press,
1940, pp. 526-529.
21"Act of the Government of Canada. assenting to the Treaty between Great Britain and
the United States of February 1J888", British and Foreign State Papen, Vol. 79,
1887-1888. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, pp. 550-554.194 GULF OF MAINE

American representatives accepted a modus vivendi to remove the old
sources of "friction and irritation" for an interim period not exceeding

two years. The modus vivendi did not deal with fishing rights as such, but
with the vitally important ancillary rights to enter ports and harbours to
purchase bait and other equipment and to trans-ship catches and take on
crews. These rights were granted to United States vessels along the coasts
of Canada and Newfoundland on condition of obtaining an annual

licence at a fee of $1.50 per ton, which licences were to have been issued
free of charge if duties on Canadian fish and related products were
removed by the United States. Although the modus vivendi was origi­
nally intended for a period of only two years, it actually remained in
effect until 1924 and undoubtedly helped to alleviate many of the. con­

cerns that had 22sturbed the fisheries relations of the two countries in
earlier times •

21"Treaty of Washington and two Protocols establishing a modus vivendi", ·British and
ForeignSta/e Papers, Vol. 79pp. 264-276; Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard, May
30, 1888, and enclosure, "Licence to United States Fishing VessePapers Relating to
the Foreign Relations of the United StatePart 1. Washington, U.S. Government Print­
ing Office. 1889, p. 808. · ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 195

H.THE NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES ARBITRATION OF 1910

29. 1n the ensuing years, the focal point of North American fish­
eries diplomacy shifted to the waters off Newfoundland. lt was primarily
a n umber of difficu hies concern ing United States fisheries in those
waters, in combination with the still unresolved dispute under the Con­

vention of 1818, that induced the parties to submit a cornprehensive list
of questions concerning their rights and obligations in this matter to the
recently established Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.
Among the more important questions submitted were the matters of the
proper definition to bè given to bays and similar indentations under the
1818 convention, and the extent to which American fishermen exercising

their rights under that trcaty would be subject to British, Canadian or
Newfoundland fisheries legislation. ·
3
30. The decision of The Hague Tribunal2 on the mattcr of bays
and historie waters is we\l known in the annals of international jurispru­
dence and has undoubtedly made a major contribution to the modern law
of the sea. Less well known, perhaps, but equally important at the time
was the award of the Tribunal on the question of the extent to which the
British, Canadian and Newfoundland authorities had the right to regu­

late American fishermen in the exercise of their treaty rights. In essence,
the decision on this point was that the right of regulation was inherent in
the sovereignty of Great Britain, and was not restricted by any purported
international servitude created by the treaty. But such measures might
not lawfully violate the treaty "liberties", and the Tribunal laid down cri­

teria and recommèndations with respect to the proper limits of legislation
or regulations affecting this matter.

31. The parties had reserved to themselves the right to vary the
award in certain respects, and in pursuance of that understanding they
entered into an agreement in 1912 on the deta iled implementa tian of cer­
tain aspects of the award. The recommendations of The Hague Tribunal
on the limits of bays were adopted so far as they related to Canadian
bays. With respect to the regulatory powers of Great Britain and the
colonial authorities, a Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission was estab­

lished in conformity with the Tribunal's recommendation that an impar­
tial authority should be established to resolve disputes. It would appear,
however, that with The Hague decision of 1910 the old controversies had
been very largely laid to rest, and recourse to the Permanent Mixed Fish­
ery Commission was seldom if ever required.

32. The decision of The Hague Tribunal and the implementing
agreement of 1912 largely disposed of the legal aspects of the fisheries
problem. In subsequent years, it was mainly bilateral trade and tariff

matters affecting the trade in fish that captured the attention of the two
governmen ts.

21
Atlantic Fisheries",itish and Foreign State PapVol. 103, I909-1910. London, Hisorth
Majesty'sStationery Office, !91pp.86-132; J.B. ScottThe Hague Court Reports.
New York, Oxford University Press, 19l6, p. 141.196 GULF OF MAINE

33. Toward the end of the First World War, a Canadian-Ameri­
2
can Fisheries Conference was held to negotiate current issues •. No for­
mal treaty actually emerged from these talks, but they did produce a
positive result: it was agreed that the fishermen of both countries would
be given reciprocal privileges to go into the ports of the other country to
sell their catch and to take on provisions. By this time, advancing tech­

nology in the industry, particularly in the use of powered trawlers with
greater range and self-sufficiency, was creating new patterns and require­
ments that largely eclipsed the inshore fisheries as a matter of major
bilateral concern. Direct access to the fresh fish markets of the United
States, on the other hand, was obviously an advantage of undiminished

economic value. In its final report, the Canadian-American Fisheries
Conference recommended "that the markets of both countries be made
available to the fishermen of both on the same terms 2s". But the port
privileges granted under this informai arrangement (commonly referred
to as the Hazen-Redfield Pact) had originally been implemented in the

United States only as a war measure, and were terminated by the United
States in 1921. A second blow to the Canadian fishing industry followed
in 1922, when the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, which has been described
as an "alrnost prohibitive wall against the importation of Canadian fish",
was imposed by the United States 2•

34. ln the immediate wake of the cancellation of the Hazen-Red­

field Pact, tensions began to rise and there were a number of seizures of
United States vessels in Canadian waters. Canada attempted once again
to negotiate a new treaty based, inter alia, on free trade in the fishery
and reciprocal port privîleges, but these efforts were in vain 27• Mean­
while, in the hope that a policy of moderation would be reciprocated, the

old modus vivendi pri.vileges,granting United States fishermen the use of
Canadian ports, were maintained by Canada despite the political and
economic pressures created by the combined impact of the abandonment
of the Hazen-Redfield Pact and the imposition of the Fordney Tariff.
Eventually, however, the modus vivendi privileges were cancelled, in
1924. The Government of Canada îssued a statement explaining its

action in this regard, stating that "from the action of the United States
authorities the obvious conclusion was reached that little or no value was
attached by the people of the United States to the privileges that Canada
had been voluntarily extending for so long a period 23".

"American-Canadian Fisher/es Conference Hearings. Washington: U.S. Government
Printîng Office, 1918.
isCanadian Annual Review of Public Aff airs, 1921Toronto, The Canadian Review Com­
pany, 1922, p.35.

16R. Grant: Th~ Canadian Atlantic Fishery.Toronto, The Ryerson Press, J934, pp. 119,
136; H. L Keenleyside and G. S. Brown: Canada and the United States. New York,
Alfred A. Knopf, 1952, p. 244; Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs, 1922.
Toronto, The Canadian Review Company, 1923, p.14.
7
1 Canadian Ann1,1a/Review of Public Affain, /922, p. 80; Canadian Annual Review of
Public Aff airs, /92p. 137.
'"Canadian Annual Review of Public Aff airs, 1923.Toronto, The Canadian Review Com­
pany, 1924,pp.54-55. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 197

35. It was undoubtedly irue that the value of the modus vivendi

privileges to American fishermen had declined. Their abrogation did not,
therefore, have a serious. impact on the United States fisherîes off
Canada's coasts 2• With the election of the Roosevelt administration in
1933, some of these privileges were restored, as were lower American

tariffs with the passage of the United States-Canada Trade Agreement in
1936. These privileges were maintained in effect until fairly recent times.

29H. L. Keenleyside and G. S. Brown, Canada and the United States, p. 246, aswell as R.
Grant. The Canadian Atlantic Fisher)i, p. !20. and the autbors of the United States
Tarif! Commission Report, p. 151. support the conclusion that the new lrawler tech-
nology diminished the real value othe modus vivendi. ·198 GULF OF MAINE

1. [NSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION

36. Perhaps the most significant development in the early part of
this century was the emergence of international institutional arrange­
ments for the conservation and management of the fisheries of the North­
west Atlantic, inspired no doubt in part by the formation in 1902 of the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. In 1921, Canada
and the United States,.along with Newfoundland and France, formed the
North American Council on Fisheries Investigations 30• This council had

no independent powers but it dîd serve as a useful forum for the exchange
of information and views on the conservation of the fisheries of this
region, and it brought into existence an exceptional Canadian-American
scientific cooperation that flourished in later years. This body was a pre­
cursor of the more elaborate international fishery commissions of the
years after the Second World War.

37. Early in 1949, a diplomatie conference at Washington
adopted a text for an "International Convention for the Northwest Atlan­
tic Fisheries", the main fonction of which was to establish the Interna­
tional Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). The

convention came into force on 3 July 1950 with both Canada and the
United States, along with a number of European countries, as charter
members.

38. The regulatory and scîentific history of ICNAF is long and
complex, but a very positive aspect of its operations was the cooperative
relationship that was established between the United States and Canada
as the coastal States for that part of the convention area that included
Georges Bank. By the mid-1970.s, however, Canadian and United States
fishermen were pressing for the adoption of the 200-mile limit. The
United States Government was authorized to abrogate its exîsting fisher­
ies treaties by the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976,

and it accordingly withdrew the United States from ICNAF on 3l
December 1976. At Canada 's urging, negotiations leading to the estab­
lishment of a successor organization to be known as the Northwest Atlan­
tic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) were conductecl in a series of meet­
ings at Ottawa in 1977 and 1978, and the NAFO Convention came into
force on l January 1979. Canada remained a member of ICNAF until it
became defunct at the end of 1979, and is now a member of NAFO. The
United States, however, is not3 The •ew organization - whose geo­
graphical area of concern is identical to the former ICNAF area - has

:!Conadion Annua/ Review of Public Affairs. 1921,p. 133; North American Council on
Fisheries Investigations, Proceedings of the Counci/1, 921-1930. Ottawa, King's
Printer, 1932.
" Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, Annuo/ Report, Vo!, 1979. Dartmouth,
Nova, ~tia, 1980, pp.57, 76, 77: Northwest i\tlantic Fisheries Organization, Scie~tific
Cauncil Reports, 1981, Dart~outh, NovaScotta,1981'.p.·7; Yeorboo_kof lntern~Ul~nol
Orgonizations, 19th edition, item C1537g. Brussels, Umon of Tnternat1onal Associalions,
Octoher 198J. · ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 199

essentially two functions. First, it regulates the fisheries beyond the 200-
mile limit in much the same manner as did ICNAF before the general
extension of'fisheries jurisdiction; and secondly, it serves as a vehicle for

international scientific cooperation within the200~mile lîmit.200 GULF OF MAINE

J. THE 8EGINNINGS OF JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE: 1960-1977

39. The Canadian Atlantic fishery has never been a distant-water
operation. The fleet, by and large, has confined its range to adjacent

waters and offshore banks. The capital-intensive technologies of the post­
war era - giant trawlers with their long-range capability and enor­
mously increased catching capacity, floating canneries and freezer plants,
mother ships and support vessels - were never a feature of the Canadian
industry. The coastal communities of Atlantic Canada therefore felt the

impact of the distant-water fisheries explosion of the 1950s and 1960s
with particular intensity; and this put Canada in the forefront of those
nations that sought to bring the rights of coastal and distant-water States
into a more equitable balance that would reflect the fondamental changes
that had taken place.

40. This was the context in which a number of jurisdictional

changes took place in the fifteen years preceding the creation of the 200-
mile zones. In 1964, Canada established a 9-mile fishing zone adjacent to
her existing 3-mile territorial sea 32• But the policy of the Government of
Canada was to phase in this extension of jurisdiction with a minimum of
friction and disruption. Therefore, United States fishing vessels, along

with those of France and a number of distant-water fishing countries,
were authorized by a regulation passed immediately before the extension
of jurisdiction, to continue to fish in the newly created fishing zones
pending the outcome of negotiations 33• This unilateral exemption for
United States vessels was continued in effect by Canada throughout the

decade, even though no agreement on the subject was concluded until
1970.

41. There were further developments in the ensuing years. The
United States created its own 9-mile fishing zone in 1966, while Canada
promulgated a number of straight baselines in 1967 off Newfoùndland,
and .in 1969 off Nova Scotia and British Columbia •. Subsequently, in

" Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act. Statutes or Canada 1964-1965, chap. 22, and con­
solidated as amended in Revised Statutes of Canada 1970. chap. T-7.

" Unticensed foreign fishing vessels were prohibited from entering Canadian fisheries
watersby the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Statutes of Canada 1952-1953, chap. 15,
consolidated as amended in Revised Statutes of Canada l970, chap. C-21. Licences were
issued under the authority of regulations made pursuant to the Act: see the Coas/al
FisheriesProtection Regulatioru, amended, P.C.1964-1112 of 17 July 1964, pub!ished in ·
the Canada Gazelle. Part 11.Vol. 98, No. 15, 12 August 1964.
l-Straight baselines were established pursuant to regulations made under the authority of
the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, Statutes of Canada 1964-1965, chap. 22. For
Newfoundland see the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Geographic Co-ordinales
(Areas /, 2 and 3) Order, P.C. 1967-2025, 26 October 1967, published in the Canada
Gazette,Pari 11, Vol. 101, No. 21, 8 November 1967. For Nova Scotia and British
Columbia, see the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Geographical Co-ordinales (Zones
4, 5 and 6) Order. P.C. 1969-1109, 29 May 1969, published in the Canada Gazelle, Part
Il, Vol. 103. No. 11, 11 June l969. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA
201

1970, Canada enacted legîslation extending the .breadth of its territorial
sea to 12 nautical miles, and authorizing the creation or additional fish­
ing zones adjacent to the coasts or Canada 15.In 1971, Canada exercised
these new statu tory powers to create expanded fishing zones by esta blish­
ing fishery "closing lines" across the Bay or Fundy, the Gulf or St. Law­
rence, and the waters of the lnsîde Passage off British Columbia.

42. In the wake of these developments, the first of the recent
reciprocal fishing agreements with the United States was concluded on
24 April 1970. Itwas essentially an agreement to a\low traditional coast­

wide fishing operations to continue despite the various extensions of jurîs­
diction that had occurred in the 1960s and ear Iy 1970s (unaccom panied
by new agreements on maritime boundaries), and thus to avert both juris­
dictional conflict between the two countries and hardship for the fisher­
men. In effect, the agreement placed on a treaty basis the informai
arrangement that had existed between the two countries since the crea­
tion of their 9-mîle exclusive fishing zones.

43. The wording of the 1970 agreement was intricately framed
with respect to the geographical scope of the reciprocal fishing privileges

it conferred so as to allow traditional patterns of fishing to continue in the
newly claimed areas of the sea, while meticulously avoiding expressions
that might prejudice the legal position of either party on any of these
matters. In practîcal effect, fishing was alJowed to continue in the areas
from 3 to 12 miles from the coast, but only outside Canadian bays Jess
than 24 miles in breadth. The agreement set forth, in addition to its more
detailed provisions, an undertaking to cooperate in the management of

fishery resources of common concern. lt was originally for a term of two
years, but it was renewed successively (with technical changes in 1973)
until April 1977. At that time it was replaced with an interim agreement
adopted upon the creation of the 200-mile zones of the parties.

44. The înterim agreement was renewed in 1978 but this renewed
agreement never came into force owing to disputes over its interpretation
and application. Transboundary fishing by Canadian and United States
vessels was thereupon terminated, in the expectation that itwould resume
upon the entry into force of the 1979 Agreement oriEast Coast Fishery
Resources, to which Canada and the United States now turned their

attention. That agreement, however, was not ratified by the United
States. lts provisions and îts significance are discussed in the main body
of the Canadian Memorial. lt represented perhaps the most ambitious
joint undertaking in the alternating pattern of conflict and cooperation
that marks the history of the Northwest Atlantic fisheries dispute, which
is now before the Court in its maritime boundary aspects.

H Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, chap. T-7 was
amended by the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, Revised Statu tes of Canada 1970
(1st Supp. ), chap. 45, which entered into force 26 June 1970. lt was under the authority
of this amended Act that 200-mile fîshing zones were created hy the Fishing Zones of
Canada (Zones 4 and 5) Order, P.C. 1977-!, 1 January !977, published in the Canada
Gazelle, Parli, Votll l, extra edition, 1 January 1977.202 GULF OF MAINE

Annex 1

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC flSHERIES*

ÛPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT WASHINGTON, 0.C., ON 8FEBRUARY 1949

CANADIAN RATIFICATION ÜEPOSITED ON 3 JULY 1950
CAME INTO FORCE ON 3 JULY 1950

[Not reproducedj

Annex :Z

PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC

flSHERIES SIGNED AT WASHINGTON UNDER ÜATE OF 8 FEBRUARY 1949**

DoNE AT WASHINGTON 25 JUNE 1956
SIGNED DYCANADA 26 JUNE 1956

INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION OF CANADA ÜEPOSITED 27 MARCH 1957
IN FORCE 10JANUARY 1959

[Not reproduced}

Annex3

l'ROTOCOLTO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC flSHERIES0 *

DoNE AT WASHINGTON 15 JULY 1963

SIGNED BYCANADA 15 JULY 1963
CANADA'S INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION ÜEPOSITED 23 JANUARY 1964

ENTERED INTO FORCE 29 APRIL 1966

[Not reproduced]

* Canada Treaty Series, 1950, No. 10.
** Canada Treaty Series. 1959, No. 4.
*** Canada Treaty Series. 1966, No. 17. ANNEXESTO MEMORIALOF CANADA 203

Annex4

PRoTOCOLS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC
FlSHERIES (1)RELATING TO MEASURES OF CONTROL (2) RELATING TO ENTRY INTO
FORCE OF PROPOSALS AooPTED DYTHE COMMISSION*

DONE AT WASHINGTON, 29 NOVEMBER 1965

SIGNED DY CANADA.13 DECEMBER 1965
CANADA'S INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION DEPOSITED l ÀPRIL 1966

ENTERED INTO FORCE 19 DECEMBER 1969

[Not reproduced}

Annex S

PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC
FISHERIES RELATING TO PANEL MEMBERSHIPAND TO REGULATORY MEASURES**

DONE AT WASHINGTON, 1 ÛCTOBER 1969
S1GNED DYCANADA 10ÛCTOBER 1969

CANADA 's INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION DEPOS!TEO 29 ÜCTOBER 1970
ENTER.ED INTO FORCE 15 ÜECEMBER 197 J

[Not reproducedj

Aonex6

l'ROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC
FISHERIES RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE CONVENTION*"'*

WASHINGTON, 6 ÛCTOBER 1970

CANADA'S INSTRUMENT OF ADHERENCE DEPOSITED 27 JULY 1972
IN FORCE 4 SEPTEMBER 1974

[Not reproducedj

* CanadaTreatySer/es, 1969, No. 34.

** CanadaTrea/ySeries, 1971, No. 16.
*** CanadaTreatySeries. 1974,No. 32.204 GULF OF MAINE

Annex7

PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
NoRTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES

DONE AT WASHINGTON, 8ÀPRIL 1975

CANADA'S INSTRUMENT OF ÀPPROVAL DEPOSITED 18SEPTEMBER 1975
IN FORCE 18 SEPTEMBER 1975

[Notreproducedj

Annex8

PROTOCOL TO THEINTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES RELATING TO
CONTINUED FuNcnONING OF THE COMMISSION

DONE AT WASHINGTON, 20 DECEMBER 1976
CANADA'S INSTRUMENT Of ÀPPROVAL DEPOSITED 9 MARCH 1977

IN FORCE 9MARCH 1977

[Notreproduced}1
[28-29] ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 205

Aooex 9

CONVENTION ON FUTURE MULTILATERAL COOPERATION IN THE
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES*

DoNE AT OTTAWA, 24 ÛCTOBER 1978
CANADA'S INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION DEPOSITED30 NOVEMBER 1978
IN FORCE J JANUARY 1979

[Pages 1-27 not reproducedj

ANNEX III TO THE CONVENTION

Scientiflc and Statistical Sub-areas, Divisions andSubdivisions

The scientificnd statistical sub-areas, divisions and subdivisions provided
for by ArticleX of this Convention shall be as follows:

1 (a) Sub-area 0
That portion of the Convention Area lying to the north of the parallel of
61°00'north latitude; bounded on the east by a line extending due north from a
point at 61°00' north latitude and 59°00' west longitude to the parallel of
69° 00'north latitude, thence in a northwesterly direction along a rhumb line to
a point at 75°00'north latitude and 73°30'west longitude and thence due north
to the parallel of 78° 10'north latitude; and bounded on the west by a line be­
ginning at61°00' north latitude and 65° 00' west longitude and extending in a
northwesterly direction along amb line to the coast of Baffin Island at East
Bluff (61°55' north latitude and 66° 20' west longitude), and thence in a
northerly direction along the coast of Baffin Island, Bylot Island, Devon Island
and Ellesmere Island and following the eightieth meridian ofwest longitude in
the waters between those islands to the parallel O'north latitude.

1 (b} Sub-areaO is composed of two Divisions:
Division 0-A
That portion of the Sub-area lying to _thenorth of the parallel of 66° 15'north
latitude;

Division 0-B
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the south of the parallel of66° 15'north
latitude.

2 (a) Sub-area 1
That portion of the Convention Area lying to the east of Ouand to the
north and east of a rhumb line joining a point at 61°00' north latitude and
59°00' west longitude with a point at 52° 15' north latitude and 42° 00' west
longitude,

" Canada TreatySerie1979,No. 11.206 GULF OF MAINE (29-31]

2 (b) Sub-area 1is composed of six Divisions:
Division !A
That portion of the Sub-area lying north of the parallel of 68°50'north lati­
tude (Christianshaab) ;

Division IB
That portion of the Sub~arealying between the parallel of 66° 15'north lati­
tude (5 nautical miles north of Umanarsugssuak) and the parallel of 68°50'

north latitude (Christianshaab);
Division IC
That portion of the Sub-area lying between the parallel of 64° 15'north lati­
tude (4 nautical miles north of Godthaab) and the parallel of 66° 15'north lati­

tude (5 nauticaJ miles north ofUmanarsugssuak);
Division ID
That portion of the Sub-area lying between the parallel of 62°30'north lati­

tude (Frederikshaab Glacier) and the parallel of 64° 15'north latitude (4 nauti­
cal miles north ofGodthaab);
Division JE

That portion of the Sub-area lying between the parallel of 60°45'north lati­
tude (Cape Desolation) and the parallel of 62°30' north latitude (Frederik­
shaab Glacier);
Division IF

That portion of the Sub-area lying south of the parallel of 60°45'north lati­
tude (Cape Desolation).
3 (a) Sub-area 2

Tha:t portion of the Convention Area lying to the east of the meridian of
64°30'westlongitude inthe area of Hudson Strait, to the south of Sub-area 0,to
the south and west of Sub-area I and to the north of the parallel of 52° 15'
north latitude.

3 (b) Sub-area 2 is composed ofthree Divisions:
Division 2G
That portion of the Sub-area lying north of the parallel of 57°40'north lati­
tude (Cape Mugford);

Division 2H
That portion of the Sub-area lying between the parallel of 55°20'north lati­
tude (Hopedale) and the parallel of 57°40'north latitude (Cape Mugford);

Division 2J
That portion of the Sub-area lying south of the parallel of 55°20'north lati­
tude (Hopedale).

4 (a) Sub-area 3
That portion of the Convention Area lying south of the parallel of 52° 15'

north latitude; and to the east of a line extending due north from Cape Bauld
on the north coast of Newfoundland to 52°15'north latitude; to the north of
the parallel of 39°00'north latitude; and to the east and north of a rhumb line
commencing at 39°00'north latitude, 50°00'west longitude and extending in a
northwesterly direction to pass through a point at43° 30'north latitude, 55°00'[31-33] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 207

west longitude in the direction of a point at 47° 50'north latitude, 6O(Y west

longitude untilitintersects a straight line connecting Cape Ray, on the coast of
Newfoundland, with Cape North on Cape Breton Island; thence in a
northeasterly direction along said Jineto Cape Ray.
4 (b) Sub-area 3 is composed of six Divisions:

Division 3K
That portion of the Sub-area lying north of the paraIlel of 49° 15'north lati­
tude (Cape Freels, Newfoundland);

Division 3L
That portion of the Sub-area lying between the Newfoundland coast from
Cape Freels to Cape St. Mary and a line described as follows : beginning at
Cape Freels, thence due east to the meridian of 46°30'west longitude, thence
due south to the parallel of 46°00'north latitude, thence due west to the merid­
ian of 54°30'west longitude, thence along a rhumb line to Cape St. Mary, New­

foundland;
Division 3M
That portion of the Sub-area lying south of the parallel of 49° 15'north lati­

tude and east of the meridian of 46"30'west longitude;
Division 3N
That portion of the Sub-area lying south of the parallel of 46°00'north lati­

tude and between the meridian of 46°30' west longitude and the meridian of
51°00'west longitude;
Division 3-0

That portion of the Sub-area lying south of the parallel of 46°00'north lati­
tude and between the meridian of 51°00' west longitude and the meridian of
54° 30'west longitude;
Division 3P

That portion of the Sub-area lying south of the Newfoundland coast and
west of a line from Cape St. Mary, Newfoundland to a point at 46°00' north
latitude, 54°30'west longitude, thence due south to the limit of the Sub-area;
Division 3P is dîvided into two Subdivisions:

3Pn - Northwestem Subdivision - That portion of Division 3P lying
northwest of a line extending from Burgeo Island, Newfoundland, approxi­
mately southwest to a point at 46° 50'north latitude and 58°50'west longitude;
3Ps - Southeastem Subdivision - That portion of Division 3P lying
southeast of the line defined for Subdivision 3Pn.
5 (a) Sub-area 4

That portion of the Convention Area lying north of the parallel of 39°00'
north latitude, to the west of Sub-area 3, and to the east of a line described as
follows: beginning at the terminus of the international boundary between the
United States of America and Canada in Grand Manan Channel, at a point at
44°46'35.346" north latitude; 66"54'11.253"west longitude; thence due south
to the parallel of 43° 50' north latitude; thence due west to the meridian of
67° 40'west longitude; thence due south to the paraIlel of 42°20'north latitude;
thence due east to a point in 66°00'west longitude; thence along a rhumb line

in a southeasterly direction to a point at 42°00'north latitude and 65° 40'west
longitude; and thence due south to the parallel of39° 00'north latitude.208 GULF OF MAJNE [33.)5]

5 (b) Sub·area 4 isdivided into six Divisions:

Division4R
That portion of the Sub·area lyingbetween the coast of Newfoundland from
Cape Bauld to Cape Ray and a line described as follows: beginning at Cape
Bauld, thence due north to the parallel of 52°15'north latitude, thence due west

to the Labrador coast, thence along the Labrador coast to the terminus of the
Labrador.Quebec boundary, thence along a rhumb line in a southwesterly
direction to a point at 49°25'north latitude, 60°00'west longitude, thence due
south to a point at 47°50'north latitude, 60°00'westlongitude, thence along a
rhumb line in a southeasterly direction to the point at which the boundary of
Sub.area 3 intersects the straight line joining Cape North, Nova Scotia with
Cape Ray, Newfoundland, thence to Cape Ray, Newfoundland;
Division 4S

That portion of the Sub.area lying between the south coast of Quebec from
the terminus of the Labrador-Quebec boundary to Pte. des Monts and a line
described as follows:beginning at Pte. des Monts, thence due east to a point at
49°25'north latitude, 64°40'west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in an
east-southeasterly direction to a point at 47° 50' north latitude, 60°00' west
longitude, thence due north to a point at 49°25' north latitude, 60°00' west
longitude, thence along a rhumb line in a northeasterly direction to the termi.
nus of the Labrador-Quebec boundary;

Division 4T
That portion of the Sub·area lying between the coasts of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswickand Quebec from Cape North to Pte. des Monts and a line described
as follows: beginning at Pte. des Monts, thence due east to a point at 59° 25'
north latitude, 64° 40'west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in a south·
easterly direction to a point at 47° 50'north latitude, 60° 00'west longitude,
thence along a rhumb line in a southerly direction to Cape North, Nova Scotia;

Division 4V
That portion of the Sub·area lyingbetween the coast of Nova Scotia between
Cape North and Fourchu and a line described as follow~: beginning at Four­
chu, thence along a rhumb line in an easterly direction to a point at40'north
latitude,60°00'west longitude, thence due south along the meridian of 60°00'

west longitude to the parallel of 44° 10'north latitude, thence due east to the
meridian of 59°00'west longitude, thence due south to the parallel of 39°00'
north latitude, thence due east to a point where the boundary between Sub·
areas 3 and 4 meets the paraIlel of 39°00'north latitude, thence along the boun­
dary between Sub-areas 3 and 4 and a line continuing in a northwesterly direc­
tion to a point at 47°50'north latitude, 60°00'west longitude, and thence along
a rhumb line in a southerly direction to Cape North, Nova Scotia;
Division 4Vis divided into two Subdivisions:

4Vn - Northem Subdivision - That portion of Division 4Vlying north of
the parallel of 45°40'north latitude;
4Vs - Southern Subdivision - That portion of Division 4Vlying south of
the parallel of 45°40'north latitude;
Division 4W

That portion of the Sub·area lying between the coast of Nova Scotia from
Halifax to Fourchu and a line described as follows: beginning at Fourchu,
thence along a rhumb line in an easterly direction to a point at 45°40' north[35-371 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 209

latitude,60°00'west longitude, thence due south along the meridian of 60°00'
west longitude to the parallel of 44° 10'north latitude, thence due east to the

meridian of 59°00'west longitude, thence due south to the parallel of 39°00'
north latitude, thence due westto the meridian of63°20'west longitude, thence
due north to a point on that meridian at 44°20'north latitude, thence along a
rhumb line in a northwesterly direction to Halifax, Nova Scotia;
Division 4X

That portion of the Sub-area lying between the we~tern boundary of Sub­
area 4 and the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia from the terminus of
the boundary between New Brunswick and Maine to Halifax, and a line de­
scribed as follows: beginning at Halifax, thence along a rhumb line in a south­
easterly direction to a point at 44°20' north latitude, 63°20' west longitude,
thence due south to the parallelof 39°00'north latitude, and thence due westto
the meridian of 65°40'west longitude.

6 (a) Sub-area 5
That portion of the Convention Area lying to the west of the western boun­
dary of Sub-area 4, to the north of the paraIle!of 39°00'north latitude, and to
the east of the meridian of 71°40'west longitude.

6 (b) Sub-area 5 is composed of two Divisions :
Division 5Y

That portion ofthe Sub-area lyingbetween the coasts of Maine, New Hamp­
shire and Massachusetts from the border between Maine and New Brunswick
to 70°00' west longitude on Cape Cod (at approximately 42° north latitude)
and a line described as follows: beginning at a point on Cape Cod at 70° west
longitude (at approximately 42° north latitude), thence due north to 42°20'
north latitude, thence due east to7°40'west longitude at the boundary ofSub­
areas 4 and 5, and thence along that boundary to the boundary of Canada and
the United States;

Division 5Z
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the south and east of Division 5Y.
Division 5Z is divided into two Sub-divisions: an eastern Subdivision and a
western Subdivision defined as follows:

5Ze - Eastern Subdivision - That portion of Division 5Z lying ea·stof the
meridian of 70°00'west longitude;
5Zw - Western Subdivision - That portion of Division 5Z lyingwest of the
meridian of 70°00'west longitude.

7 (a) Sub-area 6
That part of the Convention Area bounded by a line beginning at a point on
the coast of Rhode Island at 71°40'west longitude, thence due south to 39°00'
north latitude, thence due east to 42°00' west longitude, thence due south to
35°00' north latitude, thence due west to the coast of North America, thence
northwards along the coast of North America to the point on Rhode Island
at 71°40'west longitude.

7 (b) Sub-area 6 is composed of eight Divisions:
Division6A

That portion ofthe Sub-area lying to the north of the parallel of 39°00'north
latitude and to the west of Sub-area 5:210 GULF OF MAINE [37-38]

Division 6B
That portion ofthe Sub-area lying to the west of70° 00'west longitude, to the
south of the parallel of 39°00'north latitude, and to the north and west of a line
running westward along the parallel of 37°00' north latitude to 76°00' west
longitude and thence due south to Cape Henry, Virginia;

Division6C
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the west of 70°00'west longitude and to
the south of Subdivision 6B;

Division 6D
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the east of Divisions 6B and 6C and to
the west of 65°00'west longitude;

Division 6E
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the east of Division 6D and to the west
of 60"00'west longitude;

Division6F
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the east of Division 6E and to the west
of 55°00'west longitude;

Division 6G
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the east of Division 6F and to the west
of 50°00'west longitude;

Division 6H
That portion of the Sub-area lying to the east of Division 6G and to the west
of 42°00'west longitude. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 211

Aunex 10

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ÜOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE ÜOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON RECIPROCAL flSHING PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN

AREAS OFF THEIR COASTS*

SIGNED AT ÛTTAWA, 24 APRIL 1970
ENTERED INTO FORCE 24 APRIL 1970

* CanadaTreatySeries,1970, No. 11. 212 GULF OF MAINE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERN­
MENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON RECIPROCAL FISHING PRI­
- VILEGES IN CERl'-AIN-AREAS-OFë-THEŒ_ÇOASTS

The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of
America,

CONSIDERINGthat both Governments have established exclusive fishery
zones,

RECOGNIZING that fishermen of the two countries have traditionally fi.shed

for the .same species in certain areas now encompassed within the exclusive
fishery zones,

DEEMING it desirable to establish the terms and conditions under which
nationals and vessels of each of the two countries may conduct, on a reciprocal
basis, commercial fishing operations within certain areas off their coasts, and

HAVINGin mind the mutuality of interest on the part of the two countries
in the conservation and rational exploitation of certain living marine resources
off their coasts,

Have agreed as follows:

1. For the purposes of this agreement,

(a) the reciprocal fishing area of the United States of America shall be
the fishing zone established in 1966 south of 63° north latitude;

(b) the reciprocal fishing area of Canada shall be' as follows:

(i) in those "Areas" listed in Order-in-Council P.C. 1967-2025 and
Order-in-Council P.C. 1969-1109, issued by the Government of

Canada on November 8, 1967, and June 11, 1969, respectively,
those waters extending 9 miles seaward of the territorial sea
of Canada as it existed in 1966;

(ii) in those areas not lîsted in the Orders-in-Council cited above,
those waters south of 63° north latitude which are contiguous to

and extend from three to twelve miles from the coast of Canada,
with the exception of bays where they cease to exceed 24 miles
in breadth.

Nothing in this agreement shall affect waters other than those referred to in
this paragraph.

2. Nationals and vessels of each country may continue to fish within the
reciprocal fishing area of the other country, except that there shall be no
such fishing for the following:

(a) any species of clam, scallop, crab, shrimp, lobster or herring; ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 213

(b) any salmon other than salmon taken by trolling off the Pacifie coast
northward from a line projected due west from the Cape Disappoint­
ment Light (46° 18' N) and southward from a line projected due west
from the Cape Scott Light (50° 46.9' N).

Subject to its domestic legislation, each .Government will continue to
permit transfers of herring between nationals and vessels of the two countries

within the reciprocal fishing areas west and north of a line drawn between
Cape .Sable, Nova Scotia, and Race Point, Massachusetts. The Governments
agree that the principal purpose of this provision is to enable the continuation
of transfers of herring intended for purposes other than reduction and, further,

that t&ey will meet within one year to assess the status of the herring stocks
of the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Maine to determine whether restrictions
on fishing or fish use are necessary.

3. Nationals and vessels of either country will not initiate fisheries within

the reciprocal fishing area of the other country for species which are fully
utilîzed by fishermen of the latter country. If fishermen of either country wish
to initiate a- fishery within any part of the reciprocal fishing area of the other

country for species not fully utilîzed, their Government will first consult with
the other Government and reach an understanding concerning conditlons for
such a fishery.

4. Regulations established by one country pertaining to the taking or
possession of fish wîthîn îts reciprocal fishing area shall apply equa1ly to the

nationals and vessels of both countries operating within such area. Such regula­
tions shall be enforced by the Government which issued them. Should either
Government consider it necessary to alter such fishery regulations,-that Govern­
ment shull notify the other Government of such proposed changes 60 days in

advance of their application. Should such changes in fishery regulations require
major changes in fishing gear an adequate period of time, up to one year, will
be afforded the nationals and vessels of the other country to adapt to such

changes prior to their application.

5. The two Governments recognize the importance of maintaining the

fishery resources in their reciprocal fishing areas ·at appropriate levels. Bath
Governments agree to continue and expand cooperation ïn both national and
joint research programs on species of common interest off their coasts-. The

appropriate agencies of the two Governments will arrange for exchanges and
periodic joint reviews of .scientific information.

6. Nothing in this agreement shall prejudice the claims or views of
dther of the parties concerning internai waters, territorial waters, or jurisdic- 214 GULF OF MAINE

tion over ·fisheries or the resources of the con tînen tal shelf; further, nothing
in this agreement shall affect either bilateral or multilateral agreements to

which either Government is a party.

7. This agreement shall remain in force for a period of two years. Rep­
resentatives of the two Governments will meet annually or as mutually deemed
necessary, but in any event prior to the expiration of the period of validity

of this agreement, to review its operation and decide on future arrangements.
The two Governments further agree, in connection with the provisions of
paragraph 2 (b) of this agreement, to consult within one year regarding all
matters of mutual concern related to the fisheries for Pacifie salmon.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective representatives have signed this
Agreement.

DONE in two copies, in the English and French languages, each Ianguage
version being equally authentic, at Ottawa this twenty-fourth day of April,
1970.

EN FOI de quoi les fondés de pouvoir respectifs ont signé le présent Accord.

FAIT en doubie exemplaire, en français et en anglais, chacune des deux
versions faisant égaiement foi, à Ottawa, ce 24' jour d'avril 1970.

A. W. H. NEEDLER

For the Government of Canada
Pour le Gouvernement du· Canada

DONALD L. McKERNAN

For the Government of the United States of America
Pour le Gouvernement des Êtats-Unis d'Amérique ANNEXESTO MEMORIALOF CANADA 215

Annex 11

EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE ÜOVERNMENTS OF CANADA AND THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA EXTENDING FOR ÛNE YEAR FROM 24 APRIL 1972 THE
AGREEMENT SIGNED AT ÛTI AWA 24 APRIL 1970 CONCERNING RECIPROCAL
FiSHING PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF THEIR COASTS*

ÛTIAWA, 7 AND21 APRIL 1972

ENTERED INTO FORCE 21 APRIL 1972

{Not reproduced]

~ Canada Treaty Series, 1972, No. 13.216 GULF OF MAINE

Annex12

EXCHANOE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE ÜOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
ÜOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNlNO THE EXTENSION OF .
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE Two COUNTRIES ON R.ECIPROCAL FISHING

PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF ThEIR COASTS SIGNED AT ÛTTAWA
24APRIL 1970*

WASHINGTON, 19APRIL 1973
IN FORCE 19APRIL 1973

* Canada Treaty Series, 1973, No. 16. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 217

EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNING THE
EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES ON
REClPROCAL FISHING PRMLEGES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF THEIR
COASTS SIGNED AT OTTAWA APRIL24. 197()(')

I
THE SECRET ARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TO THE AMBASSADOR OF CANADA

WASHINGTON, April 19, 1973

EXCELLENCY:

I have the honor to refer to the Agreement between the Government of
the United States of America and the Government of Canada on reciprocal
fishing privileges in certain areas off their coasts signed at Ottawa April 24,
1970. Representatives of the two Governments having met in Washington
from April 10-14, 1973 to discuss amendment and extension of the Agreement,
I have the honor to propose that, having in mind certain continuing discus­
sions which are pertinent to the provisions of paragraph 2(b), this agreement
shall be extended until April 24, 1974, subject to the following provision: after
May 15, 1973, provided that both Governments agree that sufficient progress
toward a final solution of the total west Coast salmon problem bas been made

during the discussions in early May 1973, fishing for salmon under the terms
of paragraph 2(b) shall be reduced to the following areas:

off the Pacifie coast of the United States, seaward of a line joining Bonilla
Point and Tatoosh Island and bounded on the south by a line projected
due west from Cake Rock,· (latitude 47 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds
north);

off the Pacifie coast of Canada, between a lîne extending seaward from
Cape Beale perpendicular to a line joining Cape Beale and Pachena Point
and westward of a line joining Boriilla Point and Tatoosh Island;

or to any other areas which may be agreed to by both Governments; or it shall
be reduced in any other manner agreed to by bath Governments.

If both Governments do not so agree, this Agreement shall expire on June
15, 1973. However, representatives of the two Governments shall meet prior to
any expiry date to decide on arrangements for possible amendment and/or
extension of this agreement. ·

I have further the honor to propose that, if acceptable, this note and your
reply accepting this proposai, -in bath the English and French languages, be
regarded as constituting an agreement between the two Governments, which
Agreement shall enter into force on the date of your reply note.

'" TreatSeries1970 No. 11 218 GULF OF MAINE

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

DONALD L. McKERNAN

For the Secreta111 of State
His Excellency
Marcel Cadieux,

Ambassador of Canada. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 219

II

THE AMBASSADOR OF CANADA TO THE SECRET ARY OF STATE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Washington, April 19, 1973

Note No. 144

EXCELLENCY:

I have the honour to refer to your Note of April 19, 1973 concerning the
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the
United States of America on reciprocal fishing privileges in certain areas off
their coasts signed at Ottawa on April 24, 1970°>;and proposing that, having in
mind certain continuing discussions which are pertinent to the provisions of
paragraph 2(b), this Agreement shall be extended until April 24, 1974, subject
to the following provision: after May 15, 1973 provided that both Governments
agree that sufficient progress toward a final solution of the total west coast
salmon problem has been made during the discussions in early May 1973,
fishing for salmon under the terms of paragraph 2(b) shall be reduced to the
following areas:

off the Pacifie coast of the United States, seaward of a line joining Bonilla
Point and Tatoosh Island and bounded on the south by a line projected

due west from Cake Rock, (latitude 47 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds
north);
off the Pacifie coast of Canada, between a line extending seaward from
Cape Beale perpendicular to a line joining Cape Beale and Pachena Point
and westward of a line joining Bonilla Point and Tatoosh Island;

or to any other areas which may be agreed to by both Governments; or it shall
be reduced in any other manner agreed to by both Governments.

If both Governments do not so agree, this Agreement shall expire on June
15, 1973. However, representatives of the two Governments shall meet prior to
any expiry date to decide on arrangements for possible amendment and/or
extension of this Agreement.

In reply I have the honour to inform you that the proposa! set forth in
your Note is acceptable to the Government of Canada, who agree that your
Note and this reply in both the English and French languages shall constitute
an Agreement between our two Governments, which Agreement shall enter
into force on the date of this reply.

Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

M.CADIEUX
Ambassador

The Hon. William P. Rogers,
Secretary of State,

Washington, D.C.

n, Treaty Series 1970 No. 11220 GULF OF MAINE

Annex13

AGREEMENT BETWEENTHE ÜOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE ÜOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA ON RECIPROCAL fISHING PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN
AREAS OFF TuEIR COASTS*

SIGNED AT 0rrAWA, 15 JUNE 1973

IN FORCE 16 JUNE 1973

[Not reproduced)

Anoex14

EXCHANGE OF NOTES 8ETWEEN THE ÜOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXTENDING FOR A PERIOD OF
fOURTEEN (14)DAYS THE AGREEMENT ON RECIPROCAL fISHERIES,

DATED 15JUNE 1973**

ÜTTAWA, 24 APRIL 1974
IN FORCE 24APRIL 1974

[Not reproduced]

Anoex15

EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE ÜOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
ÜOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXTENDING UNTIL 24 APRIL

1975 THE AGREEMENT ON RECIPROCAL fISHING PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF
THEIR COASTS SIGNED 15JUNE 1973,AS EXTENDED

8MAY 1974

[Not reproduced]

• Canada Treaty Series, 1973, No. 23.

** Canada Treaty Series, 1974, No. 14. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 221

Anoex 16

ExCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE GovERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
ÜOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXTENDING TO 24 APRIL 1976
THE AGREEMENT ON RECIPROCAL FlSHING PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF

THEIR COASTS SIGNED 15JUNE \973, AS ExTENDED

24 APRIL 1975

[Not reproduced}

Annex 17

EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE GovERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXTENDING UNTIL 24 APRIL
1977 THE AGREEMENT ON RECIPROCAL FISHING PRIVILEGES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF

THEIR COASTS S!GNED 15 JuNE 1973,AS EXTENDED*
OTTAWA, 14AND 22 APRIL 1976

IN FORCE 22 APRIL 1976

[Not reproduced}

Annex 18

RECIPROCAL F!SHERIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ÜOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND
THE ÜOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**

WASHINGTON, 24 F'EBRUARY 1977

IN FORCE 26JULY 1977

[See II, Annex 7]

* CanadaTreatySeries.1976, No. 32.
** CanadaTreatySeries,1977, No. 23.222 GULFOFMAINE

Anoex19

EXCHANGO EFNOTESBETWEET NHEÛOVERNMEN OTFCANADA ANDTHE
ÜOVERNMEN OTFTHEUNITEDSTATEOFAMERICA CONSTITUTINAGNINTERIM
AGREEMEN ATMENDINAGNDEXTENDINT GHEREclPROCAFLISHERIESGREEMENT
Of 1977

BRUSSELASNDWASHINGTON 1, AND11APRIL1978

[Not reproduced]

This agreement did not enter into force but was implemented provisionally by
the two Govemments from 11April 1972June 1978.See Canadian
diplomatie note No. FLM-0092 of 2 June 1978, reproduced in the Annexes to
the Memorial submitted by Canada, Volume III,65(infra,463]. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 223

Annex20

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON EAST COAST flSHERY R.fSOURCES

WASHINGTON; 29MARCH 1979
This agreement did not enter into force.224 GULF OF MAINE

AGREEMENT B.ETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA ON EAST COAST FISHERY RESOURCES

ARTICLE I

The purposes of this Agreement ar~:
(a) to provide for the conservation and management of east coast fishery

resources which are of mutuai concern to the Parties and are speci­
fied in Annexes A, Band C in terms of the areas described in Annex
D; and
(b) to provide for the terms and conditions under which ail fishing by
nationals and vessels of either Party off the east coast of the other

Party shall be conducted.

CHAPTERI
FISHERY MANAGEMENT

ARTICLE II
1. The Parties hereby establish and agree to maintain the East
Coast Fisherîes Commission (hereinafter the Commission).

2. Each Party shall appoint seven Commission members when the
instruments of ratification of this Agreeement are exchanged, to serve as
the national section of that Party. Each Party shall thereafter fïll vacan­

cies in its national section when they occur or within a reasonable period
thereafter. Commission members shall serve at the pleasure of the
appoîntîng Party.
3. ln addition to the Commission members referred to in para­

graph 2, the Commission shall have two Co-Chairmen who shall be
appointed as follows:
(a) The Parties shall jointly appoint the first two Co-Chairmen when the
instruments of ratification are exchanged.

(b) ln order to ensure continuity of service, the Parties shall jointly
appoint a successor prîor to the expiration of the term of office of
any Co-Chairman.

(c) If a vacancy occurs before the expiration of the term of office of a
Co-Chairman, the Parties shall jointly appoint a successor prior to
the expiration of the term of office or within ninety days after the
date on which the vacancy occurred, whichever is the earlier.

The Co-Chaîrmen of the Commission shall not be nationals of the same
Party, and shall not form part of the national section of either Party.

4. If a Co-Chairman has not been appoînted in the manner pre­
scribed in paragraph 3 after the office has been vacant at any time for a
period of ninety days, the appointment shall be made by the Arbitrator
appointed in accordance with Chapter li not later than sixty days after
the expiration of that period. · ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 225

5. The Co-Chairmen shall preside over Commission meetings and
shall carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in this Agreement
in an impartial manner.

6. Subject to paragraphs 7 and 8, the term of appointment of each
Co-Chairman shall be five years. A Co-Chairman may serve more than
one term.

7. Either Party may at any time transmit to the other Party and
to the Commission a written notice stating that it withdraws its consent
to the service of a Co-Chairman, in which event the Parties shall appoint
a successor as provided for in paragraph 3(c). The incumbent Co-Chair­
man shall continue in office in the circumstances described in this para­
graph until a successor bas been appointed and no longer; but for the pur­

poses of paragraphs 3{c), 4 and 8, a vacancy shall be deemed to have
occurred on the date that the notice is transmitted pursuant to this para­
graph.

8. The appointment of a Co-Chairman to fill a vacancy may be
for either a full term of five years or for the remainder of the term for
wbich his predecessor was appointed.

ARTICLEIII

l. Each national section of the Commission shall have one vote,
which shall be cast by the member of that national section designated for
the purpose of voting by the appointing Party. A decision of the Commis­
sion shall require an affirmative vote by each national section.

2. The Commission may decide upon and amend, as occasion may
require, by-laws or rules for the conduct of its meetings and the exercise

of its functions.

ARTICLEIV

1. The headquarters of the Commission shall be at a place to be
determined by the Parties.

2. The meetings of the Commission shall be held at its headquar­
ters or at such other places as the Commission may decide.

3. The Arbitrator shal\ be entitled to attend ail meetings of the
Commission and shall be provided with copies of ail Commission minutes
and documents when tbey are issued.
4. Each Party shal\ pay the expenses of its own national section.

Ali other expenses of the Commission shall be borne in equal shares by
the Parties, unless otherwise agreed between them. An annual budget of
joint expenses shall be prepared by the Commission in accordance with
the by-laws and submitted to the Parties for approval. After the budget
for the Commission bas been approved, each Party shall pay its contribu­
tions when they are due. Subject to the by-laws, the Commission may
authorize the disbursement of funds for expenses incurred in accordance
with the budget.226 GULF OF MAINE

5. The Commission shall appoint an Executive Secretary and may
appoint a staff not to exceed a number agreed by the Parties.
6. fhe Commission may, with the approval of the Parties, estab·

lish a Scientific Committee and such other Committees as are necessary
to enable it to carry out its fonctions under this Agreement.

ARTICLE V

1. The fishing year for each stock listed in Annex A shal\ initially
be brought into force in accordance with the following procedure:

(a) The Commission shall endeavor to reach agreement on the fishing
year for the stock within forty-five days after entry into force of this
Agreement. If it reaches agreement within that period, its decision
shall be transmitted to the Parties for review. Ifneither Party abjects
to the decision within thirty days· after its transmittal, it shall
become final and binding on both Parties and shall remain in force
until replaced. If either Party abjects to the- decision within thirty

days after its transmittal, the Arbitrator shall decide the matter in
accordance with Chapter Il within thirty days after the objection is
made. In reaching bis decision, the Arbitrator shall take into account
existing regulations and fishing patterns, the governing principles set
out in Article X insofar as they are applicable, and any other factors
he may consider relevant.

(b) If the Commission does not reach agreement on the fishing year for
the stock within forty-five days after entry into force of this Agree·
ment, the Parties shall have a further period of thirty days in which
to consult in an effort to reach agreement on the question. If.agree·
ment is reached within that perîod, the agreed fishing year shall
become final and binding on both Parties and shall remain in force
until replaced. If agreement is not reached within that period, the
Arbitrator shall decide the matter as provided for in subparagraph
(a) within thirty days after the expiration of that period.

2. The fishing year for each stock listed in Annex B shall initially
be brought into force in accordance with the following procedure:

(a) The Party having primary management responsibility as designated
in Annex B (hereinafter the designated Party) shall, within forty-five
days after entry into force of this Agreement, propose a fishing year
to the Commission.

(b) If, within seventy-five days after entry into force of this Agreement,
the Commission reaches agreement on the proposed fishing year or
on any modification thereof, that determination shall become final
and binding on bath Parties and shall remain in force until replaced.

(c) If, after seventy-five days following entry into force of this Agree­
ment, the Commission bas not agreed on the fishing year proposed
by the designated Party or on any modification thereof, the other
Party may, within a further period of fifteen days, refer the matter
to the Arbitrator for decision in accordance with Chapter II. The ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 227

Arbitrator shall render this decision within thirty days after the ref­
erral. The fishing year proposed by the designated Party shall be

binding on the Parties pending the Arbitrator's decision. If the Arbi­
trator determines that the proposed fishing year is clearly inconsist­
ent with the governing principles set forth in Article X insofar as
they are applicable, taking into account existing regulations and fish­
ing patterns and any other factors he may consider relevant, be shall
determine the fishing year for that stock; otherwise the fishing year
proposed by the designated Party shall become final and binding on
the Parties and shall remain in force until replaced.

3. The fishing year initially established for a stock pursuant to

this Article may subsequently be replaced pursuant to the procedures set
out in this Agreement for the adoption of management measures.

4. (a) Within six months following entry into force of this Agree­
ment, the Commission shall endeavor to reach agreement on the histori­
cal ratio of the annual recreational catch of each Party to the annual
total of all recreational and commercial catches from each stock listed in
the Annexes, adjusted to eliminate distortions resulting from under­
exploitation or over-exploitation of the stock.

(b) ·In each case where the Commission reaches agreement within
that period, its decision shall be transmitted to the Parties for review. If
neither Party abjects to the decision within thirty days after its transmit­
tal, it shall become final and binding on both Parties until altered by
agreement of the Parties. If either Party abjects to the decision within
fhirty days after its transmittal, the Arbitrator shall decide the matter in
accordance with Chapter II within forty-five days after the objection is
made.

(c) In each case where the Commission does not reach agreement
within the six month period referred to in subparagraph (a), the Parties
shall have a further period of thirty days in which to consult and reach
agreement on the question. Ifagreement is reached within that further
period, it shall become final and binding on both Parties until altered by
agreement of the Parties. Ifagreement is not reached within that further
period, the Arbitrator shall decide the malter in accordance with Chapter
II within forty-five days after the expiration of that thirty day period.

(d) If in any fishing year the ratio of the recreational catch of a
Party from a stock to the total recreational and commercial catch exceeds
the historical ratio determined in accordance with this paragraph, the
excess shall be counted as part of the commercial catch of that Party. If,
however, the fishing year for a stock bas begun before the historical ratio
has been determined, no part of the recreational catch shall be counted as
part of the commercial catch for that fishing year.

(e) For the purposes of this paragraph, the Commission, the Par­
ties, or the Arbitrator, as the case may be, shall have the authority to
determine both the basis or criteria on which recreational catches shall be228 GULF OF MAINE

attributed to one Party or the other and the factual basis on which the
level of recreational catch shall be established.

5. Until management measures for a stock listed in Annex A, B or
C are brought into force in accordance with this Agreement, each Party
may manage that stock in accordance with its domestic law. The Parties

shall consult with a view to providing for reciprocal fishing during this
transitional period in a manner consistent, insofar as possible, with the
provisions of the Annexes to this Agreement respecting entitlements and
fishing access.

ARTICLEVI

1. The Commission shall meet at least once each calendar year in
order to consider matters relating to the management of each of the fish­
eries covered by this Agreement. The Commission shall also meet al such
other times as it or the Parties may agree.

2. Each year the Commission shall consider and seek to reach
agreement on the management measures to be applied to each stock
listed in Annex A or B during the subsequent fishing year, taking into
account the governing principles set forth in Article X.

3. The management measures for each stock listed in Annex A
shall be brought into force each year in the following manner:

(a) If the Commission reaches agreement on the management measures
to be adopted for a stock not later than one hundred twenty days
before the beginning of the fishing year, these management meas­
ures shall be transmitted to the Parties for review. If neither Party
objccts to these management measures within thirty days after their
transmittal, they shall become final and binding on both Parties for
the fishing year to which they apply. If either Party objects to these
management measures within thirty days after their transmittal, the

Co-Chairmen shall attempt to resolve the questions in dispute as
provided for in paragraph I of Article X11.
(b) If the Commission does not reach agreement on the management
measures to be adopted for a stock, it shall, no later than one hun­
dred twenty days before the beginning of the fishing year, submit a

report to the Parties on the areas and degree of agreement and disa­
greement. The Parties shall then consider the matter in consultation
with each other and with their respective national sections. The
Commission shall reconvene approximately thirty days after making
its report unless the Parties have first reached agreement on the
management measures to be adopted, in which case those measures
shall become final a.nd binding on both Parties for the fishing year to
which they apply. .If the Commission is reconvened and reaches
agreement not later than forty-five days after making its report, the

procedure set out in 'subparagraph (a) of this paragraph shall be fol­
lowed. If the Commission is reconvened but does not reach agree­
ment within forty-five days after making its report, the Co-Chair- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 229

men shall attempt to resolve the questions in dispute as provided for
in paragraph I of Article XII.
4. The management measures for each stock listed in Annex B
shall be brought into force each year in the following manner:

(a) The designated Party shall present proposed management measures_
to the Commission and to the other Party not later than one hundred
twenty days prior to the beginning of the fishing year for the stock.

(b) The Commission shall consider the proposed management measures
in lightof the governing principles set forth in Article X, and shall
endeavor in good faith to reach agreement on the màtter.

(c) If the Commission reaches agreement on the management measures
proposed by the designated Party, or on any modification thereof,
not later than ninety days before the beginning of the fishing year,
these measures shall be transmitted to the Parties for review. If
within fifteen days after the transmittal the designated Party objects
to any modification agreed upon by the Commission, that modifica­
tion shall not enter into force pursuant to this Article. If, afterthat
first fifteen day period but within thirty days after the transmittal,
the other Party contends that the management measures proposed

by the designated Party, or any modification thereof agreed upon by
the Commission that has not been objected to by the designated
Party, are clearly inconsistent with the governing principles set forth
in Article X, it may refer the matter to the Co-Chairmen for deci­
sion pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article XII. The measures proposed
by the designated Party, or any modification thereof agreed upon by
the Commission that has not been objected to by the designated
Party, shall in the event of-such referral be binding on the Parties
and remain in force pending the outcome of the dispute settlement

process provided for in this Agreement.
(d) If the Commission does not reach agreement on the measures pro­
posed by the designated Party or on any modification thereof at least
ninety days before the beginning of the fisl)ing year, and the other
Party contends that the proposed measures are clearly înconsistent
wifü the governing principles set forth in Article X, that Party may

refer the matter, not later than sixty days before the beginning of the
fishing year, to the Co-Chairmen for decision pursuant to paragraph
2 of Article XII. The measures proposed by the designated Party
shall in the event of such referral, be binding on the Parties and
remain in force pending the outcome of the dispute seulement pro­
cess provided for in this Agreement.

(e) The management measures proposed by the designated Party, or any
modification thereof agreed upon by the Commission that has not
been objected to by the designated Party shall, in the absence of a
referral to the Co-Chairmen pursuant to subparagraph (c) or (d),
become final and binding on both Parties for the fishing year to
which they apply.

5. With respect to each stock listed in Annex C, the Commission
shall serve as a forum for consultation on annual management measures,230 GULF OF MAINE

or amendments thereto, proposed by· the Party having management
responsibility. These consultations shall be held prior to the implementa­
tion of such measures by the Party having management responsibility,

unless conservation considerations require their immediate implementa­
tion on a provisional basis pendîng the outcome of consultations. Man­
agement measures for these stocks must comply with governing principle
5, governing principle 6, and except as otherwise provided in this Agree­
ment, governing principle 7 of Article X.

6. Proposais to be made by either Party pursuant to this Article
shall be transmitted to the Commission and to the other Party as far in
advance as possible of the meeting at which they are to be consîdered,
and in any event not less than fifteen days in advance of that meeting.

7. Management measures adopted with respect to any stock listed
in Anncx A or B shall be for a term not exceeding one fishing year; but if
for any reason annua\ management measures have not been adopted for
that stock by the beginning of a fishing year, and no interim decision by
the Arbitrator pursuant to Article XIX, paragraph ?(a) is in effect, the
management measures applicable during the preceding fishing year shall

remain in force pending the adoption of new management measures.

ARTICLEVII

1. Notwithstanding their final and binding character, the annua\
management measures for stocks \isted in Annex A or B adopted under
this Agreement may be amended in accordance with this Article.

2. Any management measure applicable to a stock listed in Annex
A or B may be amended at any time by agreement of the Parties.
3. If in !ight of unforeseen circumstances a stock listed in Annex
A or B is threatened wîth serious and immediate harm, or ifthere is an

economic emergency in the fishery for the stock that can be al\eviated
without significant adverse effect upon the conservation of the stock,
management measures for that stock may be amended during the fishing
year in accordance with the following procedures:
(a) ln the case of a stock listed in Annex A, such management measures
may be amended by a joint decision of"the Co-Chairmen for a period

not exceeding thirty days. The Commission shall be convened
immediately if the Co-Chairmen propose that the amendment should
remain in force for a period exceeding thirty days. If the Commis­
sion has not reached agreement on the malter within fifteen days
after the amendment enters into force, the Arbitrator shall decide
the matter wîthîn a subsequent fifteen day period. The decision of
the Commission or the Arbitrator, as the case may be, shall be final
and binding and shall remain in force for the remainder of the fish­
ing yea"ror for such lesser period as may be specified in the decision.

The Arbitrator shall take into account: ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 231

(i) the circumstances giving rise to the amendment;

(ii) the governing principles set forth in Article X; and

(iii) the need to ensure that the catches of the Parties arc in propor­
tion to their respective entitlements.
(b) In the case of a stock listed in Annex B, such management measures
may be amended by the designated Party upon at least seven days'
advance notice to the other Party. If the other Party so requests, the
Commission shall be convened immediately. If the Commission

reaches agreement on the matter within fiftee.n days after it is con­
vened, the decision of the Commission shall be final and binding. If
the Commission does not reach agreement wîthin that period, the
other Party may refer the matter to the Arbitrator not Jater than
twenty-one days after the amendment enters into force if it contends
that:

(i) the amendment is not justifîed by the circumstances;
(ii) it is dearly inconsistent with the governing principles set forth
in Article X; or

(iii) it would result in catches which are not in proportion to the
respective entitlements of the Parties for the fishing year.

The Arbitrator's decision shall be final and bînding and shall remain
in force for the remainder of the fishing year or for such lesser
period as may be specified in the decision.

(c) If the Arbitrator decides that the application of an amended man­
agement measure adopted in accordance with this paragraph will
have the effect of depriving a Party of a share of the catch in propor­
tion to îts entitlement for the fîshing year, and that the matter can­

not conveniently be rectified by means of an adjustment during the
current fishing year, he may adjust the entitlements of the Parties
for the subsequent fishing year in order to restore the balance of
fishing opportunities reflected in this Agreement.

ARTICLE VIII

1. The Parties may, at any time, amend any provision of the
Annexes by agreement.

2. The Commission may recommend to the Parties the amend­
ment of any provision of an Annex including without limitation the addi­
tion or deletion of stocks, the transfer of stocks from one Annex to
another, and changes in fîshing entitlements and access areas. Ifneither
Party objects to the recommendatîon within nînety days of its transmittal
by the Commission, the recommendation shall become bînding at the end
of that nînety day period or at such later time as may be agreed by the

Parties, and the Annex or Annexes concerned shall be amended accord­
ingly. If either Party objects to the recommendation within that period,
the Parties shall consult with a view to reaching agreement, but in the
·absence of agreement the recommended amendment shall not enter înto232 GULF OF MAINE

force. If an objection is withdrawn by the Party which made that objec­

tion within ninety days after the expiration of the initial nînety day
period for making objections, and no timely objection has been made and
maintained by the other Party, the amendment shal\ enter into force.
immediately upon the withdrawal of the objection; but after that further
ninety day period the amendment shall not enter into force unless a new
recommendation is made by the Commission and accepted by the Parties
in accordance with the procedure set out in this Article.

ARTICLEIX

1. During the ninth year of each successive ten year period follow­
îng entry into force of this Agreement, either Party may rcquest a review
of the entitlements of the Parties to any stock listed in the Annexes (other
than the stocks of loligo squid, redfish in Subareas 3 and 4 and lobster),
in accordance with the procedures and on the basîs of the principles set
forth in paragraph 2 of this Article.

2. (a) During the first ninc months of the ninth year of the first
ten year period following entry into force of this Agreement, and of the
ninth year of each successive ten year period, the Parties shall, if either
Party so requests, review their respective entitlements to any or ail of the
st9cks Iisted in the Annexes. If,following this review, the Parties agree
upon an increase or decrease in entitlements for a particular stock, such

redetermined entitlements shall take effect at the beginning of the next
fishing year for tha t stock and sha\l remain in effect until a subscquent
redetermination, if any, of the entitlements to that particular stock enters
into force pursuant to this Article.

(b) If the Parties do not reach agreement with respect to a stock
during the first nine months of the ninth year of any ten year period, the
Arbitrator shall decide the issue before the end of that ten ycŒrperiod in
accordance with Chapter Il. The redetermination by the Arbitrator of
the entitlements of each Party for any stock sha!l reflect the average
annual proportion of the stock in question which occurs in the maritime
area in which each Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction as
determined on the basis of the best information available concerning
stock distribution and migratory patt.erns, abundance and availabi!ity and
other relevant factors; provided tha t where appropria te the Arbitra tor

shall moderate any change which may be indicated by the foregoing cri­
terion by taking into account the social and economic impact of any pro­
posed changes on coastal communities and significant changes in the
market value, abundance and availability of the stock in question as com­
pared to the situation prevailing at the outset of the ten year period.

(c} Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the issue is referred to the
Arbitrator for decision:
(î} the decrease in the entitlement of a Party to a particular stock

shall not exceed ten percent of the annual permissible commer­
cial catch for any stock for which that Party's entitlement
upon entry into force of _th\~_Agreement was fiftypercent or, ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 233

more of the annual permissible commercial catch, or five per­
cent of the annual permissible commercial catch if that Party's
entitlement upon entry into force of this Agreement was Jess

than fifty percent of the annual permissible commercial catch,
and
(ii) the overall reduction in any Party's entitlement to a particular
stock as a result of successive redeterminations shall not
exceed one-third of a Party's entitlement upon entry into force

of this Agreement.
(d) Any entitlements redetermined by the Arbitrator for any stock
shall enter into force at the beginning of the next fishing year for that

stock. Any entitlement redetermined by the Arbitrator in accordance
with this paragraph shall be binding on the Parties and remain in force
until a subsequent redetermination, if any, of the entitlements to that
particular stock enters into force pursuant to this Article.

3. If either Party is of the view that any time limit or other
administrative procedure set forth in this Agreement is unsatisfactory,
that Party may, at any time after five years following entry into force of
this Agreement, request a review and renegotiation of the provision gov­
erning the procedure in question. Ifthe P;irties are unable to reach agree­
ment within six months after any such request, the issue shall be decided
by the Arbitrator in accordance with Chapter Il.

4. This Agreement shall be amended as necessary to reflect any
changes in entitlements or in procedures agreed by the Parties or deter­
mined by the Arbitrator in accordance with this Article.

ARTICLEX

The following governing principles shall apply to the stocks listed in
Annexes A and B:

1. Management measures shall be designed to achieve the
optimum yield from each stock subject to these principles, taking into
account stock interrelationships and ail other relevant ecological factors,
and the nature and extent of the economic and social interests of each
Party in the stock. Except as otherwise agreed by the Parties, they shall
be designed to bring about an exploitation rate that will maintain the pro­

ductivity of fishery resoùrces over the long term. In particular, they shall
be designed to prevent overfishing of fishery resources, to allow rebuild­
ing of depleted stocks, and to avoid irreversible or long term adverse
effects on fishery resources and the marine envirônment.

2. Management measures shall be based upon the best scientific
information available.
3. Management measures shall take into account demonstrated

degrees of stock and species interrelationships so that the productive_
potential of related stocks or species is not seriously threatened.
4. Management measures shall take into account the need for

efficiency in administration and enforcement, including the minimization234 GULF OF MAINE

of costs; the avoidance of unnecessary duplication; the need for maintain­
ing the confidence of each Party in the administration and enforcement
actions of the other Party; and, to the extent consistent with the other

principles set out in this Article, the need to avoid disruptive changes in
patterns of exploitation.
5. Management measures shall provide to the nationals and ves­

sels of each Party the opportunity to harvest its entitlement to the stock
in question, and to this end shall take into account any differences in fish­
ing methods, patterns and procedures.

6. Management measures shall ensure access by the nationals and
vessels of each Party to the maritime area in which the other Party exer­
cises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction for the purpose of harvesting entitle­
ments under this Agreement where such access is provided for in the
Annexes.

7. Management measures shall not discrimina te in form or in
effect between the nationals and vessels of the Parties.

ARTICLEXI

1. Management measures for stocks listed in the Annexes shall
include the annual total allowable catch and the permissible commercial
catch in each case where entitlements are based on the annual permissi­
blc commercial catch.

2. Management measures for a stock listed in Annex A or B may
include:

(a) the designation of zones and periods in which fishing shall be limited
or prohibited, or shall be permitted only by specified types of fishing
vessels, or with specified types or quantities of gear;
(b) limitations on the catch of fish (based on area, size, number, weight,

sex, incidental catch, total biomass, or other factors) which are
appropria te for the conservation and management of the fishery;
(c) prohibitions, limitations, conditions, or requirements respecting the
use of specified types or quantities of fishing gear, fishing vessels, or
equipment for such vessels, including devices which may be required
to facilita te enforcement of applicable management measures; and

(d) such other measures as are necessary and appropriate for the conser­
vation and management of the fishery.

3. Management measures for a stock listed in Annex A, B or C
may include a system for limiting access to a fishery, or restricting fish­
ing to certain vessels or fishermen, but such a system may be established
under this Agreement only where directly related to conservation of the
stock and not for the purpose of economic allocation. Furthermore, such
a limited access system may not become a binding management measure
with respect to a stock listed in Annex A, B or C without the express

approval of both Parties, notwithstanding the dispute settlement provi­
sions of this Agreement. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 235

4. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the right of each Party
to make allocations among its own nationals and vessels in any manner
consistent with its own domestic law, or to adopt supplementary regula­
tions, applicable to its own nationalsand vessels, which are not inconsist­

ent with this Agreement and the management measures adopted pursu­
ant thereto.

ARTICLEXII
1. If, with respect to a stock listed in Annex A, one of the Parties

objects in accordance with Article VI, paragraph 3(a), to the manage­
ment measures recommended by the Commission or the Commission fails
to reach agreement on such measures in the circumstances described in
Article VI, paragraph 3(b), the Co-Chairmen shall attempt to resolve the
dispute. If the Co-Chairmen reach agreement within fifteen days after
the dispute cornes before them, their decision shall be final and binding
on both Parties. The decision shall state the management measures to be
applied during the fishing year in question. Within thirty days after their
decision the Co-Chairmen shall submit a reasoned opinion setting forth

the basis for their decision. If the Co-Chairmen are unable to reach
agreement within fifteen days after the dispute cornes before them, the
Arbitrator shall decide the matter in accordance with Chapter II.

2. If, with respect to a stock listed in Annex B, a matter is
referred to the Co-Chairmen in the circumstances described in Article
VI, paragraph 4(c) or (d), the Co-Chairmen_ shall attempt to determine
jointly whether the management measures in dispute are clearly incon­
sistent with the governing principles set forth in Article X. If the Co­
Chairmen reach agreement within fifteen days after the dispute is
referred to them, their decision shall become final and binding on both
Parties. Within thirty days after their decision the Co-Chairmen shall
submit a reasoned opinion setting forth the basis for their decision. If the

Co-Chairmen are unable to reach agreement within fifteen days after the
dispute is referred to them, the Arbitrator shall decide the matter in
accordance with Chapter li.
3. Subject to any other provisions for dispute settlement set forth
in this Agreement, any other dispute involving the application or inter-
.pretation of this Agreement may be referred by either Party or by the

Parties jointly to the Co-Chairmen, who shall attempt to resolve the dis­
pute. If the Co-Chairmen reach agreement within thirty days after the
dispute is referred to them, their decision shall become final and binding
on both Parties. Within thirty days after their decision the Co-Chairmen
shall submit a reasoned opinion sctting forth the basis for their decision.
If the Co-Chairmen are unable to reach agreement within thirty days
after the dispute is referred to thcm, the Arbitrator shall decide the mat­
ter in accordanée with Chapter Il. If eithcr Party contends that a deci­
sion by the Co-Chairmen pursuant to this paragraph is in conflict with a

prior decision of the Arbitrator, that Party may refer the malter to the
Arbitrator for a definitive interpretation.
4. If the Co-Chairmen decide:236 GULF OF MAINE

(a) in the case of a dispute referred to in paragraph 2, that the manage­
ment measures in dispute are clearly inconsistent with the governing
principles set forthin Article X, or

(b) in the case of a dispute referred to in paragraph 3, that a provision of
this Agreement has been or is being contravened, ·

they shall award appropriate relief which shall be final and binding
unless the Parties agree to implement other relief. ln the case of a dispute
referred to in paragraph 2, relief shall be in the form of a direction as to
the management measures to be implemented by the Parties.

ARTICLE XIII

1. When any document is transmitted by the Commission to the
Parties, the Executive Secretary of the Commission shall record the date
of transmittal of the document, and that date shall be considered to be
the date of transmittal for ail purposesof this Agreement.

2. Any document transmitted by a Party pursuant to this Agree­
ment, including any referral to the Co-Chairmen or the Arbitrator, shall
be transmitted both to the other Party and to the Commission. The
Executive Secretary of the Commission shall record the date on which
any such document is received at the headquarters of the Commission,
and that date shall be considered to be the effective date of the document

for ail purposes of this Agreement.
3. Any period of time stated in this Agreement in terms of a
specified number of days refers to calendar days.

4. Any time limit set out in this Agreement may be extended by
agreement of the Parties.

ARTICLE XIV

1. The Parties shall exchange and make available to the Commis­
sion scientific data in their possession which is relevant to the work of the
Commission.

2. The Commission may coordinate the collection of statistics and
make recommendations to the Parties for cooperative research programs.

3. The Parties agree that cooperative fishery research and the
exchange of biological data and statistical information respecting fisher­
ies should continue and, where appropriate, be expanded.

ARTICLE XV

1. Each Party shall, with respect to the maritime area in which it
exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction and with respect to vessels sub­
ject to its jurisdiction, take ail necessary measures to make effective the
provisions of this Agreement and in particular, to ensure that the entitle­
ments set out in the Annexes are not exceeded and that the management
measures adopted pursuant to this Agreement are complied with. The

Parties undertake to consult and cooperate in order to ensure effective
enforcement of this Agreement. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 237

2. Each Party shall require of its nationals and vessels reports of

catch and related data for stocks listed in the Annexes in a manner deter­
mined by the Commission. Each Party may also require nationa\s and
vessels of the other Party to make reports of catch and location data at
reasonable intervals white fishing within the maritime area in which the
former Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction.

3. Each Party shall make available to the Commission the data
obtaîned pursuant to paragraph 2. The Commission and the Parties shall
preserve the confidential nature of the records or statistics of individual
catches and individuaJ company operations.

4. The Parties agree to exchange fisheries statistîcs on a timely
and regular basis where necesary to permit an accurate determination to
be made of the time at which an entitlement referred to in an Annex is
reached during any given fishing year, and otherwise to ensure the effec­

tive implementation of this Agreement.
ARTICLEXVI

1. The Parties agree that if a portion of an entitlement of one
Party to a stock listed in an Annex, or a portion of a stock not listed in an
Annex which occurs in the maritime area in which that Party exercises

exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, is surplus to the requirements of that
Party, consideration will be given to any request by the other Party for an
allocation from that surplus. Any such allocation may be subject to such
terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the Parties.

2. Ifan allocation referred to in paragraph I is to be harvested in
whole or in part within the maritime area in which the Party granting the
allocation exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, that Party may
require the vessels fishîng for the allocation within that area to obtain
licenses or permits upon the payment of reasonable fees and to abide by
any other requirements applicable to vessels of third parties.

ARTICLE xvn

1. Ail fishing pursuant to the Annexes by nationals and vessels of
eîthcr Party within the maritime area in which the other Party exercises
exclusive fisheries jurisdîction shall be conducted seaward of twelve
nautical miles from the coast and of the point at which any bay ceases to
exceed twenty-four nautical miles in breadth, except where a provision of
an Annex specifically provides for access landward of those limits.

2. Each Party may authorize vessels of third parties to harvest a
portio'nof its entitlements if:

(a) such authorization is given only for one fishing year at a time;
(b) such vessels are permitted to fish only within the maritime area in
which the authorizing Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurîsdiction;
and

(c) such vessels are subject to management measures at least as restric­
tive as those in force under this Agreement.238 GULF OF MAINE

3. Subject to and in accordance with applicable regulations and
permit and licensing requirements, including the payment of fees, recrea­
tional fishing by nationals and vessels of each Party may be conducted in

areas off the east·coast of the United States and Canada, including areas
landward of the area referred to in paragraph 1; except that licensing or
permit requirements directed specifically at foreign fishing vessels pursu­
ant to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act of Canada and the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 of the United States of
America, as they may be amended from time to time, or pursuant to any
statute replacing such Acts, shall not apply.

4. Either Party may, with respect to the maritime àrea in which it
exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, require that commercial fisher­
men and vessels of the other Party obtain a permit or license for the pur­
pose of fishing for entitlements set out in the Annexes. Except as other­

wise agreed between the Parties, no fees shall be required for such
licenses or permîts.
5. Either Party may require that agents are jlppointed and main­

tained within ils territory who possess the authority to receive and
respond to any legal process with respect to a vesse! owner or operator for
any cause arising out of the conduct of fishing activities under this Agree­
ment.

6. If during any fishing year the nationals and vessels of either
Party. exceed an entitlement established by this Agreement, the Commis­
sion shall determîne an amount to be deducted from the entitlemerit of
that Party to the stock concerned, and may determine an amount to be
added to the entitlement of the other Party, for the following fishing year
or years. If the Commission is unable to agree on the matter, the matter
shall be referred to dispute seulement in accordance with paragraph 3 of
Article XI 1.

7. Each Party shall permit transfers of hcrring between the
natîonals and vessels of the Parties in the maritime area in which îtexer­
ciscs exclusive fisheries jurisdîction within Division 5Y, within the Bay of
Fundy, and elsewhere within Division 4X west of 65 degrees west longi­

tude. The Parties agree that the principal purpose of this provision is to
permit the continuation of transfers of herring intcnded for purposes
other than reduction.
8. Each Party shall have the right to place obscrvers on the vessels

of the other Party fïshing within the maritime area in which the former
Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 239

CHAPTER II

ARBITRA Tl ON

ARTICLE XVIII
1. An impartial arbitrator (herein the Arbitrator) shall be

appointed jointly by the Parties whcn instruments of ratification of this
Agreement are exchanged, and thereafter from time to time as set forth
in this Article.
2. The Arbitrator shall decide issues submittcd to arbitration in

accordance with this Agreement. When a dispute has been considered but
not resolved by the Co-Chairmen, the Co-Chairmen shall submit a state­
ment of the issues to the Arbitrator.

3. The Arbitrator's decision on matters referred to arbitration
shall be final and binding upon the Parties except that either Party may
request a review of a decision if it discovers the existence of a new factor
of decisive importance which was unknown to that Party when- the deci­
sion was rendered, provided that such lack of knowledge was not due to
negligence.

4. Every decision by the Arbitrator shall be supported by a rea­
soned opinion setting forth the basis on which the decision was reached.
This reasoned opinion shall be issued not later than thirty days after the
decision is reached.

5. The Arbitrator may award appropriate relief in his decision,
which shall be final and binding unless the Parties agree to implcment
other relief. In the case of a dispute respecting management measures,
such relief shall be in the form of a direction as to the measures to be
implemented by the Parties for the stock in question. In cases wherc time

permits, the Arbitrator may make a preliminary recommendation with
respect to the relief to be awarded and allow the Parties a period of time
in which to consult before relief is awarded in a final and binding fashion.
6. Subject to paragraph 7, the Arbitrator shall be appointed for a

term of five years, unless a shorter term is agreed upon by the Parties and
the Arbitrator. An Arbitrator may be appointed to more than one term.
7. Either Party may at any time transmit to the other Party a

written notice stating that it withdraws its consent to the service of the
Arbitrator, in which case the Parties shall jointly appoint a succcssor
within a period of ninety days after the transmittal of the written notice.
If a successor is not appointed by the Parties by the end of that period,
the Parties shall immediately request the President of the International
Court of Justice to appoint an Arbitrator within a period of ninety days
after the expiration of the initial ninety day period. In th~ circumstances
described in this paragraph, the incumbent Arbitrator shall retain compe­
tence to hear and decide any matter referred to him before the appoint­

ment of his successor.
8. The Parties shall jointly appoint a new Arbitrator:

(a) prior to the expiration of the term of office of the incumbent, or240 GULF OF MAINE

(b) when the office becomes vacant more than ninety days before the

expiration of a term of office, not later than ninety days after the
vacancy first occurs.
If the Parties have not appointed a new Arbitrator by the time referred to

in subparagraph (a) or (b), as the case may be, they shall immediately
request the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint an
Arbitrator within a period of ninety days after that time.

9. In each case where the President of the International Court of
Justice appoints an Arbitrator, he shall select, following consultations
with the Parties, a person who is not a national or permanent resident of
Canada or the United States of America.

10. The remuneration of the Arbitrator and his expense allow­
ances shall be determined by the Parties at the time of his appointment,
and may be modified from time to time with the agreement of the Parties
and the Arbitrator. These costs shall be included in the budget of the
Commission as joint expenses of the Commission. The Arbitrator shall be
provided with office facilities and services at the headquarters of the

Commission.

ARTICLEXIX

l. Except as may otherwise be specified in this Agreement or
agreed between the Parties, when a matter is referred to arbitration, the
Arbitrator shall render a decision:

(a) in the case of a dispute respecting management measures, within
thirty days after the date on which he is seized of the matter, or
(b) in the case of any other dispute, within ninety days after the date on
which he is seized of the matter.

2. In the case of a dispute which has been considered but not
resolved by the Co-Chairmen, the Arbitrator shall take into account the
opinions of the Co-Chairmen and the reasons for their inability to resolve
the dispute.

3. The Arbitrator shall provide an opportunity for each Party to
present evidence and arguments both in writing and. if requested by
either of the Parties, in oral hearing.

4. The Arbitrator may seek, with the agreement of both Parties,
the advice of experts. The advice given the Arbitrator by any such experts
shall be made part of the record of the proceedings and shall be made

available to the Pariies, who shall be afforded an opportunity to comment
on any such advice.
5. In any arbitration, each Party shall have the right to call its

own witnesses, to present documentary evidence, and to cross-examine
the witnesses of the other Party. The Arbitrator shall not be bound by
any technical rules respecting the admissibility of evidence, but may take
such rules into account in considering the relevance or probative value of
any evidence presented. ANNEXES TO MEMORJAL OF CANADA 241

6. Each Party shall bear its own expenses associated with an arbi­
tration. Ail other expenses of the arbitration not included in the budget of
the Commission as provided in paragraph 10 of Article XVIII shall be
shared equally by the Parties. The Parties shall provide facilities for the
arbitration of any matter in such manner as may be agreed between them
or as may be required by the Arbîtrator. ·

7. When a dispute respecting management measures cornes before
the Arbitrator Jess than thirty days before the beginning of the fishing
year for that stock, or in any other case where a decision is required as a
matter of urgency, the Arbitrator may either:

(a) render an interim decision to safeguard the interests of the Parties
pending the final decision, or
(b) establish procedures for an expedited hearing of the case subject only

to the right of both Parties to have a full opportunity to be .heard.
8. Decisions of the Arbitra tor sha libe made public.

9. After a decision is rendered, the Arbitrator shall retain compe­
tence to clarify the meaning or scope of the decision at the request of
either Party, or, where relief has been granted, of determining any ques­
tion of compliance submitted by the Party in whose favor the relief was

granted.
1O. Subject to this Agreement, the Arbitrator shall determine ail
questions of procedure, including time limits for submitting written

matcrial and the time and place of any hearing, provided that each Party
is given a full opportunity to present its evidence and arguments.242
GULF OF MAINE

CHAPTERIII
MISCELLANEOUS

ARTICLE XX

The Annexes attached hereto form an integral part of this Agree­
ment. Ali references to this Agreement shall be understood as including
the Annexes in force.

ARTICLE XXI
Pending delimitation of the. maritime boundary in the Gulf of
Maine area, the following principles shall be applied as interim measures

in the boundary region:
(a) as between the Parties, enforcemen_tshall be carried out by the flag
state;

(b) neither Party shali'authorize fishing by vessels of third parties; and
(c) either Party may enforce with respect to fishing or related activities
by vessels of third parties. ·

ARTICLE XXII

Each Party shall alJow access to its customs ports on the east coast
for nationals and vessels of the other Party fishing pursuant to this
Agreement, for the purposes of purchasing hait, supplies, outfits, fuel,
and effecting repairs. Access under this provision is subject to general
requirements regarding advance notice of port entry, availability of facili­
ties and the needsof domestic fisherme-nand flag vessels.

ARTICLE XXIII
A reference in this Agreement to the maritime area in which a
Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction includes without distinction

areas within and seaward of the internai waters and territorial sea of that
Party.

ARTICLE XXIV

Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the position of either Party
with respect to the legal natùre and seaward extent of internai waters, of
the territorial sea, of the continental shelf, of fisheries jurisdiction, or of
sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any other purpose under international
law.

ARTICLE XXV

1. This Agreement shall be subject to ratification in accordance
with the domestic requirements of the Parties and shall enter into force
on the date instruments of ratification of this Agreement and the Treaty
Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United
States of America To Submit to Binding Dispute Settlement the Delimi- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 243

tation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area signed at
Washington on March 29, 1979 are exchanged. The instruments of ratifi­
cation shall be exchanged at Ottawa as soon as possible.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, this Agreement shall remain in force
until terminated by agreement of the Parties. ·

3. 1f the Agreement Between the Govern ment of Canada·and the
Government of the United States of America to Submit to a Court of
Arbitration the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of
Maine Area (the Arbitration Agreement), annexed to the Treaty referred
to in paragraph 1, enters into force, and

(a) the Court of Arbitration provided for in the Arbitration Agreement
is not constituted within one year following entry into force of the
Arbittatîo.n Agreement, or

(b) following the constitution of the Court of Arbitration, a vacancy on
the Court of Arbitration is not filled in accordance with Article XI
of the Arbitration Agreement within six months from the date on
which the vacancy occurred,

either Party may, prior to the decision of the Court of Arbitration on the
question posed in Article I of the Arbitration Agreement, terminale this

Agreement upon six months' written notice to the other Party; provided
that if within such six months notice period the Court of Arbitration is
constituted and any vacancy or vacancies which may have occurred are
filled, the notièe of termination shall be without effect and shall be with­
drawn.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly author­
ized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Treaty.

DONE in two copies at Washington, D.C. this twenty-ninth day of
March 1979, in the English and French languages, each text being
equally authentic. ·

EN FOI DE QUOI, les soussignés,dûment autorisés à cet effet par
leurs Gouvernements respectifs, ont signéle présent Traité.

FAIT en deux exemplaires àWashington ce vingt-neuvième jour de
mars 1979, en français et en anglais, chaque texte faisant également foi.

For the Govemment of Canada For the Govemment of the
Pour le Gouvernement du Canada United States America
PÉtats-Unis d'Amériquees

(Signed) P.TOWE (Signed) CYRUS R. V ANCE
(SiKlll'dM. CADIEUX (Signed) LLOYD N. CUTLER 244 GULF OF MAINE

ANNEXA

This Annex cstablishes the terms of fishing access and cntîtlements
with respect to each of the fish stocks listed below, and deals with other
related matters. Each stock is defined by specîes and geographical loca­
tion within the subareas, divisions or subdivisions descrîbed in Annex D,
or,in the case of northem lobster, within the boundary region of the Gulf

of Maine pending delimitation of the maritime boundary in that area.

Atlantic Mackerel

1. For the stock of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus)
Jocated in Subareas 3, 4, 5 and 6, the following terms sha!l apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 60 percent

of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 40 percent of the annual per·
missible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of each Party may fish for this stock throughout the portion of

Subareas 3, 4, 5 and 6 in which that Party exercises exclusive fisher·
ies jurisdiction. Pending delimitation of the maritime boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area, vessels of either Party may fish for this
stock within the boundary region.

(c) The annual total allowable catch and permissible commercial catch
for this stock shall be determined in accordance with the procedures
applicable to stocks listed in this Annex.
(d) Notwithstanding the inclusion of this stock in Annex A, manage·
ment measures for this stock, other than the annual total allowable

catch and permissible commercial catch, shall be determin.ed in
accordance with the procedures applicable to stocks listed in Annex
B. For thîs purpose each Party is the Party of primary interest in the
maritime area in which it exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction
and, with respect to îts own nationals and vessels, in the boundary
region pending delîmitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of
Marine area.

(e) Allocations of surplus and requirements established by either Party
regarding fishing for this stock by vessels of third parties in the
maritime area in which that Party exercises exclusive fisheries juris­
diction shall be the subject of prior consultations between the Par·
ties.

(/) At the beginning of the fourth fishing year following the entry into
force of this Agreement, the Parties shall consider whether scientific
evidence warrants the setting of the annual total allowable catch for
the northern or southern components of this stock in accordance with
procedures applicable to stocks listed in Annex B. If after the ninth
month of the fourth fishing year following entry into force of this
Agreement the Parties disagree whether such a change is appropri­

ate for either or both components, either Party may refer the issue to
the Arbitrator for decision in accordance with Chapter Il of this ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA
245

Agreement. The Annex or Annexes concerned shall be amended as
necessary to reflect changes agreed upon by the Parties or deter­
mined by the Arbitrator.

Pollock
2. For the stock of pollock(Pollachius virens) located in Divisions
4V, 4W and 4X and in Subarea 5, the following terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vesse\s of Canada may catch 74.4 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement, and vesse\s of the United St~tes 25.6 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of Canada may fish for this stock only throughou t Divisions 4V,
4W, 4X, Subdivision 5Ze and that portion of Division SY which is in
the maritime area in which Canada exercises exclusive fisheries
jurisdiction;nd vessels of the United States may fish for this stock
throughout Subarea 5 and Division 4X only.

Cusk

3. For the stock of cusk (Brosme brosme) located in Subdivision
SZe, the following terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 66 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement, and vessels of the United States 34 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Subdivision
5Ze.

Northern Lobster

4.. For the stock of northern lobster (Homarus americanus)
located in the boundary region of the Gulf of Maine area, the following
terms shall apply:

(a) Until the end of the fishing year in which the maritime boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area has been determined, vessels of both Parties
may fish for this stock within theboundary region in a manner con­
sistent with applicable management measures, but vessels of .neither
Party shall expand their directed fisheries for this stock, except as
author!zed by the Commission.

(b) Management of this stock shall be in accordance with procedures
applicable to stocks listed in this Annex, until the end of the fishing
year in which the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area has
been determined, at which time this paragraph shall no longer apply.246 GULF OF MAINE

ANNEXB
. . .
This Annex establishes the terms of fishing access and entitlements
with respect to each of the fish stocks listed below, designates the Party
of primary interest with respect to the management of each stock, and
deals with other related matters. Each stock is defined by species and
geographical location within the subareas, divisions or subdivisions
described in Annex D.

Atlantic Herring

1. For the stock of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) located in
Divisions 4W and 4X and in the portion of Division 5Y which encom­
passes the Grand Manan Banks, and not including the juvenile herring

located within three nautical miles of the coast of Canada, the following
terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 100 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under this

Agreement.
(b) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of Canada may fish for this stock throughout Divisions 4W and
4X and in the portion of Division 5Y which encompasses the Grand

Manan Banks. Vessels of the United States may not fish for this
stock.
(c) Canada is the Party of primary interest with respect to the manage­
ment of this stock.

2. For the stock of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) located in
Division SY, excluding the portion of Division SY which encompasses the
Grand Manan Banks, and not including the juvenile herring located

wîthin three nautical miles of the coast of the United States, the follow­
ing terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 100 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement.

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of the United States may fish for this stock throughout Division
SY, excluding the portion of Division 5Y which encompasses the
Grand Manan Banks. Vessels of Canada may not fish for this stock.

(c) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of this stock.

3. For the stock of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) located in
Division 52 and Subarea 6, the following terms shall apply:
(a) During each of the first three fishing years following entry into force

of this Agreement, vessels of Canada may catch 2,000 metric tons of
this stock, regardless of the annual permissible commercial catch set
for this stock under this Agreement. During the same period, each
fishing ycar vessels of the United States may catch 100 percent of ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 247

the annual permissible eommereia! catch set for this stock, Jess 2,000
metric tons.
(b) During the fourth, fifth and sixth fishing years following entry into

force of this Agreement, each fishing year vessels of Canada may
catch 2,000 metric tons of this stock plus 50 percent of any portion
of the annual permissible commercial catch for this stock which
cxceeds 21,000 metric tons; except where the permissible commer­
cial catch bas been set at a leve\ above 45,000 metric tons, in which
case they may catch one-third of the annual permissib!e commercial
catch for this stock. During the sa·me period, each fishing year ves-·
sels of the United States may catch 100 percent of the first 2\,000
metric tons of the annual permissible commercial catch for this

stock, less 2,000 metric tons, plus 50 percent of any portion of the
annuaI permissible cornmercial catch which exceeds 21,000 metric
tons; except where the annual permissible commercial catch for this
stock has been set above 45,000 metric tons, in which case they may
catch two-thirds of the annual permîssiblc commercial catch.

(c) After the sixth fishing year following cntry into force of this Agree­
ment, each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch one-third of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for thîs stock under this
Agreement. During the same period, each fishing year vessels of the
United States may catch two-thirds of the annual pcrmissible com­
mercial catch for this stock.

(d) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
selsof both Parties may fish for this stock in Division SZ and Suba­
rea 6, but vessels of the United States may not fîsh for thîs stock east
of 66° west longitude and vessels of Canada may not fish for this
stock west of 68°30' west longitude.

(e) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of this stock.

4. After the third fishing year following entry into force of this
Agreement, the Parties shall rcvicw the management categorization of
each of the three stocks of herring Iisted in paragraphs I through 3 of this
Annex. If either Party believes data on any of thcse stocks is inadequate,
no change shal! be made to the management categorization applicable to
any of the three stocks. After the sîxth fishing year followîng entry into
force of this Agreement, the management categorization of each of the
stocks in question shall again be reviewed by the Parties, and if the Par­
ties cannot agree on the action to be taken, either Party may refer the
malter to the Arbitrator for dccision in accordance with Chaptcr Il. The
Annexes shall be amended as necessary to reflect changes agreed upon by

the Parties or determined by the Arbitrator pursuant to this paragraph.
5. The Parties shall undertake joint research into herring stock
structure, in order to improve the scientific basis for the review provided

for in paragraph 4.
6. ln this Annex "juvenile herring" means herring which are less
than three years of age. This definitîon shal! be reviewed periodically by

the Commission with a view to any change in this definition, if necessary.248 GULF OF MAINE

Sea Scallops

7. For the stock. of sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus)
located in Subdivision 5Ze, the following terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may carch 73.35 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement and in accordance with this Annex:, and vessels of the
United States 26.65 percent of the annual permîssible commercial
catch .

.(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
selsof both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Subdivision
5Ze.
(c) Subject to subparagraph (d), Canada shall be the Party of prîmary
interest with respect to that portion of this stock \ocated east of

68°30' west longitude and the United States shall be the Party of
primary interest with respect to that portion of this stock located
west of 68°30' west longitude. The annua\ permissible commercial
catch for this stock shall be the sum of the annual harvest limit for
the portion of this stock for which Canada is the Party of primary
interest and the annual harvest limit for the portion of this stock for
which the United States is the Party of primary interest.

(d) Notwithstanding the inclusion of this stock in Annex: B, manage­
ment measures respecting size limits (e.g., shell sizes and meat
counts) shall be determined for this entire stock in accordance with
the procedures applicable to stocks lîsted in Annex:A.

AtlanticCod

8. for the stock of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) \ocated in Divi­
sion 52, the following terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 83 percent

of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 17 percent of the annual per­
missible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Division52.

·(c) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of this stock.

Haddock

9. For the stock of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) located
in Subarea 5, the following terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 79 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 21 percent of the annual per­
missible commercial catch. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 249

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Subàrea -S.
(c) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of this stock.

Si.lver Hake

10. For the stock of silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) located in
Subdivision SZe, the following terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 90 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 10 percent of the annual per­
missible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­

sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Subdivision
5Ze.
(c) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to
management of this stock.

Red Hake

11. For the stock of red hake (Urophycis chuss) located in Sub­
division SZe, the following terms shal\ apply: ·

(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 90 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and commercial vessels of Canada 10 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­

sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Subdivision
SZe.
(c) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of this stock.

Atlantic Argentine

12. For the stock of Atlantic argentine (Argentina si/us) located
in Divisions 4V, 4W and 4X, and in Subarea 5, the following terms shal\
apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 75 percent of t_he
annual permîssible commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement, and vessels of the United States 25 percent of the

annual permissible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Divisions 4V,
4W and 4X and Subarea 5.

(c) Canada is the Party of primary interest with respect to the manage­
ment of this stock.250 GULF OF MAINE

White Hake
13. For the stock of white hake (Urophycis tenuis) in Divisions
4V, 4W and 4X, the fo\lowing terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 94 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement, and vesscls of the United States 6 percent of the annual
permissible commercial catch.

(b) In a manner consistent wîth applicable management measures, ves­
sels of Canada may fish for this stock throughout Divisions 4V, 4W
and 4X and vessels of the United States may fish for this stock
throughout Division 4X only.

(c) Canada is the Party of primary interest with respect to the manage­
ment of this stock.

14. For the stock of white hake (Urophycis tenuis) in Subarea 5,
the fol!owing terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 94 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under

this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 6 percent of the annual per­
missible commercial catch.
(b) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of the United States may fish for this stock throughout Subarea
5 and vessels of Canada may fish for this stock only in Subdivision

5Ze and in that portion of Division 5Y which is in the maritime area
in wh.îch Canada exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdîction.
(c) The United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of this stock.

15. If new information concerning the stocks of white hake listed
in paragraphs 13 and 14, respectively, indicates that alternative arrange­
ments wou!d be mutually advantageous, the terms applicable to fishing
access and entitlements and management of these stocks may be changed
by agreement of the Parties.

Illex Squid

16. For the stock of illex squid (/llex illecebrosus) located in
Subareas 3, 4, 5 and 6, the following terms shall apply:

{a) The vessels of each Party may fish for this stock only in the area in
which it exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction. Pending delimita­
tion of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, vesscls of
the Parties shall not fish for this stock in the boundary region, except
by agreement of the Parties.

(b) Canada is the Party of primary interest with respect to the manage­
ment of that portion of this stock located in Subareas 3 and 4. The
United States is the Party of primary interest with respect to the
management of that portion of this stock located in Subareas 5 and
6. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 251

ANNEXC

This Annex establishes the terms of fishing access and entîtlements
with respect to each of the fish stocks listed be!ow, desîgnates the Party
which will manage that stock, and deals wîth other related mattcrs. Each
stock is defined by species and geographica! location within the subareas,
divisions or subdivisions described in Annex D.

Atlantic Cod

1. For the stock of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) located in Divi­
sion 4W and Subdivision 4Vs, the following terms sha\1 apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 98.6 percent of the
annual permîssible commercial catch set for this stock under thîs
Agreement, and vessels of the United States 1.4 percent of the
annua\ permissible commercial catch.

(b) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Division 4W
and Subdivision 4Vs.
(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for this stock.

2. For the stock of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) located in the
portion of Division 4X south and cast of straight lincs connecting coordi­
nates 44°20' north latitude, 63°20' west longitude; then 43°00' north lati­

tude, 65°40' west longitude; then 43°00' north latitude, 67°40' west lon­
gitude, the following tcrms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 92.5 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for thîs stock under this

Agreement, and vessels of the United States 7.5 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout the portion of

Division 4X specified in this paragraph.
(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for thîs stock.

3. For the stock of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) located in Suba­
rea 5Y, the following terms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 98.4 per­
cent of the annual permîssible commercial catch set for this stock
under this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 1.6 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.

(b) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves·
sels of both Parties may fisti for this stock throughout Subarea 5Y.
(c) The United States shall determine the management measures for

this stock.252 GULF OF MAINE

Haddock
4. For the stock of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) located

in Division;; 4V and 4W, the following terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 90 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement, and vessels of the United States 10 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
selsof both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Divisions 4V
and 4W.

(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for this stock.
5. For the stock of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) located
in Division 4X, the foHowingterms shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may· catch 90 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for thi.s stock under this
Agreement, and vessels of the United States IO percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Division 4X.
(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for this stock.

AtlanticRedfish

6. For the stock of Atlantic redfish (Sebasres marinus) located in
Divisions 4V, 4W and 4X, the following terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 65 percent of the

annual permissible commercial catch set for this ,stock under this
Agreement, and vessels of the United States_ 35 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Divisions 4V,
4W and 4X.

(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for this stock.

7. For the stock of Atlantic redfish (Sebastes marinus) located in
Divisions 4R, 4S and 4T, the fol\owing terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada based outside the Gulf of St.
Lawrence may catch 90 percent of any portion of the annual permis­
sible commercial catch for this stock set under this Agreement for

vessels based outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and vessels of the
United States 10 percent of that portion of the annual permissible
commercial catch.
(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 253

sels of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Divisions 4R,
4S and 4T where subparagraph (a) îs applicable.·

(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for this stock.

8. For the stock of Atlantic redfish (Sebastes marinus) located in
Division ~-0, the following terms shall apply:
(a) Subject to paragraph 9 of this Annex, each fishing year vessels of
the United States may catch 600 metric tons of the annual permissi­
ble commercial catch set for this stock under lhis Agreement, and
vessels of Canada 100 percent of the annual permissible commcrcia 1

catch, Jess600 metric tons.
(h) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, vcs­
sels of bath Parties may fîsh for this stock throughout Division 3-0.

(c) Canada shall dctermine the management measures for this stock.
9. For the stock of Atlantic redfîsh (Sebastes marinus) located in
Division 3P, the following terms sha!l apply:

(a) Upon the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Canada
and France, the United States may request that its entitlement to
600 metric tons of the Division 3-0 redfish stock be exchanged for
an equivalent entitlement to this stock. 1f Canada agrees to such an
entitlement for vessels of the United States, each fishing year therc­
after vessels of the United States may catch 600 mctric tons of the
annual permissiblc commercial catch set for this stock under this
Agreement, and vessels of Canada 100 percent of the annual permis­
sible commercial catch, Jess 600 metric tons; and paragraph 8 of this
Annex shall cease to apply.

(h) ln a manncr consistent wilh applicable management rncasurcs, vcs­
scls of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Division 3P
wherc subparagraph (a) is applicable.

(c) Canada shall dctcrminc the managcrnent rneasurcs for this stock.
1O. For the stock of Atlantic rcdfish (Sehasres marin us) locatcd
in Subarea 5, the following tcrms shall app!y:

(a) Each fishing year vcsscls of the United States may catch 99 percent
of the annual pcrmissiblc commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and vcsscls of Canada l percent of the annua1 pcr­
missiblc commercial catch.
(b) ln a manncr consistent wilh applicable management mensures, vcs­
scls of both Parties may fish for this stock throughout Sub:.irea5.

(c) The United States shall determinc the management mcasurcs for
this stock.

11. Upon expiration of the tenth ycar following cntry into force of
this Agreement, paragraphs 6 through 9 of this Anncx, which pcrtain to
four redfish stocks, shall no longer apply, after which time fishing for
such stocks in the maritime area in which cach Party exerciscs exclusive
fîsherics jurisdiction shall be governed by the domestic law of that Party. 254 GULF OF MAINE

Other Atlantic Groundfish

12. For the stocks of other Atlantic groundfish located in Suba­
reas 3 and 4, including ail Atlantic groundfish species but excluding those
stocks listed elsewhere in this Annex or in Annex A or B, the following
terms shall apply:
(a) Each fishing year vessels of Canada may catch 99 percent of the
annual permissible commercial catch set for any one or more of

these stocks under this Agreement, and vessels of the United States
\ percent of the annual permissible commercial catch. Depending on
management preferences, an annü.al permissible commercial catch
may be set individually for any of these stocks, in the aggregate for a
grouping of two or more such stocks, or in both ways.

(b) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of Canada may fish for these stocks throughout Subareas 3 and
4. Vessels of the United States may catch these stocks only inciden­
tally in fishing for other stocks listed in this Annex or in Annex A or
B, and may catch these stocks in Subareas 3 and 4, to the extent
authorized to fish for such other stocks and in a manner consistent
with applicable management measures.

(c) Canada shall determine the management measures for these stocks.

13. For the stocks of other Atlantic groundfish located in Subarea
5, including all Atlantic groundfish species but excluding those stocks
. listed elsewhere in this Annex or in Annex A or B, the following terms
shall apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 99 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for any one or more
of these stocks under this Agreement, and vessels of Canada l per­
cent of the annual permissible commercial catch. Depending on
management preferences, an annual permissîble commercial catch
may be set individua!ly for any of these stocks, in the aggregate for a
grouping of two or more such stocks, or in both ways.

(b) In a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of the United States may fish for these stocks throughout Suba­
rea 5. Vessels of Canada may catch these stocks only incidentally in
fishing for other stocks listed in this Annex or in Annex A or B, and
may catch these stocks in Subarca 5 to the extent authorized to fish
for such other stocks and in a manner consistent with applicable
management measures.

(c) The United States shall determine the management measures for
these stocks.

Northern Lobster
14. For the stock of northern lobster (Homarus americanus)

located in Subareas 4 and 5, upon the delimitation of the maritime
boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, the following terms shall apply:
(a) Vessels .of each Party, in a manner consistent with applicable man- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 255

agement measures, may fish for this stock only in the portion of
Subareas 4 and 5 which is within its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction,
subject to subparagraph (c).
(b) Each Party shall determine the management measures for this stock

in the portion of Subareas 4 and S which is within its exclusive fish­
eries jurisdiction, subject to subparagraph (c).
(c) The Parties agree to review the possibility of fishing for this stock by
vessels of one Party in the area under the exclusive fisheries jurisdic­
tion of the other Party, on a basis of reciprocity. Any arrangements

that may be agreed for such reciprocal fishing access to this stock
shall include provisions for the minimization of conflicts between
lobster fishing vessels and gear and other types of fishing vessels and
gear. Ifthe Parties agree on arrangements for such reciprocal access,
but cannot agree on the nature of gear conflict provisions, the ques­
tion of gear conflict provisions may be referred by either Party to the
Arbitrator for decision in accordance with Chapter Il. This Annex
shall be amended as necessary to reflect changes agreed by the Par­
ties or determined by the Arbitrator.

Loligo Squid

15. For the stock of loligo squid (Loligo pealeî) located in Divi­
sion 52 and Subarea 6, the following terms sha\l apply:

(a) Each fishing year vessels of the United States may catch 91 percent
of the annual permissible commercial catch set for this stock under
this Agreement, and vessels of Canada 9 per cent of the annual per­
missible commercial catch.
(b) ln a manner consistent with applicable management measures, ves­
sels of bath Parties may fish for this stock throughout Division 52

and Subarea 6.
(c) The United States shall determine the management measures for
this stock. To the extcnt reasonably necessary to assure \evels of inci­
dcntal catch of othcr species which are consistent with United States
management goals and to avoid connicts between different types of

fishing vessels and gear, the management measures applicable to the
vessels of Canada may be more restrictive than measures applicable
to vessels of the United States; provided, however, that the manage~
ment measures applicable to vessels of Canada shall be desîgned to
assure them the opportunity to catch the full Canadian entitlement
without undue fishing hardship.

(d) Upon expiration of the tenth year following entry into force of this
Agreement, this paragraph shall no longer apply.

IncidentalCatch

16. Regarding the incidental catch of stocks not included in para­
graph 12 or 13 of this Annex, the Parties shall consult periodically in an
effort to develop suitable arrangements consistent with the objectives of
thîs Ag~cement. At the request of either Party the incidental catch provi-256 GULF OF MAINE

st0ns of paragraph 12 or 13 applîca ble to other Atian tic groundfish
stocks, including entitlements, shall be reviewed by the Commission to
determine whether such provisions are resulting in undue restriction on
the abilîty of vessels of that Party to harvest its other entîtlements under

this Agreement. Changes in any incidental catch provision may be agreed
upon by the Parties and this Annex shall be amended accordingly. Tem­
porary relaxations of such a provision may be implemented immediately
if so agreed by both Parties.

Access to Grand Manan Island Area

17. (a) Subject to this paragra ph, where vesse\s of the United
States are authorized by this Annex or by Annex A or B to fish for a

-groundfish stock throughout Division 4X, such vessels may have access to
the area from three to twelve nautical miles from the coast of Grand
Manan Island, but seaward of twelve nautical miles from the mainland
coast of Canada.

! (b) Fishing access pursuant to subparagraph (a) shall be on an
equal footing with vessels of Canada and in particular shall be subject to
nondiscriminatory Canadian regulations respecting the dimensions of ves­
sels which may fish in this arca.

(c) Fishing access pursuant to subparagraph (a) sha!l be rcstrîctcd
to traditional patterns of fishing and lcvcls of effort by vcsscls of the
classes which may fish in the area.

(d) The Parties agree that best efforts sha!l be exerted to prevent
gear conflicts from arising out of the fishing access providcd for in sub­

paragraph (a); and without restricting the gencrality of subparagraph
(b), they further agree that vessels excrcising such rights of access shall
observe nondiscriminatory Canadian regulations regarding gear connîcts.

ANNEX D

The subareas, divisions and subdivisions used to describe the fishery
stocks listed in Annexes A, Band C shall be as follows:

1. Subarea 3 is that portion of the maritime arca lying south of
the parai lei of 52° 15' north latitude, and to the cast of a Iine extend ing
due north from Cape Bauld on the north coast of Newfoundland to 52 °
1
15' north latitude; to the north of the parallcl of 39°00 north la1itude;
and to the east a1d north of a rhumb line commencing at 39°00 north
latitude, 50°00 west longitude and extending in a northwesterly direction
to pass through a point at 43°30' north latitude, 55°00' west longitude in
the direction_ of a point at 47°50 1north latitude, 60°00 1 west longitude
until itintersects a straight line connccting Cape Ray, on the coast of

Newfoundland, with Cape North on Cape Breton Island; thence in a
northeasterly direction along said line to Cape Ray. Subarea 3 inctudes
the following Divisions:
(a) Division 3-0, which is that portion of the Subarea lying south of the

parallel of 46°00' north latitude and between the meridian of 51°00'
west longitude and the meridian of 54°30' west longitude; ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 257

(b) Division 3P, which is that portion of the Subarea lying south of the

Newfoundland coast and west of a line from Cape St. Mary, New­
foundland to a point at 46°00' north latitude, 54°30' west longitude,
thence due south to the limit of the Subarea.

2. Subarea 4 is that portion of the maritime area lying north of
the parallel of 39°00 north latitude, to the west of Subarea 3, and to the
east of a line described as follows: Beginning at the terminus of the inter­
national boundary between the United States of America and Canada in
Grand Manan Channel, at a point at 44°46' 35.346" north latitude;
1 1
66°54 11.253" west longitude; thence due south to the parallel of 43°50
north latitude; thence due west to the meridian of 67°40' west longitude;
thence due south to the parallel of 42°20' north latitude; thencc due east
to a point in 66°00 west longitude; thence along a rhumb Jine in a south­
easterly direction to a point at 42°00' north latitude and 65°40 west lon­

gitude; and thence due south to the parallel of 39°00' north latitude.
Subarea 4 is divided into six Divisions:
(a) Division 4R, which is that portion of the Subarea lying bctween the

coast of Newfoundland from Cape Bauld to Cape Ray and a line
described as follows: Beginning at Cape Bauld, thence due north to
the paralie! of 52° 15' north latitude, thence due west to the Labra­
dor coast, thence along the Labrador coast to the terminus of the
Labrador-Quebec boundary, thence along a rhumb line in a south­
westerly direction to a point at 49°25' north latitude, 60°00 west 1
1
longitude, thence due south to a point at 47°50 north latitude,
60°00' west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in a southeasterly
direction to the point at which the boundary of Subarea 3 intersects
the straight line joining Cape North, Nova Scotia with Cape Ray,
Newfoundland, thence to Cape Ray, Newfoundland;

(b) Division 4S, which is that portion of the Subarea lying between the
south coast or Quebec from the terminus of the Labrador-Quebec
boundary to Pte. des Monts and a line described as follows: Begin·
ning at Pte. des Monts, thence due east to a point at 49°25' north
latitude, 64°40' west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in an east~
1
southeasterly direction to a point at 47°50 north latitude, 60°00'
west longitude, thence due north to a point at 49°25' north latitude,
60°00' west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in a northeasterly
direction to the terminus or the Labrador-Que bec boundary;

(c) Division 4T, which is that portion of the Subarea lying between the
coasts or Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec from Cape
North to Pte. des Monts and a line described as follows: Beginning
at Pte. des Monts, thence due east to a point at 49°25' north lati­
tude, 64°40' west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in a south­

easterly direction to a point at 47°50' north latitude, 60°00' west
longitude, thence·along a rhumb line in a southerly direction to Cape
North, Nova Scotia;

(d) Division 4V, which is that portion of the Subarea lying between the
coast of Nova Scotia between Cape North and Fourchu and a line
described as follows: Beginning at Fourchu, thence along a rhumb
line in an easterly direction to a point at 45°40' north latitude,258 GULF OF MAINE

60°00' west longitude, thence due south along the ·meridian of
60°00' west longitude to the parallel of 44° 10' north latitudc, thencc
due cast to the meridian of 59°00' west longitude, thence due south
to the parallel of 39°00' north latitude, thence due east to a point
where the boundary between Subareas 3 and 4 meets the parallel of
39°00 north latitude, thence along the boundary between Subareas

3 and 4 a1d a line continuing in a1northwesterly direction to a point
at 47°50 north latitude, 60°00 west longitude, and thence along a
rhumb line in a southerly direction to Cape North, Nova Scotia.
Division 4V is divided into two Subdivisions:

(î) Subdivision 4Yn, which is that portion of Division 4V lying
north of the parallel of 45°40 1 north latitude;

(ii) Subdivision 4Vs, which is that portion of Division 4V lying
south of the parai lei of 45°40' north latitude;

(e) Division 4W, which is that portion of the Subarca lying between the
coast of Nova Scotia from Halifax to Fourchu and a line described
as follows: Bcginning at Fourchu, thencc along a rhumb line in an
casterly direction to a point at 45°40 1north latitude, 60°00 1west

longitude, thence due south alo1g the meridian of 60°00' wcst longi-
1ude to a para!lcl of 44° 10 north latitude, thence due east to the
meridian of 59°00' wcst longitude, thencc duc south to the parallel
of 39°00' north latitude, thcncc due west to the mcridian of 63°20'
wcst longitude, thence due north to a point on tha t mcridian in

44°20' north latitude, thence along a rhumb line in a northwcsterly
direction to Halifax, Nova Scotia;

(j) Division 4X, which is that portion of the Subarea lying bctwcen the
western boundary of Subarca 4 and the coasts of New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia from the terminus of the boundary bctween New
Brunswick and Maine to Halifax, and a linc dcscribed as follows:
Beginning at Halifax, thencc along a rhumb !ine in a southcastcrly
direction to a point at 44°20' north latitude, 63°20 1 wcst longitude,

thence due south to the parallel of 39100' north latitude, and thence
duc wcst to the meridian of 65°40 west longitude.

3. Subarea 5 is that portion of the maritime area lying to the west
of the western boundary of Su barea 4, to the norlh of the para lie! of
39°00' north latitude, and to the east of the merîdian of 71°40' wcst lon­
gitude. Subarea 5 is eomposcd of two Divisions:

(a) Division 5Y, which is that portion of the Subarca lying between the
coasts of Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts from the bor­
der bctwccn Maine and New Brunswick to 70°00 west longitude on
Cape Cod (at approximately 42° north latitude) and a line describcd

as follows: Beginning at a point on Cape Cod at 70°00' wcst longi­
tude (at approximately 42° north latitude), thence due north to
42°20' north latitude, thencc due cast to 67°40' west longitude at
the boundary of Subareas 4 and 5, and thence along that boundary

to the boundary of Canada and the United States;
(b) Division 5Z, which is that portion of the Subarea lying to the south
and east of Division 5Y. Division SZ is dividcd into Subdivisions: ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 259

(i) Subdivision 5Ze, which is that por1ion of Division 52 lying
east of the meridian of 70°00 west longitude;

(îi) Subdivision 52w, which is that portion of Division 52 !ying
wcst of the meridian of 70°00' west longitude.

4. Subarea 6 is that portion of the maritime area bounded by a 1
line bcginning at a point on the coast of Rhode Island at 71°40 wcst lon­
gitude; thence due south to 39°00 1 north latitude; thence duc cast to
42 °00' west longitude; thence due south to 35°00 1north latitude; thence

due west to the coast of North America; thence northwards along the
coast of North America to the point on Rhode Island at 71°40' west lon­
gitude.

5. The foregoing subareas, divisions and subdivisions are dcpicted
graphically on the attached map, for illustrative purposes. [Attachment
omitted.]260 GULF OF MAINE

CERTIFICATION

1, the undersigned L.H. Legau]t, Q.C., Agent for Canada, hereby
certify that the copy of each document attached as a Documentary
Annex in Volume I of the Annexes to the Memorial submitted by

Canada is an accuratecopy, whet,her prepared by photographie means or
by transcription.

(Signed) L.H. LEOAULT, Q.C. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 261

Volume II

PuBLIC AND ÜFFlCIAL DocUMENTS

Annex1

EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT ON THE FJSHERIES OF NOVA SCOTIA, 1867,
BY THOMAS F.K.NIGHT (TITLE PAGE AND PAGES 1,2AND 3)

[Not reproduced]

Annex 2

EXTRACTS FROM THE LETTER OF 19 fEBRUAR Y 1868FROM THE NOVA SCOTIA
DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FiSHERIES ÜFFICE TO THE MINISTER OF THE
CANADIAN DEPART MENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (PAGES 1-J!)

[Not reproduced}

Annex3

"HADDOCKING ON BROWN'S BANK", DY F.WILLIAM WALLACE (CANADIAN
FISHERMAN, VOLUME 1,NUMBER 5,MAY 1914,PAGES 141-145)

[Not reproduced]262 GULF OF MAINE

A11nex4

"SHIPPING AND f'ISHING", QUOTING THE YARMOUTH TIMES
(DIE DIGBY WEEKLY COURIER, 25 JUNE 1915)

[Not reproduced]

Annex 5

"THE ATLANTIC F'ISHERIES, THE TwELVE MONTHS' TALLY: DIGBY, N.$,",
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE (CANADJAN F!SHERMAN, VOLUME III,NUMBER 2,
fEBRUARY 1916,PAGES 52-54)

[Not reproduced]

Aonex6

"MARITIME F1sttCORPORATION", BY RoY M. WHYNACHT (CANADJAN FlsHERMAN,
VOLUME IX,NUMBER 7,JULY 1922,PAGES 141-144)

[Not reproducedj

Annex7

EXTRACTS FROM f'ROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATING THE
FISHER/ES OF THE MARITIME PROVINCES, 1927-1928 (VOLUME 9, PAGE 3432 AND

VOLUME 10,PAGE 3476)

[Note: on page 3432 the speaker îs J. D'Entremonet, an Overseer from
Yarmouth District, and on page 3476 the speaker is George E. Earle, a dealer
from Yarmouth.}

[Not reproduced] ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 263

Aooex8

EXTRACTS FROM THE REl'oRTOF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATING THE
F!SHERIES OF THE MARI11ME PROVINCES AND THE MAGDALENE ISLANDS, /928
(COYER AND PAGE 7)

[Not reproduced]

Anoex 9

STEAM TRAWLER ÜRDER, ÜRDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2196, 30ÜCTOBER 1929

[Not reproducedj

Aooex 10

CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT WRECK REPORT, FILE: EAST COAST
LUCILLE M (26 JULY 1942)

[Not reproducedj264 GULF OF MAINE (6-7, 23]

Aooex 11

EXTRACfS FROMTHE UNITED $TATES DRAFT INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
NüRTHWEST ATLANTIC FiSHERIES, INTERNATIONAL NORTHWEST ATLANTIC
FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 26JANUARY 1949 TO 5 fEBRUARY 1949
(DocUMENT f, l.ÛCTOBER 1948, PAGES 6, 7, 23AND 24)

[Note: in the final text of the Convention, sub-area 4became sub-area 5owing
to the division into two of sub-area1.)

Article IV

l. For the purpose of regulation within the sub-areas, the High Contracting ·
Parties agree to establish and maintain Panels for each of the sub-areas pro­

vided for by Article1.High Contracting Parties participating on any Panel shall
be represented on such Panel by their three Commissioners. Each Panel shall
elect its chairman who.shall serve for a period of one year and shall be eligible
for re-election.1tis authorized to adopt and to amend subsequently, as occa­
sion may require, suitable by-laws or rules for the conduct of ils meetings and
for the exercise of its functions and duties. The secretariat of the Commission
shall act as the secretariat for the Panels.
2. A two-thirds majority of the Commissioners of a Panel shall constitute a

quorum.
3. Each panel Commissioner shall have one v9te. Any Panel Commissioner
of any High Contracting Party shall have the right to cast the ballot of the other
Panel Commissioner or Commissioners representing that High Contracting
Party who may be absent from a Panel meeting. Decisions of the Panel shall be
taken by a simple majority of the votes cast, except that the adoption of regula­
tions pursuant to Article IX, paragraph 2, shall require a two-thirds majority of
the votes cast, which major ily shall înclude the votes of the Panel Commission­

ers representing High Contracting Parties with coastlines contiguous to the sub­
area.
4. The Commissioners of any non-participating High Contracting Party
shall have the right to attend the meetings of any Panel as observers.
5. As soon as possible after the entry into force of this Convention, each
Panel shall be established by those High Contracting Parties entitled to repre­
sentation thereon, as specified in the Annex, which have ratified or adhered to
the Convention.
6. For a·period of three years from the date of entry into force of this Con­

vention, Panel representation shall be as specified in the Annex. Panel repre­
sentation shall be reviewed annually thereafter by the Commission, which shall
have the power to determine the representation, on the basis of current substan­
tial exploitation in such sub-area of the species of fish listed in the Annex, ex­
cept that each High Contracting Party with coastline contiguous to a sub-area
shali have the rightf representation on the Panel for the sub-area.

ANNEX

1. Thesub-areas provided for by Article I of this Convention shall be as fol-
loM: .[23-24) ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 265

Sub-area l - That portion of the area defined in Article I which lies north of
the parallel of 52°15'north latitude. .
Sub-area 2 - That portion of the area defined in Article I lying south of the
parallel of 52°15'north latitude; to the north of the parallel of 39°00'north
latitude; and to the east and northofa rhumb line extending in a northwesterly
direction which passes through a point in 43°30'north latitude, 55°00'west

longitude, in the directionof a point in47° 50'north latitude, 60°00'west longi­
tude, until it intersects a straight line connecting Cape Ray, on the coast of
Newfoundland, with Cape North on Cape Breton Island; thence in a north­
easterly direction along said line to Cape Ray.
Sub-area 3 - That portion ofthe area defined in Article 1,lying tothe westof
sub-area 2 defined above, and to the east of a line described as follows: Begin­
oing at the terminus of the international boundary between the United States of
America and Canada in Grand Manan Channel, at a point in 44°46' 35.34"
north latitude, 66°54'11.23"west longitude; thence due south to the parallel of

43° 50'north latitude; thence due west to the meridian of 67°40' west longi­
tude; thence due south to the parallel of 42°20'north latitude; thence due east
to a point in66°00'westlongitude; thence along arhumbline in a southeasterly
direction to a point in 42°00'north latitude, 65°40'west longitude; thence due
south to the parallel of 39°00'north latitude.
Sub-area 4 - That portion of the area defined in Article I lying west of the
western boundary of sub-area 3 defined above.

2. For a period of three years from the date of entry into force of this Con­
vention, Panel representation for each sub-area shall be ~sfollows:

{a) Sub-area 1- Canada, Denmark, France, Newfoundland, Portugal, Spain,
United States.
(b) Sub-area 2 - Canada, Denmark, France, Newfoundland, Portugal, Spain,
United States.
(c) Sub-area 3 -·canada, France, Newfoundland, United States.
(d} Sub-area4- Canada, United States.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of Article X ofthis Convention, the following
species of fish are subject to regulation :

Scientific Name CommonName
Gadus mollhua
(synonym: Gadus callarius)
cod, codfish
Hippoglossus hippoglossus halibut
Melanogrammus aeglefinus haddock
Sebastes marinus rosefish, redfish
Urophysis tenuis white hake
Urophysis chuss red hake
Pollachiusvirens pollock
Brosme brosme cusk

-END-266 GULFOFMAINE [1-2]

Annex12

MINUTESOFTHESECONDSllSSION OF THEINTERNATIONA NLORTHWEST ATLANTIC
FlSHERIESCONFERENCE 2,6 JANUARY 1949 TO5 FEBRUARY 1949 (DOCUMENT 15,
27 JANUARY 1949, PAGES1-13, ANDCoRRIGENDUM A, 28 }ANUARY 1949)

Jan.27, 1949

Minutesof theSecondSession

TiME: Thursday, January 27, 1949, 10:35 a.m.
PLACE: West Ballroom, Shoreham Hotel
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chapman (U.S.A.)

1. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T :he first working session of the Committee as
a whole is called to order.

2. I wish to say that it is pleasing to see ail bands present this moming. Ap­
parently the evening's festivities did not Jay anyone Jow.
3. Before we begin the discussion of the draft convention, I wish to point out
in some detail the reasons behind the action of the United States in convening
this InternationalNorthwest Atlantic Fisheries Conference.

4. The sole purpose that we had in mind was this: To provide an interna­
tional mechanism for (l) investigating the factors influencing the yield of the
high seas fisheries in these areas, and (2) the control of fishing effort in the
areas, if that should be found to be a factor that is influencing the yield of the
fisheriesin a deleterious way.
5. By control of fishing effort we mean precisely that and nothing more.

Fishing effort should be regulated, when it is found necessary and desirable to
do so, in such a manner as to keep the fish stocks, upon which the fisheries
operate, at those levels which will make possible maximum sustained yields
year after year.
6. Our ideas would be :

(1) That the regulations would be applied uniformly to ail vessels of the nations
signatory to this pact.
(2) That the regulations would be promulgated by a joint commission com­
posed of representatives of all the nations which maintain a substantial

fishery in the are a.
(3) That the commission would base its regulations upon its scientific findings.
7. What gave rise to the United States' interest in this matter was the fact that
we have information, satisfactory to us, that certain fish stocks on the Georgia 's

banks and in their vicinity are being over-fished, and that ifthey were not fished
so bard, they actually would yield a greater catch of fish.
8. The fishery in this area is almost entirely a United States fishery at the
present time. To the best of my knowledge, Canadian vessels have seldom
fished in the area in recent years, and the vessels of other nations have seldom,

if ever, worked in the area. I refer to Area 4 of the chart before you.
9. Since this isan almost exclusively United States fishery at the present
time, there is no reason why we could not regulate it in any manner that we
thought best by control over our own citizens. This bas been, and still is, being
given consideration. There are, however, two reasons why such a scheme is not

necessarily the best one for handling the problem.{2-3] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 267

1O. The first reason is this: If, by regulating the fishing efforts of our own
citizens in this particular area, we build up the fish stocks to a high \evel and at
the same time the fish stocks in an adjacent area are being over-fished and are
going downhill, then other fishermen will be drawn to the enriched banks.

Now, there is no practical sense in putting money in a savings account from
which everybody else in the world can draw freely, while, at the same time, you
regulate closely your own withdrawals.
11. The second reason is: The imposition of regulations on United States
fishermen in Area 4 would not result in the United States fishermen tying their
vessels to the dock. It would simply mean that their surplus fishing efforts will
be diverted elsewhere, and we know from experience that it will be diverted to
Area 3.
12. Thus, the same picture of overfishing and depletion would very likely
follow. This latter situation, of course, would be quite beyond our cimtrol, for
the fishèrmen of many nations operate in a major way in Area 3.
13. Again, regulation of the fishing effort of the United States citizens ~)one
would not be effective from a conservation viewpoint. There is always the blunt
fact that regulation of one group of fishermen without similar regulation of a

second group, both ofwhich are working the same grounds, would give a com­
mercial advantage to the second group. No group of fishermen of any nation
willwillingly permit the fishermen of another nation to have such a commercial
advantage.
14. We furthermore quite well realize that regulation of fishing in Areas 4
and 3 would mean an eventual shifting of fishing effort to Area-2 and, if that
Area also were brought under conservation regulation, an eventual shifting of
fishing effort to Area 1. ·
15. This is not all theory. The process is going on at this moment. White
United States fishermen in the past have fished extensively in all four of the
specified areas, it is also true that for a good many years our trawlers restricted
their effort almost entirely to Area 4. No fisherman ever goes farther from bis
home port to get fish than is necessary.

16. More recently the dedine in the yield of the Area 4 fisheries has forced
our fishermen to go to the banks of Area 3. If I am correctly informed, the
United States fishermen now land more fish from Area 3 than they do from
Area 4. Furthermore, there already is a renewal of fishing by the United States
in Area 2. lt is expected, by the trade, that this will continue to grow, and very
rapidly.
17. 1wish to emphasize that our actions have originated because of two fac­
tuai situations:

(1) Overfishing in Area 4,and
(2) A transfer of fishing efforts to adjacent areas with a likelihood that over­
fishing willoccurthere also.
18. Except perhaps for the stocks of halibut, we have no conclusive evidence
that there is overfishing in Areas 3, 2 or I at the present time. On the contrary,
there is a belief, in the absence of factual information, that the stocks of fish in
these areas are capable of producing substantially larger quantities of fish with­
out damage to the stocks.

19. It is a part of our thinking regarding fishery conservation that a curtail­
ment of fishing effort is not desirable until there is rather conclusive evidence
that the point of maximum production from the fish stocks under consideration
bas been reached or exceeded. The other sîde ofthis thinking is equally strong.
When there is proofthat the point of maximum production has been reached or268 GULF OF MAINE (3-5]

exceeded, curtailment of fishing effort should be quickly applied in order to
prevent the waste brought about by overfishing.
20. The authorities who will make up the regulations to curtail fishing effort
must have a wide degree of flexibility in their scope of action. The relationship
between the fishery and the fish stocks isa dynamic one, capable of quick shifts
and tums. The relationship between many fishstocks and their natural environ­
mentis equa\ly dynamic and also capable of quick and substantial changes. The

regulatory code must therefore also be dynamic if it is to fulfill its objective of
maintaining the possibility of a maximum production of fish.
21. In these days of a rapidly increasing potential fishing effort in the North
Atlantic area, and the increasing ability of this fishing effort to be applied in
widely separate areas in the North Atlantic, overfishing can arise with an ease
and swiftness that could not have occurred previously.
22. As I have said, we have no reason for wishing regulation of fishing effort
in the three areas until such regulation becomes necessary and desirable.
Nevertheless, it isqur firm beliefthat in viewofthe highlyflexible nature ofthe
fishing effort in the North Atlantic, it would be only prudent to begin large
scale investigations in those areas where it would be necessary to provide the
scientific bases that are required to determine when regulation will be profit­

able.
23. We believewith equal firmness that itwould be equally prudent to main­
tain sufficient foresight to provide at this time the legal machinery for theappli­
cation of such regulations as may be found desirable, even though they might
not be neccessary for some years to corne.
24. ln this country we have had a good deal of bitter experience in over­
exploiting irreplaceable resources. The general pattern has been to jump in with
scientific research to find out the obvious. Years pass by while the scientists
prove to everyone concemed that there bas been over-exploitation. During
these years, the resource produces little or nothing. As a result, the rate of
exploitation is relaxed, the resource rebuilds itself,and ifwe are lucky, weevent­
ually get it into shape where itcan produce in quantity again.
25. This isnota sensible wayto do business. Sorneday we willhave to accept
the knowledge gained from these many Jessons, and be prepared, when over­
exploitation rears its head, to take quick measures for its contrai without the
intervention of these years of waste.

26. There may have been a suspicion on the part of some of the nations at
this Conference that the real reason for calling the Conference issomewhat dif­
ferent. They may have feared that the United States, or the United States and
Canada together, may be conspiring, in some way that is not quite clear, to ex­
clude their fisherrnen from this area, or to limit the effort of their fishermen in
such a way that the fishermen of the United States or Canada would have an
advantage over them.
27. I wish to state categorically that the United States has no such objective
in mind. Our objective is plainly and simply the desire to provide machinery
which will permit the fish stocks of the Northwest Atlantic to continue to pro­
duce the maximum quantity of fish possible to feed the people of the world.
28. We have no intention of bringing up at this Conference anything con­
ceming a diversion of the yield ofthese fisheries, and we hope no one else will,
for I think it is quite certain we could not reach any agreement as to how the
yield of these fisheries should be divided between the nations. On the other

hand, we do not see how anyone fishing in the area could logically oppose the
conservation of the fisheries to the profit of everyone.
29. Since the fishermen of many nations fish in many places in the four[5-6) ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 269

areas, it is necessary that there be cooperation among the nations ifthe main
objective is to be carried forward. Our purpose in convening this convention

wasto lay plans for such cooperation among the interested nations. To expedite
the work of this convention there bas been prepared and forwarded to you a
draft for an international convention under which such cooperative effort
would be possible. I wish to comment briefly on a few of the articles of that
draft, to the end that you will know what we were thinking of in its preparation.
30. Detailed discussion of the draft will be left to a later time. However, it
may be well to mention a few of the provisions at this time.
3f. The draft provides that regulation or other action will initiale from pan­
els set up for each of the separate areas. In developing this proposai two things
were kept in mind. Canada and the United States-have had a good deal of expe­
rience in 'managinghigh seas fisheries on the west coast through the medium of
two International Commissions, each of which works with but one species of
fish. The efforts of both of the Commissions have been quite satisfactory, and
we now are rather thoroughly acquainted with the system. Each of the fisheries

involved is fished solely by the two countries.
32. In the present instance, however, we hope to jump from that rather
simple situation, which incidentally has been worked out over a period of some
years, to an extremely complex situation, where there are many species of fish
involved, and where many nations are involved. Thus we have sought to pro­
vide for asmu.chsimplification of the biological and the political problems as is
possible. Wehave thought that this would be achieved best by splitting the over­
all area into smaller areas, which smaller areas have a degree of homogeneity
from a biological standpoint and also from a political standpoint. To the best of
our knowledge, the stocks offish in which we are particularly interested do not
move in any large wayfrom one area to another. If that assumption proves to be
correct, then regulations in one area simply would have little or no effect on the
fish stocks in one of the other areas, and the problems can be t.11ken up one by
one.

33. Similarly with the fishing effort. Many nations fish in one or another of
the four areas, but there is none of the four areas in which there is fishing by all
of our nations. We know and recognize the difficulties involved in reconciling
numerous viewpoints. The fewer viewpoints there are to reconcile, the more_
chance there is of reconciliation. If the primary responsibilities in each of the
areas are placed in the bands ofthose nations who have the primary responsi­
bilities and interests in the areas, we anticipate and hope that the process of
leaming how to work together on these very complex matters willgo ahead with
greater ease.
34. That is the primary purpose in providing for the proposed panel organi­
zation. From the hiological standpoint it is realized that the presently proposed
areas may not be the proper ones. lt might be quite necessary, as more evidence
cornes in, to change the boundaries of the areas. ltmight even be necessary
to split the areas, and provision bas been made in the draft for flexibility in
·changing the boundaries of the areas.
35. Similarly, itis realized that the national composition of these fisheries

willchange from time to time asmarket conditions inthe various countries pro­
vide their fishermen with different patterns of profitable work. Weknow that in
the past there bas been a very considerable shifting, upon the part of the indi­
vidual nations, of interest in the four areas. Asexplained before, we ourselves
have gone through that change. Wehave fished in ail ofthe areas, then inone of
the areas, and then in one or two. Werealize that this is a dynamic situation, and
we have provided in the draft a means to meet it.270 GULF OF MAINE (6-7]

36. Wehave proposed in the drart convention the use of Panel Committees.
This has been based on our idea of the present situation. We think that it would
be advisable to maintain any such Panel system that may be drawn up at this
time for a period of at least three years, in order to give usthat amount of time

to leam how to work together. After that time, and it has been so provided in
the draft, changes in the Panels should be possible each year, to compensate for
the shifting of national interest on the part of individual nations.
37. Now, while we feel that the idea of Panels bas some merit, we are quite
aware of the fact that it would not be desirable for one Panel to take action that
would defeat the purposes that another Panel is tryingto achieve. That, we con­
cede, is one of the principal objectives of the Commission as a whole, i.e.,to act
as a corretating factor.
38. In Article Vwe have provided that "each High Contracting Party shall be
entitled to setup an Advisory Committee."
39. lt is, of course, quite within the prerogative of any High Contracting
Party to setup any kind of a committee it might desire to help it in its delibera­
tions. The reason wehave made this provision in the draft convention is to draw
attention to the fact that in our other two International Commissions, which

have been in operation for a number of years, we have found one of the most
valuable factors of the organization to be the close liaison and relationship be­
tween the work of the Commission, the work of the scientists on the staff of the
Commission, and the work of the fishermen in the industry. The Advisory
Committees which have been provided for in those Commissions contributed
in very large measure to their success. The trade knows at once through them
what the program ofthe Commission is,both its research program, and its regu­
latory program. The trade actually participates in the formation ofboth investi­
gatory programs and regulatory programs. As a consequence, the trade has
corne to assume a rather proprietary interest in the Commissions. Their views
have been taken into full consideration at ail stages, and the Commission very
frequently accepts these views.One of the main advantages, however, isthat the
fishermen are educated at the same time the Commission and its staff are edu­
cated. Actions of the Commission are familiar to them because of their contin­

uing acquaintance with Commission discussions and decisions. We feel, from
our standpoint, that an Advisory Committee is quite necessary. We would,
therefore, provide for one.
40. Article VI of our draft convention provides for the widest latitude for in­
vestigation on the part of the Commission. Wedo not think that we, or even this
Conference, are capable of saying at this time what should be investigated. We
know the complexities of the scene and the various populations of animais in
the sea. Weknow the complexities of their relationships, we know that when we
plan out a very careful campaign of research, that it has to be modified con­
stantly as we go ahead with that research, because we have not known ail the
factors that need to be taken into consideration at the start. Veryfrequently, the
avenue of research hoped to be the most promising became the least promising,
and the least promising tumed out to be the most promising, at the instigation
of the program. Therefore, we have sought to have the Commission granted
powers to investigate on the widest possible basis.

41. Considering that this type of organization is an experiment in itself and a
very complex experiment, we have not wished to limit in any way the manner in
which the Commission could undertake these investigations. We would like to
leave them the utmost flexibility to use such means as they can to obtain the
facts and information that will be required. We have stated in the first part of
the article that the Commission may, "either in collaboration with agencies of[7-9] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 271

the High Contracting Parties or other public or private agencies and organiza­
tions or independently," make these investigations. In our other two Commis­
sions, the Commissions themselves have scientific staffs to make their investi­
gations. This Commission may well wish to make some use of that procedure.
On the other band, Canada, Denmark, others, and ourselves have in the past

conducted a considerable amount of research in this area and will continue to
do so. lt is quite probable that the primary method of attack the Commission
will use is to correlate those activities to bring them to full fruition. What we
wish to do is to allow the Commission the maximum flexibility to set up its in­
vestigatory mechanism. There is a further point of flexibility that we would like
very much to provide for the Commission, and it is taken care of in paragraph 2
of Article VI, which I will read:

"In order to provide for cooperation between the Commission and other
public international organizations with related interests, the Commission
shall enter into arrangements with the competent authorities of such orga­
nizations concerning the methods of cooperation."
42. There are two things, in particular, that we have in mind there. One is the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. We would anticipate that

the Commission would make full use of any cooperative scheme possible be­
tween their work and that of the International Council.
43. There is in this paragraph a further degree of flexibility that we would
like to keep available for the Commission. The Food and Agriculture Organiza­
tion of the United Nations has a Fisheries Division, which is capable of setting
up a secretariat for, andof providing a great deal of assistance to, the Commis­
sion. The Commission might very well find great benefit in using that organiza­
tion in many ways. We quite realize that FAO, as constituted, bas no authority
whatever when it oomes to regulations. We realize further that not ail of the na­
tions attending this Conference are members of FAO. Nevertheless, we think
that the Commission may very well find it quite profitable to utilize FAO in
many ways and we would like to leave that degree of flexibility open to the
Commission. The Commission is going to have a difficult task, and the more

flexibilitywe can leave for it, the more likely it is to have success in its opera­
tions.
44. Now, ifwe could pass momentarily to Article IX, it is the article which
provides for the regulatory powers of the Commission. We have divided this
into two categorîes, the first in paragraph 1,which deals with the gathering of
statistics. We feel that it is desirable for the Commission to have powers to oh­
tain statistics. We feel it is desirable for the nations that are involved to commit
themselves to providing the statistics that the Commission will find necessary.
Biological statisticss one of the considerable lacunae in our knowledge of the
area. Now, we simply cannot go forward in understanding the dynamics of the
fish population and the fisheries without a much more intimate knowledge of
the statistics of the catch. This we would consider to be no restriction upon the
fisheries. It would be simply a requirement to provide the statistics that covered
their effort. We also are quite well aware that no fisherman provides accurate
stàtistics under compulsion, no matter what the regulatory authorities may say.
The fisherman may or may not give you the accurate location of his catch and
its accurate composition. However, we have found in our other-Commissions

that in the early stages the Commission gathered statistics from everyone, to­
gether with information as to which were reliable. lt was fairly obvious that not
more than twenty.per cent of the statistics that werereceived from the fishermen
were reliable. Therefore, the Commission worked on the basis of that percen-272 GULF OF MAINE [9-10]

tage of statistics known to be reliable, and while the collection of other statistics
was continued, they were not used for research purposes. As time went on, the
fishermen became less suspicious, realizing that such information might even

bring them more and more profits. The fishermen began to give accurate statis­
tics. Today, the accuracy of the Halibut Commission may run as high as ninety
percent.
45. The second paragraph provides the Commission with very wide powers
of regulation. I might read what we have listed:

"(a) to establish open and closed seasons;
(bJ to close to fishing such portions of the sub-area as the Panel finds to
be a spawning area or to be populated by small immature fish;
(c)establish size limits for any species;
(d) fix tlle kind, size and specifications of fishing gear and other fishing
appliances;

(e) esta~Jishan over-allconservation catch limit for any species;
(/) make such other regulations as may be necessary."

46. This is a very broad granting of power and we do so without any fore­
knowledge of what the Commission may want to do. We cannot tell that until
the information is in, and we have desired to specifically provide the Commis­
sion with a number of types of regulations that couIdbe used where those regu­
lations would best fit the particular cases under consideration.
47. I believe that I willterminate this preliminary statement at this point. The
specific points in the draft will be brought up one by one; I had sought here
only to provide you with our general background of thinking. We would now
appreciate other nations presenting their points of viewon this matter.
48. Mr.Dobson, United K.ingdom.
49. MR.DoBSON (UNITED KtNGDOM)M : r. Chairman, I hope I am not acting
broadly in asking you that I might open the general discussion by reading two

points which the British Delegation wishto raise for you. Ithink perhaps it may
be of help to the other delegations if the British Delegation could put their
points first.
50. Mr. Chairman, I feel that we should all express our appreciation to you
of the very clear exposition which you have given, not only of the grounds and
reasons on which the United States bas put forwàrd these proposais, but also
for the very clear resuméwhich you have given of the actual document which
we shall shortly corne to consider.
51. Mr. Chairman, you have, with an uncanny second sight, anticipated a
great many, ifnotall, of the points which the British Delegation wishes to bring
forward. Therefore, if I may be allowed to make the statement to you as I ori­
ginally prepared il, you willnot think that I have either not heard what you have
said or have not appreciated that you have, in large measure, anticipated the
difficulties which wehad in mind. I think, in fact, that most of the points I want
to bring before your notice have, in fact, been covered in your opening remarks.
But, nevertheless, I propose to proceed in my remarks as I originally drafted

them.
52. Now, the British Delegation knows only too well the extent of the tra­
gedy of the North Sea, having taken such initiative in endeavoring, with the
help of the other nations fishing in that arèa,to arrest the evil,we can appreciate
to the full the initiative now taken by the U.S.A.in another partof the world in
an attempt to create an effective machinery to guard against a repetition of the
North Sea in the Northwest Atlantic area which, in our view, must be regarded[I0-12] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 273

as containing some of the most important and valuable fishing resources of the
world.
53. The British Delegation has no doubt whatever that the United States de­
cision to convene this Conference is an act of statesmanship. As I said yester­
day, the British Delegatîon wishes to play its part in the common effort and in
these days of particular difficulty, too much importance cannot be attached to
attempts at international cooperation by which a solution of these problems
alone can be achieved.
54. In approaching a problem of this kind on its broadest basis, there are,
however, certain points ofprinciple which, in the British view,should be given
prominence. In the first place, the British Delegation considers it vital that the

high seas outside territorial waters should be equally available to ail nations
who desire to take advantage of its resources. lt may well be that this is the
United States'intention in the convention as drafted - quite clearly, from your
remarks, sir, thatis the case. But if not, the point I raise could quite easily be
secured by some further suitable amendment.
55. Secondly, wethink that whoever signs a convention ofthis kind, or sub­
sequently decides to accede toit, isentitled to have full rights ofrepresentation,
and so forth, without differentiation. Here, again, the point is clearly covered,
Mr. Chairman, by your opening remarks or, if not adequately covered, couIdbe
dealt with by another suitable amendment.
56. But these are two cardinal points of principle to which the British Del­
egation attaches the highest importance. Having studied the draft convention,
there are a number of further amendments which can, no doubt, be suitably

dealt with when the convention cornesto beconsidered, article byarticle. Sorne
of these are, in oui view, important. Many of them are merely drafted amend­
ments.
57. There is, however, one further point which I am instructed to raise, and
thisisa point, again, Mr. Chairman, where you have dealt with it veryfully.The
United States has seen fit to approach the problems in this area by means of an
ad hoc convention for signature by the countries here present, and in doing so
they have seemingly by-passed the procedure contemplated by the United Na­
tions organization in connection with FAO. I am we!Jaware of the volume of
work facing the Fisheries Division of FAO in ail parts of the world, and of the
other difficulties which you touched upon confronting what I may call the FAO
procedure for the constitution of regional councils. Moreover, the British Del­
egation to FAO, two months ago, subscribed to the report of FAO in which the
United States method of approach as regards the Northwest Atlantic Area was
noted and no objection raised toit.
58. Atthe same time, it would be hardly proper that FAO, which is, incident­
ally, represented by observers at this Conference, should be set on one side;

and in the British view it is therefore important that any Commission which
emerges from the present discussion should have the closest possible relation
with FAO, and ifnecessary, ITO, and that in due course, consideration should
be given to the possibility of bringing the Commission within the framework
of FAO.
59. The United States will, of course, be famîliar, and other defegations ·here
will be familiar, with the provisions of Article 3 (5) of the 1946Whaling Con­
vention. I need not belabor this point further, especially inview, Mr.Chairman,
ofwhat you have said, that as an observer from ICES, I would recall that ICES
works in close accord with FAO, from whom they have lately had valuable ad­
vice, and this working harmony has been to the benefit of both organizations.
60. In conclusion, it may be helpful to the United States delegation, and in-274 GULFOFMAINE [12-13]

deed to ail the other delegations here present, if I say, generally speaking, sub­
ject to a satisfactory consideratof the points which I have put forward, the
British Delegation would be ready to append its signature to a convention of

this kind. But it realizes that many other delegatîons may have considerable
reservations to put forward; and for the time being, the British Delegation is
prepared to reserve its judgment in the light of the pleas which will no doubt
be put forward by other delegations concerned.
61. ln any case, there is, as in other cases of this kind, considerable scope for
compromise; and the British Delegation wishes to approach the matter as far as

possible with an open mind.
62. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
63. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T : hank you, Mr. Dobson, for your very fine
elucidation of the matter before us.
64. Unless other nations wish to make a statement at this time, we will con­

tinue our discussions at the aftemoon session. Is that agreeable?
65. (General agreement)
66. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN):The Chair Willentertain a motion for ada
journment at this time.
67. Mr. Aory?

68. MR.FLORY (UNITEDSTATES):I so move.
69. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)I:s there a second?
70. MR. SuNNANAA (NORWAY):I second the motion.
71. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN):Mr. Sunnanaa, Norway, bas seconded. Ail
those in favor, please say "aye''; contrary, "no."

72. (The motion was carried.)
73. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T : uen we shall adjourn until two-thirty this
afternoon.
74. (The Conference was adjoumed at 11:30 a.m., to reconvene at 2:30 p.m.
the same day.)

DoNALD J. CHANllY
TECHNICAL SECRETARY

.'.....END-

Jan.28, 1949
CORRIGENDUM A

Minutes of the Second Session

January 27, 1949

The following paragraph should read as shown below (changes in text indi­
cated by underscoring).

Page JO

49. MR. DOBSON(UNITEDKINGDOM):Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not acting
wrongly in as~ing you that I miglit open the general discussion by reading the

points which the British Delegation wish to raise~ l think perhaps it
may be of help to the other delegations if the BrîtisliÏJelegatiocould put
theîr points fîrst.
. -END-[1-2) ANNEXET SOMEMORIA OLFCANADA 275

Anne:rc3

MINUTES OFTHETHIRDSESSION OFTHEINTERNATIONA NORTHWESA TTLANTIC
flSHERIESCONFERENCE 2, JANUARY \949 TO5 fEBRUARY 1945 (DocUMENT16,
27 JANUARY 1949, PAGESl-14, CORRIGENDU M ,28 JANUARY 1949,AND
CORRJGENDUB M,29 JANUARY 1949)

Jan.27, 1949
Minutes of the Thîrd Session

TIME: Thursday, January 27, 1949,2:35p.m.
PLACE: West Ballroom, Shoreham Hotel
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chapman (U.S.A.)
1. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T:he meeting will corne to order.

2. This moming we heard general discussion and views on the draft conven­
tion before us fromthe viewpoint of the United States and the United King­
dom. It will be useful, I believe, to have some similar general statements from
each of the other countries present before we settle down to a discussion of the
particular provisions of the draft convention.
3. I know some countries here are prepared to make such statements imme­
diately, and others have informed me that they would appreciate a little more
time for preparation.
4. l am not going to follow any alphabetical system of calling upon the
nations,but will recognize from the floor the Chairmen of the Delegations in
the order in which they ask for the floor.
5. Ifthere are no individual requests from the floor, I will ask for statements
in the order in which I have information leading me to believe that statements

are available.
6. Mr. Sunnanaa, Chairman of the Delegation from Norway, has informed
me he is prepared to make such a general statement on behalf of his Delegation.
7. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sunnanaa.
8. MR.SUNNANA(A NORWAY):Thank you, Mr.Chairman.
9. On behalf of the Norwegian Govemmem, I want to express our gratitude
to the Govemment of the United States of America for having invited Norway
to this Conference to discuss a subject of the greatest interest to my country.
1O. I would also like to thank the Chairman of the United States Delegation,
Mr. Chapman, for the statement be made this moming, and the Chairman of
the Delegation of the United Kingdom, Mr. Dobson, for the comments he
made. After these two statements, I think we have corne doser to the main prob­
lems of this Conference. Likewise, 1take the opportunity on my own behalf to
thank the Conference for having elected me as the Vice Chairman.
11. As Chairman of the Norwegian Delegation, it is my privilege to express
the broad principles of the Norwegian view with regard to the problems before
us.First, I have to give some infomiation regarding the Norwegian fisheries as

a background for the views of my Govemment.
12. The resources of the sea are ofutmost importance to the people of Nor­
way. Our country is located at the northeast shores of the Atlantic Ocean and
some of the adjacent waters to the Norwegian coast, such as Barents Sea, the
Norwegian Sea, and the North Sea, are very productive areas ofthese waters as
regards the fisheries. Also, whaling and sealing play an important part in the276 GULF OF MAINE (2-3]

economy ofNorway. The conservation of the resources of the sea is,therefore,

of great concem to our people, and we are anxious to participate in ail efforts
which can serve that purpose.
13. A great part of the Norwegian fisheries can be characterized as inshore
fisheries. These fisheries are either closeto the coast or on fishing grounds 20or
30nautical milesfrom the coast line. The deep sea fisheries in the northem and
Arctic waters, Bear Island, Spitzbergen, the coast of Iceland and West Green­
land also play an important part.
14. Owingto the seasonal character of the coastal fisheries, it is necessary for
a substantial number of Norwegian fishing vesselsand fishermen to participate
in the different deep sea fisheries between the main fishing seasons. The deep
sea fisheries - fisheries in distant waters - have always been of substantial
importance to the fishing industry of Norway. This is especially the case now,

when greater and more expensive vesselsand fishing equipment have to be kept
engaged as far as possible during the whole year, in order to bring the best eco­
nomic results of the capital invested and the manpower engaged.
15. Norway hegan early to study and initiate scientific investigations with re­
gard to fish, whales, seals, and the whole flora and the fauna of the seas. About
a hundred years ago Norwegian scientists, such as Michael Sars and Jorg Os­
sian Sars and, later, Johan Hjorth, founded what wecal! the Nowegian Fisher­
ies Investigations.
16. The Norwegian Govemment and especially the Fisheries Administra­
tion attach great importance to scientific investigations of the sea, regarding
such knowledge as necessary in order to conduct a proper and wise fishery pol­
icy. In order to utilize the resources of the sea in the best possible way, Norway

bas introduced a great number of regulations with regard to the fisheries. We
have introduced measures aiming at regulating and making more effective dif­
ferent methods of fishing operations. But we have also, based upon scientific
investigations, enforced regulations to prote etthe stock of fish. For manyyears
we have had closed seasons for the catch of lobster, and during the spawning
seasons, the catch, for instance, of plaice, halibut and salmon is limited or even
prohibited. and we have done the same thing with regard to the Norwegian
herring and brisling, which is the raw material for the Norwegian sardines.
17. ln many cases regulations introduced by the Norwegian Government,
and applying only to the Norwegian fishennen, may be suffîcient to protect
some species of fish. As regards other migrating species, regulations on a na­
tional basis are not sufficient. In such cases agreements between the interested
countries is necessary, and Norway isalways ready to participate on an interna­
tional basis to protect the resources of the sea.

18. In accordance with agreements made between Denmark, Sweden and
Norway before the war, we had in ail three countries the same regulations for
protection of cod and plaice in the area of Skagarak. After the Conference in
London in 1937,where several countries completed a convention on mesh sizes
and size limits of fish, Norway adopted in 1938a law for preservation of the
stocks of fish. This law includes the regulatîons of the said convention and
authorizes the Administration lo issue other regulations as may be deemed desir­
able. According to this law, the size limits of fish agreed upon in the London
convention of 1937, and later altered in accordance with the convention of
1946,apply to ail Norwegian fishing vessels where they may be fishing - also
in the Northwest Atlantic - the area which is the subject of this Conference.
19. The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that it is extremely neces­

sary to continue and extend international collaboration in order to conserve the
resources of the sea as a basis for economic fishing operations. We therefore[3-4] ANNEXET SOMEMORIA OFCANADA 277

welcome the step taken by the Government of the United States of America to
convene this Conference.
20. Although the major part of the Norwegian fisheries take place in the
northern and eastern Atlantic, we realize that it will be'necessary to find a basis
for international cooperation regarding the fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic,
which would be of benefit to ail nations engaged in fisheries in this area.
21. It has been our experience in Norway that comprehensive and profound
knowledge with regard to the stock of fish and the different factors influencing
life conditions of the fisheries is necessary if one aims at providing for effective
and working regulations in order to maintain the stock of fish as a basis for
economic fisheries.

22. In our opinion, the convention tabled here by the Government of the
United States provides a basis and a frame for effective regulations in this area.
On the other band, I wish to emphasize that the draft convention represents a
great and expensive machinery, and implies the possibility of far-reaching im­
plications which may have serious consequences. It may, therefore, be difficult
for Norway to recommend that the American proposai. adopted, unless we have
the data placed before us, which will prove that this machinery is necessary at
the present time for the protection and conservation of the resources of the sea
in this area.
23. lt is the Norwegian view that this Conference should consider the possi­
bility of regarding as sufficient a limitation of the scope of the proposed com­
mission to scientific investigation in the area in question. The investigations
should also indude the collection of more accurate commercial statistics for the
area. As Norway participates in the cod fisheries on the west coast of Green­

land and probably wi!Jexpand the cod fisheries there, we are highly interested
in participatingn such scientific exploration.
24. I wish to emphasize that the investigations in question should be con­
ducted, as far as possible, on an international basis, and I wi!Jsupport the view
expressed by the representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. Dobson, that a
close cooperation with ICES and FAO ought to be established.
. 25. In conclusion I wish to say: We should not introduce regulations with
regard to commercial fisheries before we have collected, on an international
basis, al! relevant scientific information which proves the desirability of such
regulations. However, if the Norwegian Delegation is convinced by the infor­
mation and data which will be placed before us at this Conference that it is
desirable at the present time to do something to protect some species of fish in
some parts of the area in question, we will discuss and participate in the accom­
plishment of doing this in the most suitable manner and by the most effective
methods.
26. MR.CttAPMAN (CttAIRMAN)T :hank you, Mr. Sunnanaa, for a very clear
dissertation.1sany other country prepared to make such a general statement?
Mr. Meireles from Portugal.
27. MR.MEIRELE(S PoRTUGAL)F :irst of ail, I want to thank the United States

Govemment for the invitation to corne to this Conference that bas a great inter­
est for my country. I want to emphasize the great importance offishing to Por­
tugal, not only have we always been a country offishermen but we fished in the
seas of Newfoundland perhaps before the Island of Newfoundland was settled.
28. But fishing bas, to my country, a special economic importance. Its sar­
dine catch is principally to be exported, although our population is also a great
consumer of the sardine. Codfish is one of the staple diets of my country. The
poorer people and the rich people ail like codfish ~ they make it one of the
principal diets - and so Portugal bas always been forced to fish for or buy the 278 GULF OF MAINE [4-6]

codfish in its markets. Unhappily, in the last years, and principally after this
war, one of our biggest export products, our port wine, has no market as it is a
luxurious product. So we are forced to fish more in order to reduce our needs
for importing. Our aim is not to fish everything we need, but we need to fish
more. In recent years, our whole fishing fleet has been motorized and it has
been replenished; we have a large number of modern trawlers and other ships,
and our fishermen are men who are one of the most important classes in the
country.
29. I want also to point to the social importance of fishing to Portugal. A
great number of our people live from the fishing business and from our fisher­
men, themselves, and ail their families are dependent on these. So, after these
words, I believe its clear that Portugal is always in favor of any kind of regula­

tion that will guarantee the maximum sustained yield from fishing and, as the
high seas are recognized as a common thing, we believe that international co­
operation is the only wayto regulate fishing. The principle is settled in our con­
stitution, that international cooperations the advisable thing to do, so it was
with great happiness thatwe came here and Ican say that, in principle, the draft
convention is acceptable, though there are some points that will be raised in
detail. The principal pointsof principle have been raised already by the Chair­
man of the British Delegation, so l have no need to raise them agaîn. I only
wanted to point out to this Conference, really, the great importance of it for
Portugal. Thank you.
30. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMANT ):hank you. Is therè another country pre­
pared to make a statement at this time? Is France available at this time?
Mr. Terrin.
31. MR.TERRIN (FRANCE:)(Translated) I thank you for the statement which

you made this moming and Ithank the Chainnan of the other Delegations who
have already presented their points of view. Regarding France, we sha11cer­
tainly have some observations to present but, as a whole, they are similar in
their lines to what has been presented this moming. When we take up this mat­
ter, article byarticle, weshall be more precise about instructions Ihave received
from my Govemment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. .
32. MR. CHAPMA( CHAIRMANT ):ha.nk you, Mr. Terrin. The Delegate from
Spain.
33. MR. BARAIBA(R SPAJN):On behalf of the ·Spanish Delegation, I wish to
submit to the full meetingof the Conference the following statement:
34. First, we fully agree with the British Delegation on the views so brîl­
. liantly expounded by Mr. Dobson about the freedom of the seas and full rights
of representation for each nation concemed.
35. Spain, through the authorized voice of the old masters of the University
of Salamanca, was the first nation in world history to proclaim the freedom of
the seas and justice has been done to our country on this matter by a great

American jurist, Professor Brown-Scott of the Carnegie Endowment. lt should
be pointed out that that basic principle was laid down and proclaimed in the
16th century when Spanish power attained full swing.
36. The Spanish Delegation would then like to have an explicit declaration
included at the Preamble of the Convention to be signed, setting forth the basic
principleof the freedom of the high seas, oudside territorial waters, which
waters - on the other side - ought to be clearly defined. Spain is, nevertheless,
verywilling to cooperate eamestly in any internationaleffort to provide a better
means of feeding the people of the world and is, therefore, disposed to accept
an exception to that basic principle bywayf a regulation, provided there exists
a scientific reason for it, the measures are adopted by international agreement[6-7) ANNEXET SOMEMORIA OLfCANADA 279

freely agreed upon, and they are intended to reach a maximum constant catch
in the fishing grounds concerned.
37. The same Preamble should also incorporate a categorical expression of
the rights of representatîon of each sîgnatory country.
38. Second, the Spanish Delegation bas taken note of Mr. Chapman's inter­
esting words, accordingto which the United States Delegation is disposed to
submit to the full meeting the scientific reasons - statistics and so on - which
have moved the United States Government to invite other nations to establish a
common way of preventing overfishing in the general area concerned. The
Spanish Delegation would like to know those investigations and statistics with
as much detail as possible. As to our fishing activities in the convention area,
the Spanish Delegation possesses full statîstics which we believe pretty reliable
and îs quite ready to submit them for consideratîon of the Conference, giving
also full access in Spain to check all the information here given.
39. Third, the Spanish Delegatîon wants to stress its utmost interest in the

conservation of fishing resources in the convention area. With a population of
28 million people, food problems in Spain have become a fondamental prob­
lem, and Spain has had to face those problems with its own effort.
40. The Chairman of the Conference bas expressed bis belief that some
nations invited to this Conference feel certain fears as to the intention on the
part of the host country to beneficiate of exclusive or semi-exclusive rights to a
property which, up to now, is common to all the peoples of the international
community.
41. We would like to make it clear that Spain cannot really feel that fear. The
United States is the most resourceful power of all the countries here repre­
sented, and are helping almost ail of them. lt would be utterly illogical and un­
just, if consideration is given to that foreign aid policy, to bargain now to the
other nations for free access to that common riches.
42. 1 thank you, sir.

43. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAND ):oes any other country have a statement to
make at this time? ltaly?
44. MR. SoRo (ITALY):I wish to reserve my remarks until later, Mr.Chair­
man.
45. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T :hank you, I have already been informed
by the Danish Delegate that they would like to wait until tomorrow to make a
similar statement. I see that the Ice\and Delegate is not here this aftemoon.
Mr. Gushue, do you have a statement to make from Newfoundland?
46. MR. GUSHUE(NEWFOUNDLAND M):r. Chairman, we have no prepared
statement on behalf of Newfoundland to make at the moment. 1would like to
say, however, that ljoin most heartily in the expressions ofthanks and appre­
ciation which have been made to the United States and to yourself, on behalf of
other Delegations, and also to say that I was very profoundly impressed by the
statement made this morning by yourself and followed by that of Mr. Dobson.
47. It seems to me that we are discussing a matter here, conservation of
Northwest Atlantic, which is a matter of common interest to ail the countries
who fish in these waters, particularly in the case of the waters adjacent to the

coast of Newfoundland, the Great Banks and other banks. The nationals of
many countries have fished there for many years and, as bas been said by the
Delegate from Portugal, they might even daim that they were fishing there be­
fore the fonnal, recognized, discovery of the island. The Great Banks of New­
foundland are recognized as one of the great, if not one of the greatest fishing
grounds of the world; and, as l have said, it is a malter ofcommon interest to ail
countries who prosecute the fishery in these waters to consider together the280 GULF OF MAINE {7-8)

problems and effects which may lead up to the discovery of problems. Natur­
ally, Newfoundland is more interested, more directly interested, perhaps more
closely interested, because of its geographicalposition, than the countries who
send their vessels from great distances, but it is still a common interest. In New­
foundland, we recognize most fully, and I think this was also exemplified by
your remarks this moming, that this is an international problem. We are dis­

cussing fisheries in internationalwaters. No one country, even a contiguous
country, is in a position to claim specia1 rights of fishing or property rights in
the fish in these areas. Even Newfoundland, which is a little country in the
midst of great fishing grounds, realizes that that cannot be done. We could not

put forward a claim to any exclusive rights, although, as I have said, we are
more immediately affected, perhaps, than some of the other countries. We
would naturally be very happy ifthis Conference gave us exclusive rights, but I
assure you that we don't intend to put forward any such claims.
48. l think the emphasis, Mr. Chairman, ought to be put on, first, the collec­
tion of statistics which is sadly lacking today, that is both on the commercial

side and on the biological side, and that these statistics ought to be collected. I
hope they will be collected as a result of this Conference, in a uniform manner
and collated for the benefit of ail the countries. I don't believe that any other
approach to this problem is feasible or could be regarded as scientific. I think
that the Conference is divisible into two clear compartments, one as to the col­

lection,on an agreed international basis, of information, and I think that it will
probably take a period of years, certainly, in most of the areas and in our own
area before we can determine what the value ofthat collection of information is,
and what problems it unfolds or reveals. I think we ought to keep very clearly in
mind that that is the first stage in this proposed internationcollaboration. We

in Newfoundland, as a possible reservation on that generous statement, are
somewhat concemed as to the useless destruction of fish of certain types which
îs taking place on our banks today, that is, the catching and throwing away of
large quantities offish, small fish and fish of types which a particular fishery or
a particular vesse! is not interested in at the moment. We look upon that as one

of the first problems ofthis Conference. U applies particularly to haddock, and
we think merits the fullest possible investigation, contributing, as it does, to the
lessening of the bodies of fish - as, of course, any fishing does - but different
in that it can be characterizedas a useless destruction.
49. With respect to the second aspect of the problem, I think if we keep
before us the fact that it is the second aspèct, and that any regulatory body,

whether it be as proposed or otherwise, will act only upon the fullest possible
collection of information, the fullest possible discussion of the value and impli­
cations of such information, and the fullest possible discussion of remedies,
and that in this, too, as in the case of the collection of statistics, there must be
full internationalaccord, and in this no one country can claim an interest or a

right paramount to that of others.
50. That, generally, Mr. Chairman, expresses, I think, the view of the New­
foundland Delegation at the moment. I would like to add just one word with
respect to collaboration with existîng internationalorganizations, such as ICES
and FAO, and it subscribes also warmly to the remarks which both you and the

Chairman of the United Kingdom Delegation made in your remarks today.
51. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T : hank you, Mr. Gushue.
52. MR. CHAPMAN(CHAIRMAN):Mr. Thors, this afternoon we have been
exchanging general statements in regard to the matter before us. I wonder if
you have such a statement to present at this time?

53. MR. THORS(lcELAND):Mr. Chairman, the other two Delegates from Ice-[8-10] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL Of CANADA 281

land have just arrived, and I would like to have the opportunity to consult them
before we make any statemerit before this Conference.
54. MR. CttAPMAN (CHAIRMANP ):erhaps we will call on you tomorrow.
Thank you.
55. Mr. Bates, do you have a statement that you care to make?
56. MR. BATES (CANADA)M : r. Chairman, on behaJf of the Govemment of
Canada, this Delegation is grateful to the Govemment of the United States for
providing this opportunity of meeting and discussing an international matter of
great significance in the world's fisheries.

57. The Chairman, in bis opening remarks this moming, referred to the pres­
ently existing arrangement for fishery conservation made jointly by the United
States and Canada. Our membership, as a country, on the specific halibut and
salmon commission, is evidence of our willingness to enter international agree­
ments in fisheries.
58. Our country has, moreover, in matters other than fisheries, revea]ed ex­
treme readiness to consider and to implement international agreements aiming
at the welfare of the peoples of the world.
S9. It is clear, therefore, that Canada is ready to discuss an international con­
vention for the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic. Canada's concem with the
whole area in question is vital. From the earliest colonization of our country the
fisheries of the area have been basic to our eastem provinces. We have a his­

torie interest in the whole area. Our interest today is not merely projected; it is
real, it is vital to our eastem seaboard, to our inshore fishermen with their scat­
tered communities, as well as to the offshore, or deep sea fishermen.
60. We are prepared, therefore, to consider a conservation program for the
area in question. On our side, however, we would emphasize that this resource
is a very extensive one, and that for most of the area and the species therein,
there is presently little evidence of overfishing.
61. We wish, however, to improve our knowledge to extend the exploration
and investigation in the area as a whole. Canada is today making such investi­
gations and is prepared to consider increasing the scientific work, in coopera­
tion with ail or any other countries, or with interested international bodies.

62. We are prepared, therefore, to join an international commission aiming
at the coordination of scientific investigation, and aiming at the extension of
such investigation in the Northwest Atlantic. ·
63. Knowledge of the state of the fisheries is basic to any type of regulation.
In the case of the haJibut commission, it was first established as a scientific
instrument, and only after scientific inquiries and recommendations was it pos­
sible to consider the type of regulatory body most suited to handle the prob­
lem in question.
64. We believe that is the sound principle of approach in this instance also.
In short, weare prepared to consider the establishment of an international body
designed to coordinate and extend scientific work. We believe, however, that it
may be premature now to try to discuss a regulatory commission for the area in
question. lt may be premature, because there is insufficient knowledge of
the state of the fisheries, and because the kind of regulatory body that may

be necessary at some time in the future cannot be foreseen until we know the
nature of the problem.
65. lt is not merely that we don'tyet know the kind of problem or the type of
regulatory body that might prove necessary; also, we don't know the kind of
powers that such a body might require.
66. As we see it, the proposed draft raises two separate questions: One, the
question of the fisheries inquiry and scientific investigation; and second, the
admini~tration of regulations necessary for conservation.282 GULF OF MAINE ll0-11)

67. On the fonner, we are anxious to proceed and to work with others imme­
diately. On the latter, however, it.is our view that the Conference should give
this the most careful discussion and consideration, consideration to the end that
if the scientific inquiry proves the need for regulation it then will indicate the

type of regulation and the kind of power that such a regulatory body would re­
quire. We would suggest that we consider that now but retain for a future meet­
ing of this kind the consideration of the type of regulation and type of body.
68. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMANT ):hank you, Mr. Bates. . .
69. 1sthere any other country that would like fobe heard from at this time?
70. Mr. Flory.
7L MR. FLoRY(UNITEDSTATES):I want to express the appreciation of the
American Delegation for the very frank, excellent and forthright views set forth
by the various Delegations on the United States draft. I would like to comment
briefly on some of these observations, but at this time l do not want to anticipate
our later discussions and get into any great detail on any of the points raised,
particularly since we will have an adequate opportunity to discuss the issues
thoroughly as we examine the United States draft, article by article and para­
graph by paragraph.

72. At the outset, I would like.to point out that the United States draft was
developed carefully over a period of more than three years, in consultation with
literally hundreds of interested persans both wîthin and outside United States
Govemment. The United States draft has gone through revision after revision,
perhaps as many as 25 different editions, and the final draft bears virtually no
resemblance to the original draft.
73. I believe all this effort went into the draft with a view to setting forth a
document as a basis for discussion at this Conference which, in the opinion of
the experts, would provide a realistic view and realistic machinery for the con­
servation of the fisheries that are of concem to ail of us.
74. However, we realized at the outset that any agreement for the conserva­
tion of the Northwest Atlantic fishery resources is a bold undertaking which,
in order to succeed, must have the full support of the govemments and of the
people who have a direct interest in the resource. It is recognized that, regardless
of how appropriate may be the concept embodied in a treaty, how excellent
may be the provision for its implementation, and how concisely clear may be

the drafting, if the nations and their peoples do not have faith in it and the will
to make it work, such a treaty is largely an empty gesture.
75. The United States Delegation considers that it is dedicated at this Con­
ference to assisting in developing a treaty lo which we can ail give our unquali­
fied and wholehearted faith, and in which we will have full confidence in the
ultimate success of our undertaking.
76. Now, despite the care with which the United States draft was prepared,
we have no pride of authorship, nor do we consider that the United States
marked the only way in which we can achieve our objective.
77. You will further recal\ that, in the invitation extended by the United
States, it was pointed out that the United States draft does not necessarily
represent the position of the United States on this question. In other words,
the draft is set before you as a convenience, as a basis for discussion.
78. The Chairman bas suggested some of the thinking which lay behind the
preparation of the United States draft. The United States Delegation believes

that many of the provisions contained in the United States draft are desirable.
Nevertheless, we present the draft as a basis for discussion,and we are entering
into these discussions with the intention ofbeing as objective about the draft as[11-13] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL Of CANADA 283

are the other Delegations present. We, in tum, have no hesitation in tearing the
draft apart if, as the discussions go along, we find provisions inappropriate.
79. In response, however, to some of the comments, I would like :o elaborate
and explain very briefly concerning certain of the issues raised, so that you,
again, will have no misunderstandings as to what was intended originally in
presenting the draft.
80. Mr. Dobson, with his uncanny faculty for putting his finger on issues
which need clarification, has mentioned the problem of maintaining the high
seas free and open to ail nations. The United States Govemment is quite con­
scious of the fact that there is a considerable misunderstanding, apparently, of
the position of this Govemment on the question of the high seas.
81. 1believe, as Mr. Chapman pointed out this moming, that the freedom of
the seas is delineated quite clearly in the United States draft, and there was no
other intention behind the United States draft. There was no intention of em­
ploying the United States draft as a means for exclusion of the vessels of any

nation. I am delighted that Mr. Dobson brought that point out quite clearly and
suggested the insertion of some kind of statement for the purpose of assuring
that there willbe no misunderstanding as to what this Conference may produce
on this particular point.
82. On this second point which Mr. Dobson raised, namely, full rights of
representation, I hope it is understood by the Conference that the United States
Delegation does not consider that the machinery embodied in the United States
draft is anything but a suggestion, one of many waysof handling the problem of
representation; and I am confident that as the Conference progresses, it willbe
possible to work out a method of representation which is acceptable to ail ofthe
representatives here.
83. On many of the other points, Ibelieve that we can have a detailed discus­
sion at a later date. I believe there is relatively little quarre! with the approach
made in the draft, and I believe we find ourselves, all of us, as I hear the com­
ments, in complete agreement as to purpose and objective.

84. With respect to the comments by certain of the Delegations concerning
the imposition of regulations, we find ourselves, in principle, in complete
agreement that there should be no attempt to regulate fishing activities without
full and adequate scientific data showing the need for such regulation.
85. In preparing the United States draft, it was recognized that it would be
impossible, under the principles laid down in the draft, to have any regulation
in Areas 1,2,and 3,in the immediate future and possibly for a long time, simply
because there are inadequate data at the present time on which to base any
regulation.
86. With respect to Area 4, the accumulated data are greater in volume, and
are much more compelling, and it is believed by the United States Delegation
that we are, or will be very shortly, in possession of sufficient scientific data to
warrant the imposition of regulation on fishing activity within Area 4.
87. I should like to comment on the observations of the Spanish Delegation.
With respect to scientific data, the Secretariat of the Conference is in possession
and is holding a considerable quantity of scientific material, particularly with
respect to Area 4. If the Spanish Delegat.ion should care to examine any of the
material, as a Delegation or individually, the files of the Secretariat are avail­

able to them.
88. However, wewillprepare at the earliest possible moment, within the next
day or so, a summary of the essential data for distribution to the Conference
here. That willonly be in summary form. More complete data, of course, will be
available from the Conference Secretariat.284 GÙLFOFMAINE [13-14]

89. Again I wish to express our gratitude to the Delegations for their com­
ments, and Ifeel quite confident that we are now well on the way towards an
examination of appropriate machinery for reaching our common objective.
90. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T : hank you, Mr. Aory.
91. The Danish Delegation has reported that the scientists who are with it

have a considerable amount of information regarding the fisheries of Green­
Jand, and also have some color films and photochromes from the area. Iunder­
stand the information could be presented before the Conference tomorrow
moming, if that suits the convenience of the Danish Delegation. That would
give us ail a little more time to prepare our thoughts at this stage of the discus­
sions,and at the same time would contribute very much to the basic informa­

tion necessary to our work.
92. Will that be satisfactory to the Danish Delegation?
93. MR. D1NESEN (DENMARK)Y : es.
94. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T : hank you. That then will be the first order
of business in the moming at ten-thirty.

95. I believe we have had an expression of general views from ail the coun­
tries that presently are prepared to give such general views. We hope that we
will have further views from Iceland, Denmark, and Italy during tomorrow's
session.
96. After that I would suggest that the proper way to continue would be to
ask the United States spokesman to give a review article by article, of the draft

convention, and then perhaps we can have the comments of other Delegations
as we go along.
97. Is that a satisfactory method of procedure?
98. Mr. Flory has suggested that in going over the draft, article by article, we
might have a general discussion of each article as it is brought up toifthere

is a basis for agreement in any article or in any paragraph of any article.
99. Does this appear to be a satisfactory way to attack our problem?
IOO. MR. DoBSON(UNITEDK.lNGDOM)G : entlemen, that seems an admirable.
înethod of procédure. As we go through the convention article by article on the
general grounds, l presume it will be rererred to the Drafting Committee.
101. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)Y : es.

l02. MR. DOBSON(UNITEDKJNGDOM)T : hat is your intention?
103. MR. CHAPM.AN (CHAIRMAN)Y : es. We would like to get a good deal of
clarification before we do submit it to a Drafting CommitteI.thînk that would
be useful to the Drafting Committee.
, 104. Are there any other comments on such procedure?
105. I believe we have gone about as far as we can this afternoon, and the

Chair now will entertain a motion ror adjoumment.
106. MR. FLORY(UNITEDSTATÈS): Imove we adjoum.
107. MR. DoosoN (UNITEDKINGDOM):I second the motion.
108. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)I:t is moved by Mr. Flory and seconded by
Mr. Dobson, that we adjoum until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. Ali in favorsay "aye";
contrary "no."

109. The meeting îs adjourned until ten-thirty in the moming. Thank you,
gentlemen. .
110. (The meeting was adjoumed at 3:35p.m.)

DoNALD J.CHANEY

TECHNICAL StCRETARY

-END- ANNEXE TO MEMORIA LFCANADA 285

Jan.28, 1949

CoRRIGENDUM A
Minutes of the Third Session

January 27, 1949

The sentences of the fo!lowing paragraphs should read as shown below
(changes in text indicated underscoring):

Page3
(Paragraph 22, third sentence)

It may, therefore, be difficult for Norway to recommend that the American
proposai be adopted, unless we have the data placed before us, which will prove
that this machinery is necessary at the present time for the protection and con­
servation of the resources of the sea in this area.

Page4

27. MR. BARROS (PORTUGAL)F :irst of all, I want to thank the United States
Govemment forthe invitation to corne to this Conference that has a great inter­
est for my country.

Page5

(Paragraph 35, first sentence)

"Professor Brown-Scott" should appear "Professor Brown Scott".

Page8
(Paragraph 48, sixth sentence)

We in Newfoundland, as a possible reservation on that general statement, are
somewhat concemed as to the useless destruction of fish of certain types which
is taking place on our banks today, that is, the catching and throwing away of
large quantities offish, small fish and fish of types which a particular fishery or
a particular vesseisnot interested in at the moment.

-END-

Jan.29, 1949
CüRRIGENDUM B

Minutes of the Third Session
January 27, 1949

The sentences of the following paragraphs should read as shown below
(changes in text indicated by underscoring):

Page9

57. The Chairman, in his opening remarks this moming, referred to the pres­
ently existing arrangement for fishery conservation made jointly by the United
Statesand Canada. Our membership, as a country, on the Pacifie halibut and
salmon commissions is evidence of our willingness to enter international agree­
ments in fisheries.286 GULF OF MAINE

58. Our country has, moreover, in matters other than fisheries, revealed the
same readiness to consider and to implement international agreements aiming
at the welfare of the peoples of the world. It is clear, therefore, that Canada is
ready to discuss an international convention for the fisheries of the Northwest

Atlantic.

Paragraph 59should begin with the sentence shown below :

59. Canada's concem with the whole area in question is vital.

-END- ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 287

Annex 14

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
NORTH WEST ATLANTIC flSHERIES CONFERENCE, 26JANUAR Y 1949 TO 5FEBRUARY
1949 (DOCUMENT 20, 28JANUARY 1949, PAGES 1-6)

[!votreproduced]288 GULFOFMAINE [1-2)

Annex15

EXTRACTF SROM lHE MINUTES OFTHETwELFTHSESSION OFTHEINTERNATIONAL
NORTH WEST ATLANTIC FISHERIECSONFERENC2 E, JANUARY 1949TO5PEBRUARY
1949(DOCUMEN4 T0, 4 fEBRUARY 1949, PAGES1-5,ANDCORRIGENDUA M,
28 fEBRUARY 1949)

Feb.4, 1949
Minutes of the Twelfth Session
nME: Friday, February4, 1949, 10:40 a.m.
PLACE: West Ballroom, Shoreham Hotel
CHAIRMAN:Mr. Chapman(U.S.A.)

1. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T :he meeting will corne to order.
2. We have a matter of substance to be decided this morning that we have
postponed from time to time. l think we may very well get to it the first thing this
morning. That is the national composition of the Panels.
3. Iryou will turn to the original Draft that the United States proposed, you

will see in the Annex on Page 24 a list of the nations that would be represented
in the different areas. l think in viewt bas happened during the course of
this Conference we can just completely ignore this list and feel that it bas not
existed. We have brought a new area into it. By splitting Area 1into two areas
we now have five areas. That brings quite a new aspect to the matter.
4. Also, the organization of the work of the Commission bas tumed out quite
differently soat the Commission itself bas no regulatory power at ail. This is
transferred to the Contracting Governments.
5. So, in view of the rather considerable changes that have taken place in the
whole Draft sincewe have begun our meeting. I think we will need to revîew
this matter completely, and with that in mind, I am going to go around the table
this moming and ask each of the Delegations which ofthese different areas they
wish tobe represented in. I am going to start out, contrary to our usual practice.
withthe Unîted States, and then continue around the table, I will ask Mr. Flory
to speak.

6. MR.FLORY(UNITEDSTATES)M : r.Chairman, the United States Delegation
would propose that the United States be listed for membership on the Panels
for Areas 4 and 5.
7. Consideration has been given to possible requests for participation in
Area 3. We have fished Area 3 heavily in the past and are conducting fishing
there now to some extent. We anticipate in the immediate future an increase in
the amount of our fishing in Area 3.
8. However, ·wedo not consider that at the moment we are engaged in cur­
rent substantial exploitation within the meaning of Article IV. paragraph 6.
Therefore, the United States would request representation only on Panels 4
and 5.
9. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)D :r. Bates?
JO. MR. BATES(CANADA):Mr. Chairman, our views on this matter must

necessarily be related to the views of Newfoundland, which may enter the
Canadian Federation shortly. If we refer only to the areas now fished by
Canm;ia proper, we would assume that Newfoundland, in outlining the areas in
which it wishesto fish, we would assume that these areas would pass to Can-[2-3] ANNEXET SOMEMORIA OLFCANADA 289

ada with Newfoundland as a Confederation. ffthat îs so, the areas in which we
fish intensively noware Areas 3, 4, and 5, and we would claim representatîon
on these because of contiguity, subject to the matter I have already referred to

on Newfoundland.
11. MR.CttAPMAN (CHAIRMANT ):hat is3, 4,and 5? Doesn't that apply also to
2? 2 is the Labrador area.
12. MR. BATES (CANADA):Yes. Our Canadian fishing in Labrador îs minor,
and I am assuming that will be covered by the Newfoundland daim.
13. MR.CttAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)O :h, yes; thank you.
14. Denmark?
15. MR. DINESEN (DENMARK)M : r. Chairman, Denmark should like to have
representation in Areas 1,2, and 3.
16. Thank you.
17. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T :hank you.
18. France?
19. MR.TERRIN(FRANCE):France would like to be represented on sub-Areas
1,2,3, and 4, where she has always fished. No doubt, she will fish in Area 5, but

we do not insist at ail in being represented in that Panel.
20. Thank you, Mr. Chairmari,
21. MR. CttAPMAN (CHAJRMAN)T:hank you.
22. Iceland?
23. MR. THORS(ICELAND):Mr. Chairman, according to the new Article IV,
paragraph 6, it is a condition for being represented on a Panel that the nation
bas substantial exploitation in such sub-area concemed. As Iceland has not
clone any substantial fishing in any of the areas, we do not make any daim of
being represented on any of the Panels.
24. MR. CttAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T :hank you, sir.
25. I believe - and I am just throwing this forth as an idea - that we have
been shown by the scientists of the Danish Delegation that a good many Ice­
land cod do corne into the area. I don't think there would be any objection

raised to that being a special condition.
26. However, we can retum to that point.
27. MR.THORS(lcELAND):Mr. Chairman, it is,of course known to us, and we
have an lcelandic scientist here with us, that cod around the West Coast of
Greenland corne from lceland. We do not make any special daim to that cod
for the tîme being, since we are not fishing there. But according to your sugges­
tion we would like to have the question open, if we later should decide to be
represented on Panel No. 1.
28. MR. CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T : hat is thoroughly provided for in the
mechanism of the Treaty for later consideration.
29. Italy?
30. MR.IPPIA(ITALY):Mr. Chairman, I think that Italy would like to be rep­
resented in Panel 1, 2, 3, and 4; this in view of the fact that the Mediterranean
Sea is giving Jessd Jess possibility of fisheries and in view of the fact that the
situation of the ltalian people requires in the future more exploitation, more
than in the past, of the Atlantic areas considered in the map attached to the
Convention.
31. At this moment, I have no special instructions as to which these four

areas ltaly would be more interested in in the future, but I may state generally
that in the past the Atlantic fisheries of Italy have been a small activity, but I be­
lieve that in the future ltaly is prepared to extend its activity in this economic
field also, and more in the Atlantic Ocean than in the past due to the lesser pos­
sibilityhat the Mediterranean Sea shows for better exploitation and assuring290 GIJLF OFMAINE [3-5]

better conditions for the ltalian people. This is generally the opinion of the
Italian Delegation.
32. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN :) hank you. I wonder if there has'tbeen a
little misunderstanding here. Representation on the Panel has no connection at
ail with rights of fishing in the area now or in the future. I think that has been
abundantly made clear by us. In fact, my English colleague very succinctly
summed it up by saying that the countries which can fish in any Panel area are
those who are contiguous to that Panel area, and anybody else that wants to. So
the matter or representation on the Panel has nothing whatever to do with what
rights anyone may have to corne and fish in that area, aîtis provided in the
Convention that when any country does establish a current substantial fishery
in an area, they will be eligible to membership in the Panel.
33. Our effort ,bas been now to reduce as much as we can the numbers of

countries who are represented in a particular Panel at the start, simply because
it is easier for a few countries to work togèther in a Conference than it is for
many countries to work together closely. We have thought that the Panels
should be composed ofthose countries that have a very real interest in it, either
through the fact that their coastline is adjacent to the area or that they have a
fishery in the area.
34. I quite realize that ltaly is under veryspecial circumstances in'thismatter,
and l think actually you don't have any major fishery in any of the areas, but
I think you had a vesse!or two last year in the Newfoundland Area, the present
Area 3.
35. I would like to have you think it over with these things in mind, and we
will retum to you later, if that is proper.
36. MR. IPPIA(ITALY)T : hank you, Mr. Chairman; and I will be very glad to
comment later on on this question.

37. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMANT ):hank you.
38. Newfoundland?
39. MR. GusHUE(NEWFOUNDLANnM ):r Chairman, I am very much in ae­
cord with the remarks which you have just made, and which have been previ­
ously made, and I think that membership in the Panels ought to be on the basis
of current substantial exploitation, bearing in mind that there is a period for
observers also to have the rîght to take part in the deliberation of any Panel, but
not to vote.
40. On that basis, with respect to Panel 1, although Newfoundland has
fished substantially there, it has not done so since the beginning of WorJd
War II and we would not therefore Jay daim to membership in Panel L We
would Jaydaim to membership in Panels 2 and 3 only.
41. MR.CHAPMA(N CHAIRMAN :)hank you, Mr.Gushue. Everyone will keep
in mind the remarks of the Canadian DeJegation - that these daims will be
joint, actually, in a few months.
42. MR. GUSHUE(NEWFOUNDLAND ):at has not yet been settled perma-
nently, Mr.Chairman.

43. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMANT ):he Chair was out of order.
44. Norway? ·
45. MR.SUNNANA(A NoRWAY):Area J only.
46. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMAN :T)hank you, sir.
47. Portugal?
48. MR. RAMALHO (PoRTUGAL)O : n behalf or the Portuguese DeJegation,
l should like to express the opinion that Portugal should like to be represented
on Sub-areas !,3 and 4.
49. MR.CHAPMAN (CHAIRMANT ):hank you, sir.[5]
ANNEXE SOMEMORIA OF CANADA 291

50. Spain?
51. MR. BARAIBA(R SPAIN):The Spanish Delegation wishes to be represented
in Areas 1,3 and 4.
52. MR. CHAPMAN (CttAIRMAN)T : hank you.
53. United Kingdom?
54. MR. AGLEN(UNITEDKlNGDOM):Mr. Chairman, the United Kingdom
would like to be represented on Areas 1 and 3. ln putting forward this claim,
I think I can say that we do fish substantially in Area 1,and that while our cur­
rent fishing effort in Areais very much Jess, it nevertheless is definite, and I

think we must bear in mind that what we are doîng now is not just fixing the
Panel membership for a period of one year, but fixing it for a period of three
years, and the beginning of that perioatsome date in the future, of which we
arenot yet quite sure.
55. We expect our effort in Area 3 will be much greater. That is why we
should like to be represented on that Panel.
56. Perhaps I might add that our instructions were to be represented on the
old Areas l, 2and 3. I do not think we need press for representation on the new
Sub-area 2,and having regard to the views expressed at this and other sessions

of this Conference, we should be quite willing to forego the claim for A4.a
57. MR. CttAPMAN (CHAIRMAN)T :hank you, Mr. Aglen.
58. I think we have corne out with a list of countries' desires in the matter.
I think now we will just table it and bring it up for discussion again this after­
noon.
59. At the last of our last meeting of the Committee of the Whole, we had a
second report from the Biological Sub-committee. We have ail had time to look
at that now, and I think it is open for adoption or non-adoption by the Confer­
ence.

Feb.27, 1949

CORRIGENDUA M
Minutes of the Twelfth Session

February 4, 1949

The following paragraph should read as shown be)ow (changes in text indi­
cated by underscoring):

Page2
19. MR.TERRIN(FRANCE):France would like to be represented on sub-Areas

1,2, 3, and 4, where she has always fished. No doubt we have fished in Area 5,
but we do not insist at ail in being represented in that Panel.

-END-292 GULF OF MAINE

Annex 16

COASTAL fISHERIES PROTECTION Acr (STATUTES OF CANADA 1952-/95:J,
CHAPTER 15,PAGES 51-56)

{lvotreproduced] ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 293

Annex17

TERRITORIALSEA AND F!SHING ZoNES ACT (STATUTES OF CANADA1964-J.965,

CHAPTER 22,PAGES 153-155) 294 GULF OF MAINE

13 ELIZABETH II.

CHAP. 22

An Act respecting the Territorial Sea and
Fishing Zones of Canada.

[Assentedto 16th July, 1964.1

ER Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
H Senate and Bouse of Commons of Canada, enacts as
follows:

SHORT TITLE.

1. This Act may be cited as the Territorial Sea Short title.
and Fishing Zunel!Act.

PART I.

GENERAL.

2. Every provision of thi:::Act ext.md.on:ml applies Aeta of to
to every Act of the Parliament of Canada, now or hereafter Parlia.ment,
passed, and t.o every orde1, rule or regulation thercunder, etc.:ulationa.
except in so far as any such provision il'Iincons1stent with

t.heintent or object of such Act, order, rule or regulation, or
would gÎYe to any word, expreRsion or clause thereof an
interpretation repugnant to the subject matter or t.he
context, 01 is, in any surh Act, order, rule or regulation,
declared not applicable thereto.

3. {l) Rubject to an.v exceptions under section 5, Territorial
the. territorial sea of Canada comprise"' those amas of the 9811.

sea having, as their inner limits, the baseline::idef"cribed in
section 5 and, as thcir outer limits, lines rneasured seaward
and equidistant from such baselines so that each point of the
outer limit lineof the territorial sea is dii-,tant three nautical
miles fwm the ncarest point·of the baseline. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 295

Internai (2) The internat waters of Canada include any
inolude areas of the sea that are on the landward side of the base~
cert~in lines of the territorial sea of Canada.
ser\ a.rea.s.
Fishing 4, (1) Subject to any exceptions under :,,ection .5,
iooea. the fishing zones of Canada compri,;e those areas of the
sea contiguous to the territorial sca of Canada and having,

as their inner limits, the outer limits of the territorial sea
and, as their outer limits, lines mPasured seaward and
equidistant from such inner limit:c.so that cach point of the
outer limit iine of a fishing zone is distant nine nautical miles
from the nearest point of the inne!' limit line.

\aws ofes (2) Un!css otherwise spccified t.herein, the laws
Canada of Canada respecting fishing and the exploitation of the
app]yt-0 living ref'ources of the séa apply to the fishing zones of
fishing zones.Canada in the same way and to the same extent as they

apply to the tf>rritorial sea of Canada.
List.'! of o. (1) The Govcrnor in Council may, by order in
co-ordinates.lcouncil, issue one or more lists of geographîcal co-ordinates
of point.s from which baselines may be determined an<lmay,

as he decms necessary, amend such lists.
Baselioes (2) In respect of any area for whicb geo­
co-ordioates graphical co-ordinates of points have been \i.'-ted,in a list
listed. 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 ba~eline between given points, baselines
are straight lines joioing the consecutive geographical
co-ordinates of points so listed.
BasoliDes (3) In respect of any other area and unt.il such
in othu
area. time as geographical co-ordinates of points have, for such
other area, .been !isted in a list issued pursuant to sub­
section (1), baselines remain those app\icaLle immediately
before the corning into force of this section.

of outelimition (4) Where, in bis opinion, a portion of the
linesin territorial sea of Canada or a portion of the fisbing zones
certain of Canada, determined, respectively, in accordance with
caaea. subsection (l)· of section 3 or subsection (1) of section 4,

would conftict with the territorial sea of a country other
than Canada or would be unreasonably close to the coast
of a country other than Canada, the Governor in Couucil
may, by order in council, issue a list of geographical co­
ordinat.es of points from which,

(a) in respect of the portion of the territorial sea
of Canada designated in the list, an outer limit
line may be determined in substitution for the

territorial sea outer limit line described in
subsection (I} of section 3, and 296 GULF OF MAINE

(b) in respect of the portion of the fishing zones
of Canada designated in the list, an outer limit
line may be determined in substitution for the
fishing zone outer limit line described in sub­

section (1) of section 4,
and the outer limit lines referred to in paragraphs (a)and (b)
shall, thereupon, be substituted.
(5) Where an outer limit line of a portion of No fishing
the territorial sea of Canada has been substituted pursuant certain
to subsection (4) of this section, section 4 shall not apply to cases.
create a contiguous fishing zone in respect of such portion.

6. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys Issu~f
may cause charts to be issued delineating the territorial chnrts.
sea of Canada and the fishing zones of Canada or of any
portions thereof as may be delineated consistent with the
nature and scale of the chart.

PART II.

CoNSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

Aeronautics Act.

"1. (1) Paragraphs (k) and (l) 0f section 3 of the 302..• c2.
Aeronautics Act are repealed and the following substituted
therefor:

"(k) to investigate, examine and report on the
operation and development of commercial air

services within or partly within Canada, in­
cluding the territorial sea of Canada and ail
waters on the landward side thereof;
(l) to consider, draft and prepare for approval by
the Governor in Council such regulations as
rnay be considered necessary for the control
or operation of aeronautics in Canada, including
the territorial sea of Canada and all waters on

the landward side thereof, and for the control
or operation of aircraft registered in Canada
wherever such aircraft may be; and"

(2) Ail that portion of subsection (1) of section
4 of the said Act preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed

.and the following substi tuted tl,erefor: Powers of
Mini.stto
. "4. (1) SubjectM" .the approval of the Governol . tlOils w,thula.
m Council, the 1mster may make regu at1ons to approvalof
control and regulate air navigation Over Canada, g~,:~' 7i~r ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 297

Anoex 18

COASTAL FlSHERJES PROTECTION REGULATIONS, AMENDED, ÛRDER IN COUNCIL
P.C. 1964-ll 12, 17JuLY 1964 (CANADA GAZETTE, PART Il,VOLUME 98,

NUMBER 15, 12AUGUST 1964, PAGE 723)

[Not reproduced]

Annex 19

PROCLAMATION INTO FORCE OF THETERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZoNES Acr OF
1964,PROCLAMATION, 23 JULY 1964(CANADA GAZFITE, PART Il,VOLUME 98,
NUMBER 15, 12AUGUST 1964,PAGE 771)

[Notreproduced}

Aonex20

TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZoNES ÜEOGRAPH!CAL CO-ORDINA TES (AREAS 1, 2
AND 3)ÜRDER, ÜRDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1967-2025, 26 ÜCTOBER 1967 (CANADA
GAZETTE, PART IIVOLUME 101,NUMBER 21, 8NOVEMBER 1967,

PAGES 1700-1704)

[Not reproducedj

Annex 21

TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES ÜEOGRAPHICAL Cü-ORDINATES (AREAS 4, 5

AND 6)ÛRDER, ÜRDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1969-1109, 29 MAY 1969 (CANADA
GAZETTE, PART Il,VOLUME 103, NUMBER 11, 11JUNE 1969,PAGES 792-795)

[Not reproduced]298
GUI..FOF MAINE

Annex22

COASTAI.. FlsHERIES PROTECTION ACT (REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA 1970,

CHAPTER C-21, PAGES 1135-1141) '

[Not reproducedj

Annex23

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND F1SHING ZoNES ACT (REVISED
STATUTES OF CANADA 1970,!ST SUPPLEMENT, CHAPTER 45,PAGES 1031-1033)

[Not reproduced}

Annex24

fISHING ZoNES OF CANADA (2oNES 1, AND 3)ÜRDER, ÜRDER IN COUNClL
P.C. 1971-366, 25fEBRUARY 1971 (CANADA GAZEITE, PART Il,VOLUME 105,
NUMBER 5, 10MARCH 1971,PAGES 363-364)

[Not reproducedj

Annex2S

TERRITORIAL SEA ÜEOGRAPHICAI.. CO-ORDINATES ÜRDER, ÜRDER IN COUNCIL
P.C. 1972-966, 9MAY 1972 (CANADA GAZETTE, PART II,VOLUME 106,

NUMBER 10, 24MAY 1972,PAGES 780-787)

[Not reproduced] ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 299

Annex26

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES, SPECIAL
COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 1973,l'ROCEEDINGS No. 4,APPENDIX 1:
COMMENTS DY THE UNITED STATES ON THE PROPOSAL TO REGULATE flSHING
EFFORT IN SUBAREA 5AND STATISTICAL AREA 6 - SUMMARY

Serial No. 2936
(A.a.4)
Summary

ln summary, the specifics of the US proposai are:
1. That the reduction of fishing intensity required to obtain the maximum

sustainable yield (MSY)is 25% below 1971.
2. USA proposes that the total allowable effort be expressed in tenns of
days on ground.
3. Taking into account the différentprinciples of allocation discussed in
this paper, the allowable fishing efforty countries for calendar year
1974 in terms of standardized US small otter trawler days on ground or
itsequiva\ent (seeTable 2)isasfollows:

Federal Republic of Germany(FRG) l0,160
Japan · 7Jl6
Poland 45,829
Romania 2,750
Spain 3,250
USSR 80,868

Bulgaria 9,386
Gennan Democratic Republic (GOR) 20,122
4. Furthennore, given the urgency ofthis situation, USA proposes that the
total effort expendedy each country listed inparagraph 3in the period
lSeptember to 31 December 1973 be one third of the figures listed in
paragraph 3above.
5. USA proposes that the existing regime of ICNAF conservation

measures be maintained (individual species quotas, minimum mesh
sizeregulation, closed areas, minimum fish sizes).
6. USA proposes that, should new entrants or non-members not men­
tioned in paragraph 3 above become a significant factor in the fishery,
then adjustments should be made in the allocated effort similar to that
which has been clonewith the catch quotas.
7. Fisheries developed specifically for invertebrates with gear not capable
of capturing finfish are to be excluded from the total effort regulations
proposed herein.

USA conducts extensive research into the status of fisheries and works
closely with STACRES to provide advice to ICNAF on the state of the fisher­
ies. USA bas a vital interest in the stocks of fish off its coast specifically, but
also is concerned with developments elsewhere. US scientists and the ICNAF

Assessments Subcommittee have advised over the last few years that the mag­
nitude of fishing intensity in general in the ICNAF Area has been rapidly
approaching the point where further increases will not provide significant in-300 GULF OF MAINE

creases in catch in the long run; indeed, they have pointed out that some stocks
have been rather severely overfished. The studies have shown that the situation
in Subarea 5and Statistical Area 6is particularly serious. The variety of species
makes assessment difficult and, in the past, the corrective actions have corne
too late, i.e., a severe reduction in catch is involved, with the possible exception
of cod. All of the major finfish resources were heavily exploited by the begin­

ning of 1971.The coastal fisheries have suffered a significant drop in catch of
46% over the last 10 years. Most of the resources of direct interest to coastal
fishermen have suffered rather severe declines as indicated in the Assessments
Subcommittee Report.
Recause of these serious and alarming trends, USA believes that the overall
fishing intensity needs to be regulated to maintain good yields, particularly in
Subarea 5 and Statistical Area 6. USA proposes that the total fishing effort be
regulated to achieve this. US reasons for choosing this meansof regulation have
been outlined and a reasonably specific method for framing the regulations bas
been proposed (Comm. Doc. 73/3).
The Assessments Subcommittee of STACRES has now studied the problem
and evaluated most of the items relating to the US proposai (1973 Sp. Comm.
Mtg. Proc. 1,App. 1).USA would like now to review a more detailed proposai
which bas been prepared along the lines of its original proposai {Comm.

Doc. 73/3) taking into account the Assessments Subcommittee's advice.

I. The US memorandum states that fishing effort be reduced to the level which
correspondsto that requiredtoprovide the total maximum sustainable yield of
finflsh(Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section 1,Paragraph 1)

The objective of the Commission has long been to regulate fisheries in order
to maximize the long-term yield.The Assessments Subcommittee of STACRES
bas concluded that the 1971 catch was at or beyond the MSY and the 1971
effort was significantly beyond the MSY level. lt bas also concluded that there
are no large finfish resources now under exploitation. Therefore, there would
be no missed opportunities for expansion with some overall effort Jîmit. USA
fully agrees with the merit of the individual species quotas which the Commis­
sion has set in the past. However, the Assessments Subcommittee has
concluded that, because of the by-catch problem, this approach would tend to
generate over-exploitation, and this can only be prevented by total catch or

effort regulation.
In choosing the typeof regulation, bath biological and practical matters must
be considered. A total catch quota is set to regulate the effective fishing inten­
sity. Therefore, to achieve the correct level of fishing intensity, the quotas must
be adjusted for changes in recruitment and growth which lead to changes in the
stock abondance. The annual adjustments to quotas needed to maintain fishing
intensity at the right level would require a very large amount of assessment
work; much greater than we now put forward in ICNAF. This would mean not
only many more manhours of assessment work but also much additional statis­
tical and biological data. On the other hand, fixing the fishing intensity directly
means that catches can be allowed to vary according to changes in abondance.
While vesse!controls will not eliminate entirely the need for quotas, andwe are
not suggesting that the effort regulation USA has proposed be substituted for
the existing quotas, the regulationof effort will decrease the need for frequent
adjustment in quotas. In either case, later adjustments may have to be made

because of changing objectives, or because the initial status was not correctly
assessed. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 301

Another factor to be taken into account is the relative status of fisheries. The
Assessments Subcommittee concluded that most of the finfish stocks are now
overfished, i.e.,the 1971point ofcatch and effort is above and to the right of the
MSY point on the total yield curve. The 1972effort is even greater. If the effort
were left at this level, the catch per unit of effort (CPE) and, hence, total catch
would drop until stabilized at a new level, lower than MSY. Although this is a
long-term phenomenon, inthe interim, as now when we are considering regula­
tion, the CPE will fall.
The quota must be set at the point on the yield curve corresponding to that

catch of tne current year'syield-effort curve. Yet we do not know the 1972sta­
tus nor can we predict the effect of fishing in the time period before the total
quota cornes into effect. The events in the interim period make no difference to
the correctness of the effort leveljudged as of 1971,but could have a significant
effect on the correctness of the quota set as of 1971.
The Assessments Subcommittee concluded that the mixed fisheries problem
can only be deait with by some overa11limitation of fishing intensity. lt also in­
dicated that the by-catch problem itself was not solved by using a total catch or·
total effort regulation. Although we cannot eliminate the problem, we could
alleviate it by preventing further increases in effort. Total effort limitation
seems totake care ofthe situation best, inthat it does prevent increases in effort.
Quota regulations, even a total quota, do not accomplish this in a predictable
way. As mentioned above, variations il"!stock abundance will cause changes in

fishing intensity, unless they are adequately measured and the quota adjusted.
Thus, the opportunity exists for increased effort, particufarly when stocks de­
crease in abundance. The Commission can probably not observe, assess and
take action quickly enough to prevent such increased effort.
The economic advantages of controlling effort that have been made obvious
by earlier studies in ICNAF should be emphasized. The importance of effective
enforcement to an effective management scheme should also be emphasized.
A management program which includes many quotas and many changes will
be very difficult to enforce.
Not only must a management program be administratively feasible in order
to regulate effectively, but adherence must be self-evident to the participating
fishermen. Because they are mixed fisheries, one cannot infer what species are
caught from observations of vesse!occurrence.
However, observations on the occurrence and time in the area of vessels
would provide the opportunity for fishennen to see for themselves the effects of

effort regulation. Also, Govemments can mount observation programs to mon­
itor adequately the number, type and activity of the fleet components. This
would also, in addition, provide for much improved fishery statistics.
n. The US memo~andum states that the allowable amount of effort as recom­
mended by STACRES should be expressed as a percentage reduction of 1971
effort because that is the fast year for which complete statistics are available
(Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section l, Paragraph II)

STACRES bas accepted the Assessments Subcommittee's advice of a 20-30%
cutback to achieve MSY. USA proposes that a value of 25% be used. The
STACRES Report also stated that effective effort in 1972 had increased in
excess of 100/ofrom that in 1971.The USestimate of increase was 25%,based on
US vesse!overflightobservations and calculations. Although this increase accen­
tuates the problem by increasing the extent to which the stocks are being over­
fished, it does not have to be considered as the effort reduction can be calcu­

lated from 1971reported effort levels. 302 GULF OF MAINE:

III. Problems of standardizing effort (Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section 1, Para­
graph III)

The Assessments Subcommittee has reported that, of the units of effort most
regularly reported, "days fished" adequately relates effort to fishing intensity
for management purposes and that "days on ground" is a feasible unit to use to
regulate fishing effort. USA proposes, therefore, that the actual regulation of
fishing effort be accomplished on the basis of"days on ground".
There are many problems involved in standardizing effort; USA welcomes
further research and refinement of the measures of relative catchahility. How­
everdesirable this is,the time for actionis now.The AssessmentsSubcommittee

has stated that a reduction in effort in the neighbourhood of 30%,is required for
proper management of the stocks. Therefore, the question is whether standard­
ization is adequate for assuring a reduction in fishing mortality in 1973.The
ratios between catch rates of various vessel classes within each country, based
on 1971reported statistics, are pertinent to this question. As computed from the
· 1971ICNAF Statistical Bulletintables, these ratios retlect differences in fishing
patterns among such vessels, as well as different fishing power. The Ferlerai
Republic of Germany and Japan apparently fished with the same pattern for
ail theirvesse!classes. Polish side trawlers concentrated on herring to a greater
extent than on mackerel, white the reverse was true for the stem trawlers. There
was Jessindication ofthis tendency for the USSR vessels.In addition, the larger
USSR vessels concentrated to a greater extent on hake. Changes in these
patterns would affect the relative catchabilities to some degree, depending on
relative availabilities of the different species. Changes in patterns would
not appear, however, to be of major significance in the effectiveness of effort

reduction. Of greater concem is possible future improvement in efficiency,
particularlyin the way a country deploys effort, relative to the "days fished"
and "days on ground" as reported to ICNAF. lt is unlikely that efficiency
willdecrease. Thus, usingpresent values errs, ifanything, inthe direction of not
achieving the desired effort reduction and, accordingly, effort should probably
be reduced more than that recommended by the Assessments Subcommittee.
The only place in the computations where between-country coefficients are
used is in the determination of the percentage reductions which will be applied
to individual countries to achieve a 25%overall reduction. This depends, of
course, on the proportion of effort eliminated relative to that being reduced.
The greater the amount eliminated, the greater willbe the percentage reduction
on the remaining countries. Since most of the effort eliminated was US effort, it
is appropriate to discuss these consequences. The Assessments Subcommittee
discussions pointed out that the relative abu~dance of groundfish and pelagîc
stocks would influence their relative catchabilities based on standard US gear.

If the pelagic stocks were in greater abundance than the groundfish stocks, the
proportion of US effort would be underestimated relative to the distant-water
fleets and thus, the percent reduction of the countries affected would be less,
and might be too low to achieve a 25%overall reduction of effort.
A significant fishery for invertebrates exists at the present time and may
develop further in the future. The US proposai is not intended to limit effort
on such species so long as the gear used does not catch significant quantities
of finfish as a by-catch. Thus, the US proposai excludes specific fisheries now
in existence for lobster, shrimp, scallops, and other shellfish, except squid.
The current small fishery for squid takes signîficant quantities of finfish as a

by-catch. The effort directed to squid has been included in the allocations.
Should future development ofthis fishery include gear th,atdoes not take a by- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 303

catch of finfish, the USA would expect the Commission to exempt the fishery
from the total effort regulation. Separate quotas and effort regulation would
have to be developed for these various independent fisheries depending on
needs.

IV & V. Factorsinallocationof effortamongnations (Comm. Doc. 73/3, Sec-
tion 1,Paragraphs IVand V) ·

In determining the allocation of total effort among participants, some of the
same factors considered in applying quota management programs should be
taken into account. Traditiona1 fishing patterns, as reflected by average effort
levelsovera period of selected years and expressed interms of standard fishing
units, should provide a partial and useful basis for the allocation of effort
levels. However, other factors, such as recent increases in effort, coastal state
interests, developing fisheries, immobile vessels, and recent entrants, must
be considered. Under the present circumstances of fully utilized fisheries, new
entrants would not be given significant consideration.
Coastal fishing interests should be given high priority. Many coastal fisher­
ies are relatively immobile and cannot be shifted to other areas. Similarly,
coastal states are often concemed with developing new potentials; effort
control must recognize this need and must be llexibly applied to permit such

expansion.
Even a quick look at the data shows clearly that the coastal states have not
increased their catch and effort since 1961.In fact, they have decreased it, and
thus have already made a contribution to effort control. They should not be
expected to make a further contribution now, since they have not created
the problem.
Moreover, it must be recognized that the relatively immobile fleets of small
coastal vesselsare unique in contrast withthe remaining vesselsinthe area, that
is, the distant-water vessels. These coastal vessels have been designed almost
exclusivelyto supply specialized markets with a continuous year-round supply
of fresh fish. This they cannot do if they are shifted to other areas. Nor can they
make longer trips to other fishing grounds: even when they are physicaJly
capable of venturing further offshore, they cannot operate effectively amidst
the fleets of large vessels found there.

As in catch quota allocation, it appears appropriate to <lividepart of the
effort quota among participating countries in proportion to their average Jevel
of participation overan agreed period of time. However, ît seemsonly equitable
to relate the amount of effort an individual participating country is asked to
reduce, in part, to the extent by which that country has increased its level of
effort over the years when the total effort was excessive.On the other band, the
allocation scheme must recognize that countries, which have not increased
their fishing effort or which may have reduced their effort in response to
changes in fish stocks or biomass, have already made a contribution toward
effort contrai and should not be expected to accept rurther reductions.
Certain other special factors need consideration similar to that given to the
allocation of catch quotas. USA recognizes that these might include provision
for the special needs of recent entrants with relativelysmall fleets to the fishery.
Basing such an allocation on historical fishing, as was done with the catch
quotas, is, as the Assessments Subcommittee has stated, difficult because of
changes in relative catch rates within time periods. This was tried in several dif­
ferent ways and although the trends remain the same, the actual country values
fluctuated depending on the time periods for which relative catchabilities were

calculated. Nevertheless, in ail trials, Japan, Poland, USSP.,Bulgaria and the304 GULF OF MAINE

German Democratic Republic showed increases since 1968when effort was at
about the right level. Because Canada and USA are coastal fishing nations,
their effort was not reduced.
ln order to avoid very small reductions, and the impairment of very small
fisheries, countries with Jessthan 2,500days, or about 1% of the total, were not

given reductions in effort. This rule applied to Romania and Spain.
Because of these difficulties, the procedure recommended by the Assess­
ments Subcommittee to use 1971relative catchabilities as determined from sta­
tistics reported to ICNAF to determine 1971standard effort, was adopted. The
number of standard days to be reduced was 25%of this total. This reduction
wasapportioned to thosecountries not exempted bythe criteria givenabove on
the basis of the standardized effort applied by each country in 1971.This re­
sulted in a 30.7%reduction for each of the countries in the allocation to achieve
the overall 25%reduction (Table !).
A procedure for each country to use in allocating its total allowable effort
among various vesselcategories was presented by the Assessments Subcommit­
tee. Tables have been prepared for each country. The conversion coefficients
for "days on ground" to "days fished" are also listed.
Standardized "days fished" were computed using the relative catchahilities

givenin Table 7 of the AssessmentsSubcommittee Report. These were obtained
by making monthly comparisons of catch rates of all vessel types with the US
OTSI 0-50-tonclass. These relative catch rates were then averaged over months
to obtain an annual average.
The raw annual "days fished" for each gear type for each country were then
multiplied by the annual average coefficients and added to obtain the total
annual standardized "days fished" {Table 2). Serious problems arise in using
the country-vesse! type conversions for "days fished" to "days on ground".
The first is that the last year for which such ratios were submitted to ICNAF
was 1969and changes may have occurred since then for some countries. The
second is that such data are only available for Romania, Spain, Poland and
USSR. The third is that there are differences among vessel classes in the "days
fished" "days on ground" conversion coefficients for Poland. The latter fact
leaves unresolved the precise determination of allowable "days on ground" to
achieve the desired reduction in "days fished".

The Commission is faced with three possible solutions to this problem:
(1) The Commission can decide at this meeting the best single coefficient for
each country for conversion of "days fished" to "days on ground". lt is
assumed that further studies will be undertaken to improve the accuracy
ofthis coefficient.
(2) The Commission can set up a Working Party to study the matter further and

to derive new country coefficients and to report to the 1973Annual Meet­
ing of the Commission. These new coefficients could then be applied to the
regulations effective 1September 1973.
(3) The Commission can derive a scheme which would allow each country to
utilize different "days on ground" to "days fished" conversion coefficients.
This would require that the actual "days on ground" in column 15of Table
13 of the Assessments Subcommittee Report would be reconverted to
standard "days fished". The total of these reconverted "days fished" must
not exceed the total given at the bottom of columns 6 or 7. If they do, a

reapportion of days among different vesse! categories must be done such
that the reconverted "days fished" are less than, or equal to, the original
allocated "days fished". ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 305

VI. Presentregulatorymeasures(Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section 1, Paragraph VI)
(See Paragraph 5 of the Summary)

VII. Thatthereducedleveloffishingeffortistobeimplementedonanurgentbasis
(Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section 1,Paragraph VII)

The Assessments Subcommittee Report estimated thatthe level offishing in­
tensity associated with the MSY of finfish in Subarea 5and Statistical Area 6 is
70-80%of the 1971level.The Subcommittee also concluded that, on the basis of
US overflight data, the increase in fishing effort from 1971to 1972was consid­
erably in excess of 10%.The compositions of distant-water fleets have changed
in recent years, with the ratio of large stem t~awlers to medium side trawlers
increasing from 0.7 in 1971to 1.02in 1972(the fonnerestimated to be 3.5 times
as effective as the latter). Improved technology in addition to larger boats also
tends to multiply the fishing intensity. This indicates that more fishing effort

existed in 1972than was necessary to harvest the available surplus resource.
In view of the existence of one major unregulated species (mackerel) and of
other less substantial, unregulated stocks (including squid), one can only as­
sume that al!available effort willbe directed by the distant-water fleets towards
these resources. The by-catch of regulated species taken by effort specifically
directed towards mackerel bas been shown by the Assessments Subcommittee
to be substantial.
Therefore, any delay in administering a reduction in fishing intensity will
only serve to reduce stock levels further, and to increase the period of recovery
of stocks to levels supporting the maximum sustainable yields. While the pro­
posai sets out the annual allowable standard effort beginning I January 1974,
the urgency of the current situation requires that effort reductions begin as soon
as possible.

USA proposes that the standard "days fished" (expressed in terms of "days
on ground") expended by each country from I September 1973to 31 December
1973not exceed one-third of the annual allowable effort as given in Table 2.

VIII. Annual review(Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section 1, Paragraph VIII)
The initial effort regulation should not only provide for the level at which
effort should be set, but also for review and adjustments as necessary at each

Annual Meeting.
As experience with the effort control system is gained, there will be a need
to have the Assessments Subcommittee and STACRES review and adjust such
critical factors in the equation as fishing power coefficients for varions cJasses
of vessels and for the different countries, as well as the relationship between
"days on ground" and "days fished". In short, the effort regulation system
must be considered to be a dynamic one over the years and adapt to changes in
circumstances and experience.

IX. Administrationof effort regulations(Comm. Doc. 73/3, Section 1, Para­
graph IX)

Administration of effort regulations willbe relatively simple. If a vessel is ob­
served in Subarea 5and Statistical Area 6, and if it is not listed as one to which
vesse! days which were allotted by its government from its allocation remain to
be utilized, it is in violatiIfit is listed, it is O.K. No boardings. No questions.
No worrying about what it is doing.
Under an optimum system of enforcement of effort regulations, each country306 GULF OF MAINE

willplan well ahead ortime for the optimum utilization ofthe "days on ground"

allocated toit. lt will determine how many such days will be apportioned to
each vesse! class and, to ensure utilizationof its full share, it will allocate these
shares to individual vessels. Allocating lists can then be provided to the ICNAF
Secretariat, which in tum can provide collected lists to enforcement officers. A
listed vesse!would then report by radio when it enters and leaves Subarea 5and
Statistical Area 6, and utilization of the days allocated to that vesse! can be
quickly verified. An enforcement officer can quickly check on the status of a
vesse!. If it is observed in the area, and it bas not checked in, or is not listed, or
has already checked out, it is in violation. If it is listed, and bas checked in,
everything is fine. However, it is envisaged that a simplified method of enforce­
ment can be utilized under which a vesse) will simply report its entry into and
exit from the area. Of course, plans will change during the course of the year,
and countries will have the possibility of modifying their lists, as situations
change.

It bas been stated that vessels willuse up some oftheir allocated time in non.
productive activities,such as not being able to fish because of weather, of break­
down, or of the need to transit from one ground to another, and so on. This is
true, but these non-fishing periods have been taken into account, on the aver­
age, in formulating X "days on ground" = Y"days fished". Thus, what the ves­
se!is doing is immaterial in terms of enforcement. The only question is whether
it should be in the area when observed there. The inspector would only have to
record the names of the vessels he sees in the area. Later, in his office, he can
check his observations against the listing, or whether the vesse! had reported
itself in the area.
Such a system, ithas been said, would not improve the acceptance by fisher­
men that other nations were actually enforcing the rules. Credibility is a prob­
lem, because there is virtually no fisherman anywhere in the world who does
not believe that he is subject to more rigorous enforcement than th.eother fish­

ermen who are fishing alongside him. Fishermen of country A assume this to be
true of countries B and C, while fishermen of country C assume this of coun­
tries A and B. It is universal. The system USA has proposed overcomes this
through the ease with which checks can be made. True, an individual fisherman
sees only a small part of what is going on, but fishermen have a very good com­
munications system amongst themselves. More iniportantly, however, the fish­
ermen will know how easy it will be for their own officiais to verify compliance
by others.
Moreover, fishermen can get the picture from what they observe even if they
do not have ail the details. Fishermen first saw in 1972the increase in effort
which was discussed in the two US memoranda. And fishermen will certainly
be able to observe a decrease in effort of the order STACRES is referring to,
and when they do, maybe they willsay that JCNAF is useful instead of a failure. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 307

Table 1. Calculation for reduction in fishing effort in US OTSI 2 standardized
days fished

Column 1 Column2 Column3 1

Percentdistribution of
Daysfished effort based on total 1973
Country 1971 (Can, USA, Rom. Sp) decrease

Canada 7 414
Germany, Fed. Rep. 11285 6.09 3 470
Japan 8 567 4.62 2 632
Poland 45 974 24.81 14135
Romania 1980
Spain 2 375
USSR 89 003 48.04 27 370
USA 30 860
Bulgaria 9684 5.23 2 980
Gennany, Dem. Rep. 20754 11.20 6 381

Total 227 896 99.99 56968
X 0.25

Reduction 56974

Total
(less Can, Rom,
Sp, and USA) 185267
1
Reductîon x Column2. Table 2. Calculations for 1973allowable effort by country

Column
numbers l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO ll 12 13 14 15
0,,l
OQ
Relative Reduction in 1973 1973
performcmce Stondardized &ltio: Standardized standardized S1andardized Standardized
ratio Actua/ daysfislred daysan Raw days on ground daysfished daysfished days on ground
1971 ground days
Vesse/ toUS roUSSR days toUS taUSSR /0days on toUS toUSSR to US toUSSR toUS toUSSR taUS taUSSR
categary OTS12 OTSJ4 fished 01SJ2 OTS14 {,shed ground OTS12 01514 OTSf 2 OTS14 OTSI2 0TSI4 OTSf 2 OTS/4

USSR

OTSI4 1.32 l.00 11489 15165 l l 489 1.3 l4936 19714 14936
OTSI 5 1.91 l.45 6590 12587 9 556 l.3 8 567 16363 12423
OTST5 1.912 1.45 360 688 522 1.31 468 894 679
OTST7 7.26 5.50 7 767 56388 42718 1.3 l0097 73 304 55 533
PS 4 3.93 2.98 197 744 587 1.7 335 l 316 998
PS 5 6.63 5.02 513 3401 2 575 1.5 770 5 102 3 862
Cl
C:
Total 26916 89003 67 447 35173 116693 88431 27 370 20 706 61633 46741 t;;
0
POLAND ...
)-
toPOL toPOL toPOL toPOL z
toPOL toPOL
OTSJS OTS/5 OTSI5 01515 OTSI 5 01515 "'

OTSl5 1.57 1.00 5 852 9 188 5 852 1.6 9363 14 700 9363
OTST6 6.92 4.41 I 873 12961 8260 1.43 2 622 18144 l ! 563
OTST7 8.29 5.28 2874 23 825 15175 1.4 4024 33 359 21247

Total 10599 45974 29287 16009 66 203 42173 14135 8 991 31839 20296

GERMANY (DR)

10GDR toGDR toGDR toGDR toGDR toGDR
OTSJ 5 OTS/5 01515 OTSJ 5 01515 OTSJ 5

OTSJ 5 1.72' 1.00 Not Not Not t.44 Not Not Not
known known known known known known
OTST6 7.824 4.554 1.34
OTST7 7.JJ4 4.254 1.4'

Total 20 7545 12066 6381 3 704 14 373 8 362 BULGARIA

ta BUL to BUL toBUL ta BUL taBUL toBUL
OTSTl OTSTl OTST? OTST7 OTST7 OTSTl

OTST7 7.68 1.00 1261 9684 1261 1.4 l 765 13555 176S 2980 387 6 704 874

GERMANY (FR)

to FRG
ta FRG toFRG toFRG ta FRG loFRG
OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 OTS.T6

OTST6 8.72 1.00 490 4273 490 J.36 637 5 555 637
OTST7 8.82 1.01 795 7 012 803 J.36 1034 91]6 l 044

Total 1285 11285 l 293 l 671 14671 1681 3 470 397 7 815 896 z
z
·~
JAPAN trl
(Cols 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 expressed in hours fished) "',
0
to JAP ta JAP to JAP taJAP to JAP to JAP :;::
OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 OTST6 trl
0;::
OTST6 0.13 0.50 2520 328 1260 1.36 3 276 426 1638 ;,:,
0.42 1.00 [.36 :;::
OTST7 19617 8 239 19617 25 502 10711 2S 502 t""
'Tl
Total 22 137 8 567 20 877 28 778 Il 137 27140 2 632 6409 5935 14468
Q
SPAIN ...

toSPA roSPA roSPA ~
PT4 PT4 PT4

PT4 3.16 LOO 499 1577 499 1.3 649 2 050 649 No reduction below minimum
OT6 1.68 0.49 475 798 233 1.31 618 1037 303 number of days tïshed

Total 974 2375 732 l 267 3 087 952

ROMANIA

l,,l
toROM ta ROM taROM
OTSTl OTSTl OTSTl ~

OTST7 4.52 l.00 438 1980 438 l.1 482 2 178 482 No reductlon below minimum
number of days tïsbed ..,,

-
Table 2 (continued)

Column
numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 /4 /5

Reduction in 1973
Rekiti•e /973
perfonnance Standardized Ra1io: Standardized standardized Standardized Standardized
ratio Actual daysfished dayson Raw days Oilgroulld daysf,shed daysf",shed days on ground
1971 ground days ---
Vesse/ toUS days toUS rodays Oil toUS toUS to US toUS
category OTSJ2 f,shed OTS/1 fished groulld OTSll OTS12 OTSJ2 OTSJ2

USA

Cl
OTSI 2 l.O 6439 6439 No C:
OTSI 3 l.12 [2 827 14366 reduction !;j
OTSI4 1.44 2777 3 999 coastal 0
Other state .,,
gear 6056' ::::
>
Total 30 860 m

CANADA

OTSl4 1.09 353 390 No
OTSTS l.83 454 952 reduction
Other coastal
gear - 6 072' state

Total 7414

1 5
Used average of ail USSR values. 6 Obtained by dividing catch by 1971USA OTSI 2total catch/day (5.15 Mn.
3 Used USSR OTSI Svalue. 7 Average for vesse! dass over ail countries.
4 Used Poland OTST 7 value. , Used Spain PT 4 value.
Used ave·rageover ail countries in distant-water fleets for gear class. 8 Estimatedbydivîdîngcatch by total USOTSI Class 2catch/day(S.15 MD.Exp/anatior, of dainTable 2

The standardized "days fished" (hours fished in the cai;eof Japan) in Table 2 were compiled from the raw days in Table 5 of Che1971 S1a1isticalBulletin for ail
councries (onertrawl catches only for USA and Canada), except the German Democratic Republic, and were standardized by using the average monthly relative
catchabilities US 0-50-ton ottertrawlers as given in Table 7 in the Assessments Subcommittee Repon (1973 Sp. Comm. Mtg. Prl).Average monthly
catchabilities for Japan (ail vessels) and Spain (ouertrawlers Class 6) which do not appearin Table 7 have now been calculated. The standardized "days fished"
for the German Democratic Republic were estimated by dividing the total catch by the total catch per day of US small otter trawlers which was 5.15 tons. The
remainder of the Canadian catch (except by scallop dredges and from the large pelagic fisheries) for which, in general, no effort was reported, was treated sîmî­
larly as was the remainder of the US catch in Table 5 ofthe Stali.stical Bulletin. minus that by the fixed gear and from the large pelagics, menhaden, and inverte­
brate fisheries (including the not-known mixed species category which is primarily invertebrates but includes such misce\laneous inshore fisheries as striped bass,
etCatches which were eliminated for the USA were the same ones omitted from analysis of effort reported in the Assessments Subcommittee Repon.
Ratios of "days on ground" to "days fished" were taken from the 1969 (the last year for which they were reported) colum1 of the Assessments
Subcommittee Report. Such values were not available forall countries and gears. Where estimates were used, their bases are given in the footnotes to Table 2.
..,,
Ca/eu/arionsinvolvedin Table2 ><
Col 4 = Cnl I x Co13 2- vesse] tonnage category 0- 50tons m
5 = Coll x Col3 3- 51- 150tons "',
7 = Col3 x Col6 4- 151- 500 tons 0
8 = Co14 x Col6 5- 501- 900 tons ..,,
9=Co1SxCo16 6- 90l-1800tons 0
10 = Total Col 4 x 0.307 7- over 1800tons ;a
11= Total Col 5 x 0.307 ;:
12= Total Col4 - Col 10 I""'
13 - Total Col 5 - Col 11 ..,
Ç;
OTSI = sideottertrawler z
OTST = stem ottertrawler
OT a otter trawIer ~
PT = pairtrawler
PS = purseseine

,.,,312 GULF OF MAINE

Annex27

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES,
SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING, ÜCTOBER 1973,PROCEEDINGS No. 5,
REPORT OF THE WORKING ÛROUP ON CATCH ALLOCATIONS FOR $UBAREA 5
AND STATISTICAL AREA 6

[Not reproduced]

Annex28

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES,
fOURTH SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 1974,PROCEEDINGS No. 3,
REPORT OF MEETINGS OF PANEL 5

[Not reproduced}

Annex29

PROPOSED FISHING ZoNES OF CANADA (ZoNES 4AND 5)ÛRDER, l'RûPOSED

ÛRDER IN COUNCIL, 1 NOVEMBER 1976(CANADA GAZETTE, PART 1VOLUME 110,
EXTRA NUMBER 101,1 NOVEMBER 1976, PAGES 1-6)

[Not reproduced} ANNEXESTO MEMORIALOF CANADA 313

Annex30

DEPARTMENT OF STATE [PuBUC NOTICE 506],MARITIME 80UNOARIES
BETWEENTHE UNITED STATES AND CANADA (UNITED STATES FEDERAL REGJSTER,

VOLUME 41, NUMBER 214, 4NovEMBER 1976,PAGES 48619-48620)

[See II,Annex 64}

Annex31

"l\vENTY-EIGHT TRACTS DROPPED FROM PR.OPOSEOSALE OF NORTH ATLANTIC

OCS ÜIL AND GAS LEASES", UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF LANO MANAGEMENT, NEWS RELEASE (7 0ECEMBER 1976)

[Not reproduced]

Annex32

TRANSITIONAL UNITED STATES FISHING VESSEL LICENCE EXEMPTION
REGULATIONS, ÜROER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1976-3179, 23 DECEMBER 1976 (CANA.DA
GA.ZEITE, PART II,VOLUME 111,NUMBER 1,12JANUARY 1977, PAGES 99-100)

[Not reproducedj314 GULF OF MAINE

Annex33

FISHING ZONES OF CANADA (ZoNES 4 AND 5) ÜRDER, ÜRDER IN COUNCIL

P.C. 1977-1,1JANUARY 1977 (CANADA GAZEITE, PART II, VOLUME li 1,
EXTRA, 1JANUARY 1977, PAGES 1-6)

[Not reproduced]

Annex34

TRANSITIONALUNITED STATES FISHING VESSELLICENCE EXEMPTION
REGULATIONS, ÜRDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1977-1148, 28 Af>RIL1977 (CANADA
GAZETTE, PART Il,VOLUME 111; NuMBER 9, 11 MAY 1977, PAGES 2063-2065)

[Notreproduced]

Annex35

TRANSITIONAL UNITED STATES FISHING VESSEL LICENCE EXEMPTION
:REGULATIONS,AMENDMÉNT,ÜRDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1977-1695, 16 JUNE 1977
(CANADA GAZEITE, PART liV<?LUME111, NuMBER 13, 13 JuLY 1977, PAGE2732)

[Not reproduced] ANNEXETSOMEMORIA OFCANADA 315

Aooex36

JOINTREPORT DYCHIEFNEGOTIATOR ONCANADA-UNITESD TATESMARITIME
BoUNDARIEA SNDRELATED RESOURCIESSUES ,5ÛCTOBER 1977

DEPARTMEN OFEXTERNAA LFFAIRS

COMMUNIQUÉ

Not forpublicationbefore
10:00 Hours, October 21, 1977
The Secretary of State for Extemal Affairs, the Honourable Don Jamieson,
announced today the release of the Joint Report by Chief Negotiators on
Canada-U.S. Maritime Boundaries and Related Resource Issues.

The text of a joint release by the Govemments of Canada and the United
States is attached.316 GULF OF MAINE
The Governments of Canada and the United States have approved
a Joint Report by Chief Negotiators on Canada·United States Maritime
Boundaries and Related Resource Issues. The report recommends princi­
ples for resolution of maritime resource issues with a view to facilitating
settlement of the maritime boundaries between the two countries. The

Cadieux for Canada and Ambassador Lloyd N. Cutler for the United Marcel

States-to continue their negotîations with a view to recommending
detailed terms for a comprehensive seulement by December, 1977.
The Report of the Chief Negotiators, a copy of which is attached,
recommends the establishment of a joint Fisheries Commission for the
cooperative management of fish stocks of common concern. It also sets
out proposed arrangements for the sharing of hydrocarbon resources in
boundary areas. The Negotiators express the hope that with satisfactory
resolution of resource issues, mutually acceptable agreement on the two
countries' m!l,ritimeboundaries will be possible. ·

The Fisheries Commission proposed by the Negotiators would com­
prise separate Atlantic and Pacifie Coast panels composed of members
appointed by the two Governments. Fish stocks off the two coasts would
be divided into three management categories, depending upon stock pat­
terns and the relative interests of the two countries. The categories would
provide, respectively, for joint management of some stocks, for jointly
agreed management for other stocks based on proposais submitted by the
country with the primary interest; and for independent national manage·
ment of stocks in the third category subject only to consultation. For ail
stocks, firm entitlements for each country would be fixed in advance by
negotiation between the two Gov~rnments; these entitlements could be
changed by mutual agreement. ·

The fisheries panels would review annually, and as appropriate,
recommend to Governments regulatory measures for the relevant stocks.
With stocks under joint management, if either of the two Governments
do not agree with panel recommendations, a procedure would be estab­
lished for prompt conciliation and, if necessary, binding arbitration of
outstanding differences. Differences over interpretation and application
of the Agreement would also be subject to the arbitration procedure.

The Negotiators' proposais for dealing with hydrocarbon resources
cal! for establishment of "shared access zones" in boundary areas. Each
country would be responsible for licencing and development in its portion
of the zone, but would follow an agreed timetable for exploration and, if
appropria te, for development.

Each country would be entitled to one half of the oil and gas pro­
duction from the entire zone. The country producing the larger share
would sell the other at world market prices amounts necessary to balance
the account.

Since the question of offshore hydrocarbon resources in Canada is a
matter of direct interest to a number of provinces, the Federal Govern· ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 317

ment will be consulting with these provinces on this matter during the
next phase of the negotiations.
Details of the Negotiators' recommended arrangements are
included in their attached Joint Report.

The Joint Report on proposed principles approved by Governments
concludes the first phase of their effort. In the second phase of their
negotiations, the Chief Negotiators will seek to work out detailed provi­
sions for the Fisheries Commission, including assignment of stocks to the
three management categories, and for the hydrocarbon sharing arrange­
ments they have proposed. They willalso address delimitation of the four
maritime boundaries shared by Canada and the United States.

During the first phase of discussions, the Chief Negotiators and
their aides consulted closely with their respective provincial, state and
industry interests. Representatives of the fishing communities and of
interested regional government entities participated in the negotiations.
Continuing close involvement by regional and industry interests in Phase
II of the negotiations is expected.

Attachment:
Joint Report of Ambassador Cadieux and Ambassador Cutler318 GULF OF MAINE

JOINT REPORT OF
AMBASSADOR CAD!EUX AND AMBASSADOR CUTLER
TO THE
GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES:
NEGOTIAT!ONS ON MARITIME BOUNDARIES

AND
RELATED RESOURCE ISSUES

1.

1. On August l, 1977, the Governmen ts of Canada and the
United States appointed special Chief Negotiators to conduct maritime
boundary and resource negotiations. The Chief Negotiators were
instructed to report by October 15, 1977 on the principles of a compre­
hensive settlement encompassing delimitatîon of maritime boundaries,
appropriate complementary fishery and hydrocarbon arrangements and
other related matters. The terms of reference also directed the Chief

Negotiators to develop the substance of a comprehensive settlement for
submission to governments by December 1, 1977. This Joint Report of
the Chief Negotiators to their governments sets forth principles recom­
mended by them for a comprehensive maritime boundaries and resource
seulement.

2. The two Chief Negotiators and their aides met alternatively in
Washington and Ottawa on August 15 and 24, September 8 and 22, and
October 4 and 14. ·

3. The two Negotiators consulted with their respective fishing
communities on both coasts. In addition, representatives of the· fishing

communities served as advisors to the Negotiators and participated in
that capacity in the discussion of fisheries-related issues. On the USA
side, members of the Mid-Atlantic, New England, Pacifie and North
Pacifie Fisherîes Management Councîls were represented. On the
Canadian side, officiais from the Governments of the Province of British
Columbia, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, representatives of fisher­
men's organizations from both coasts, and representatives of fish proces­

sors participated.
4. During the first phase of the negotiations, the two sides
directed their attention to the basic principles of long-term resource

arrangements for fisheries and hydrocarbons as a basis for reaching
detailed agreement on these issues and on boundary delimitations during
the second phase.

II. FISHERIES

5. The two sides agreed on a text of "Proposed Principles for a
Joint Fisheries Commission to be Established by Convention between
Canada and the United States" (Attachment I). The Negotiators agreed
that these principles should be the basis for further discussion of the sub­

stantive details of such an arrangement during the more detailed negotia­
tions to be carried out in the next few months.

6. The agreed approach involv~sthe following: ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 319

7. GENERAL FRAMEWORK
There would be three categories of fish stocks covered in the Agree­

ment, to be listed în Annexes A, B and C to Attachment l. Thèse
Annexes would also contain agreed entitlements to these stocks as defined
in the Annex for fishermen of either country, as appropriate. The stocks
listed in each annex would be managed on a different basis: ·

8. Annex A stocks would include transboundary stocks to be sub­
ject to joint management by a Fisheries Commission (see 13 below). The
Commission would annually recommend appropriate regulatory measures
for these stocks under procedures including provisions for disputes settle­
ment described in Section V.

9. Annex B stocks would be stocks considered appropriate for
jointly agreed management as a unit. Management of such stocks, as
defined in the Annex, would be based on proposais submitted by the
country with the primary interest, as designated in the Annex. In these
cases, the Commission would recommend to governments agreed regula­

tions following the submission of proposais by the country designated in
the Annex. In making such proposais, the proposing country would be
obligated to observe certain criteria, or management standards. The man­
agement standards would relate to such matters as criteria for determin­
ing optimum sustainable yield, the avoidance of adverse impact on other
fisheries, and the need for non-discrimination in regulations. These man­
agement standards have not yet been fully developed. If agreement were
not reached, the proposais of the country of primary interest would take

effect subject tothe review procedure described below.
IO. Annex C stocks would be those occurrîng clearly off the coast

of only one country. For these stocks, the coastal state would manage the
fishery, but consultations on stock assessment and regulations would take
place within the Commission forum.

11. Under the aegis of the Commission, the two countries would
coordinate the collection of statistics, carry out cooperative research,
jointly assessthe status of Category A and B stocks, and discuss the dis­
position of their respective "surpluses" to third countries or to one
another.

12. The two sicles agreed that further discussion is required with
regard to the disposition of surpluses and the areas in which entitlements
may be fished.

Ill INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

13. FISHERIES COMMISSION

A Fisheries Commission would be established consisting of an
Atlantic coast and Pacifie coast panel. Each panel would consist of twelve
members, six members appointed by each side. In addition, there would
be two impartial co-chairmen on each panel (who mîght, for example, be
retired judges from the senior domestic courts of eacli side or other distin-320 GULF OF MAINE

guished persons), one appointed by each side subject to the concurrence
of the other. The co-chairmen would attend and preside over meetings of
each panel, but would not be members of their delegations and would not
be entitled to vote with the members of the panels on the adoption of
regulations. The major responsibility of the ·co-chairmènviould be to act
as conciliators and arbitra tors should a dispute arise concerning the inter­
pretation and application of the Agreement or the adoption of regulations
for the management of certain stocks of fish, as set out below in para­
graphs 20 and 21.
14. The Commission would also have power to recommend to gov­
ernments the addition of particular stocks to Annex A, B-or C, or the
transfer of stocks from one annex to another, or changes in the agreed
reciprocal fishing entitlements set out in Annexes A, Band C.

15. During the second phase, the· negotiations wîll address the
categorization of the fish stocks, management criteria and reciprocal
entitlements for inclusion in a long-term fisheries agreement, as well as
interim arrangements for the 1978 season. The two sîdes also agreed to
look into the possibility of incorporating the existing International Pacifie
Hal_ibutCommission into the new structure being developed for bilateral
fisheries relations.

IV. HYDROCARBONS

16. As to offshore hydrocarbon resouroes, the Negotiators agreed
on the text of "Proposed Principles for Offshore Hydrocarbon Shared­
Access Zones" (Attachment Il). As is evident from this text, many of the
necessary elements for a definitive Agreement have now been resolved,
including: (1) the basic concept of zones in the boundary areas in which
each country would licence drilling in its portion of the zone; (2) the right
of the country with the Jesserproduction in the zone to purchase from the
other country sufficient hydrocarbons to bring its share up to one-half the
total production of the zone; ()) the desirability of agreed developmental
timetables in each zone; (4) the removal of impediments to transactions
under shared-access zone arrangements; (5) the responsibility of the sur­
plus country in making available for purchase the quantities of hydrocar­
bons necessary to carry out the purpose of the Agreement; (6) the intent
to keep separate the determination of the obligations of the surplus coun­
try as regards oil versus those as regards natural gas.
17. A number of elements will be taken up during Phase II of the
negotiations, including: (1)the question of whether hydrocarbons should
be made available for purchase from production in the shared-access
zones or from other sources; (2) the question of determination of agreed
minimal levelsof production in each zone before the shared-access mech­
anism becomes activated; (3) clarification as to the non-cumulative char­
acter of the rights of purchase for the deficit country; (4) specific proce­
dures for disputes seulement as conoerns shared-access zone
arrangements.

18. The current stage of progress on ·hydrocarbons bas been
achieved largely through a Working Group set up to deal with these ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 321

aspects of the negotiations. The actual delineation of possible shared­
access zones bas been touched upon by the Working Group, but agree­
ment has not yet been reached as regards the number, size or configura­
tion of such zones. This matter will be further pursued during Phase li of
the negotiations, along with the drafting of developmental timetabJes for
the shared-access zones that may eventually be established. The two sides
agreed there should be at least two shared-access zones, in the Gulf of
Maine and Beaufort Sea regions, and the Canadian side is of the view
that it would probably be desirable to have such a zone for the region off
Juan de Fuca Strait as well.

V. DISPUTES SETTLEMENT

19. The two sîdes agreed that there should be a dispute seulement
procedure in the resource agreements to be negotiated.

20. With respect to the fisheries agreement, it was agreed that
there should be one procedure for the seulement of ail disputes under the
Agreement, whether they be economic or policy disputes or legal disputes
concerning the interpretation of the Agreement.
21. Any such dispute or any other dispute concerning the inter­
pretation of the Agreement wouJd be referred to the two co-chairmen
who would endeavour to settle it. If their conciliation efforts fait, they
would endeavour to agree between themselves and their agreement would
become finaland binding on both governments. If they do not agree on a
settlement, they would refer the matter to a previously-agreed neutral
arbitrator.

22. The arbitrator would be empowered to decide disputes con­
cerning the management of Annex A stocks. With respect to disputes
concerning Annex B stocks, the arbitrator's jurisdiction would be limited
to the case wbere a proposed plan submitted by the country designated in
the Annex is clearly erroneous under an applicable standard set forth in
the Agreement. The arbitration would be conducted under an agreed
timetable designed to produce a decision before the start of the fishing
season to which the dispute relates.

23. The two sides have also discussed regulations for salmon troll­
ing off the Pacifie coast for 1978. In this connection, arrangements were
made for the Canadian position on regulations to be taken into account
by the competent USA authorities, and it is hoped that a mutually satis­
factory solution can be found that will facilitate the reaching of long­
term agreements between the parties.
24. The two sides noted that separate negotiations were underway
towards a long-term agreement regarding interceptions of Pacifie salmon.
They emphasized the significànce of such an agreement in the overall
framework of Canada/USA fisheries relations.

25. The first phase of the negotiations has proceeded in a spiritf
construc!ive cooperation,. and the two Negotiators are pleased with the322 GULF OF MAINE

substantial progress which has been made in reaching general agreement
on the resource issues and related institutional arrangements set out in
the attaci'ments. lt is hoped that the considerable measure of common
ground in these areas will facilitate the negotiation in Phase li of detailed
agreement on both resource and boundaries delimitation issues.

Ottawa, October 15, 1977 ANNEXESTO MEMORIALOFCANADA 323

ATTACHMENT I

PR!NCIPLES FOR A JOINT FISHERIES COMMISSION TO BE EsTABLISHED DY.A
CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

L MEMBERSHIP

A) The Commission shall consist of an East Coast Panel and a
West Coast Panel. The two Panels may conduct joint sessions from
time to time in order to consider problems of common concern.
B) Each Panel shalJ consîst of twelve members, six members
appointed by each side.

C) In addition to the twelve members on each Panel, there shall
be two impartial Co-Chairmen who shall be jointly agreed by both
sides. The Co-Chairmen shall not be nationals of the same Party
and shall not be part of their respective delegations. They shall
attend ail meetings and shall alternate in the Chair and shall per­
form the fonctions described in Article V.
D) Panel members shall serve at the pleasure of the appointîng
side. The Co-Chairmen shall serve for a term of five years, subject

to the right of either side to withdraw its consent to the service of
either Co-Chairman upon 90 days prior written notice, in which
event a successor Co-Chairman shall be jointly agreed by both sides
prior to the expiration of that 90-day period.

II. POWERS
Each Panel shall have the following powers:

A) With respect to Annex A stocks, each Panel shall have power
to propose annual management measures designed to achieve the
optimum yield within the 200-mile zones of both countries. Such
management measures shall be brought into force in the following
manner:
(l) If a Panel agrees on the management measures to be proposed
to the two governments, then:

(a) If neither government abjects within -- days of the
transmittal of the proposais, the proposais shall become
final and binding on both governments.
(b) If either government objects, the procedure set forth in
Article V shall be utilized, and the decisions of the Co­
Chairmen or of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding
upon both governments.
(2) If a Panel does not agree on the management measures to be

proposed, it shall report to the two governments on the meas­
ure of agreement and disagreement. The two governments
shall consider the matter, in consultation with each other and324 GULF Of MAINE

with their respective members on the Panel. After -- days,
the Panel shall reconvene unless the two governments have
first reached agreement on the management measures to be
applied, in which case those measures shall become final and
binding upon both governments and shall be transmitted to the
Panel for its records.
(a) If the Panel reaches agreement upon reconsideration, the
management measures so agreed shall be proposed to the
two governments in accordance with the procedures set
out in paragraph 1.
(b) If a Panel does not reach agreement, the procedure set
forth in Article V shall be utilized, and the decision of the
Co,Chairmen or the Arbitrator shall be final and binding
upon both governments.

B) With respect to Annex B stocks, each Panel shall endeavour in
good faith to agree on the annual management measures designed
to achieve the optimum yield of the stocks. Such management
measures shall be developed in the following manner:
(1) The country designated in Annex B shall present its proposed
management plan to the Panel.
(2) The Panel shall consider the proposed plan in the light of the
management standards set forth in Article III.

(3) If the Panel agrees on any proposed plan or any modifications
thereof, the plan including any such modifications shall be
recommended to both governments.
(a) If neither government abjects, the management measures
in the plan shall become final and bînding upon both gov·
ernments -- days from the receipt of the recommen·
dation.

(b) If either government objects, the plan as proposed by the
country designated in Annex B shall apply and be binding
upon both governments, subject to the review procedures
described in Article V.
(4) If the Panel does not agree on a:proposed plan or any modifi·
cations thereof, the plan as proposed by the country designated
in Annex B shall apply and be binding upon both governments,
subject to the review procedure described in Article V.
C) With respect to Annex C stocks, each Panel shall serve as a
forum for consultation on the annual management measures pro·
posed by the coastal state. These consultations shall be held before
the measures are implemented, except where conservation consider·
ations require their immediate implementation on a provisional
basis pending the outcome of consultations.

D) Each Panel shall have power to propose to both governments
the addition of stocks to Annex A, B or C, or the transfer of stocks
from one Annex to another. If neither government objects, the pro·
posai shall become final and binding on both governments -- ANNE.XES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 325

days from the receipt of the proposai and the Annex shall be
deemed to have been amended accordingly. If either government
abjects, the two governments shall consult but in the absence of

agreement between the governments, no change shall be made.
E) Each Panel shall have power to propose to governments
changes in the reciprocal fishing entitlements set out in Annexes A,
B and C on the basis of new circumstances arising after the date of
the Convention. If neither government abjects, the proposai shall

become final and binding on both governments -- days from
the receipt of the proposai, and the Annex shall be deemed to have
been amended accordingly. If either government objects, the two
governments shall consult but in the absence of agreement between
the governments, no change shall be made.

III. MANAGEMENT STANDARDS

(to be developed)

IV. VOTING PROCEDURES

A) On each matter within the jurisdiction of a Panel to decide,
each side shall cast one vote as a unit. The vote will be cast by the
member of that side designated for the purpose by the government
which appointed him. Each side shall determine its own rules as to
how the voting member shall be authorized to cast the vote on bis
side. ·

B) Two votes shall be needed to decide any malter.

V. ARBITRATION
A) An impartial arbitrator (the Arbitrator) shall be jointly

named by the parties at the time the Panel is organized. The Arbi­
trator sha!J decide jssues referred to him by the Co-Chairmen under
Sections B, C and D. Upon his appointment, the Arbitrator shall be
entitled to attend ail Panel meetings in his discretion and shall
receive copiesof ail Panel minutes and documents at the time they
are issued. The Arbitrator shall serve for a term of five years, sub­
ject t'othe right of either side to withdraw its consent to his con­
tinued service (apart from pending proceedings) at any time upon
90 days written notice, in whîch event a successor Arbitrator shall
be jointly agreed by both sides.

B) In the circumsta nces described in Article II A (1)(b) or in Article
II A (2)(b), the dispµte over the management measures regarding
Annex A stocks shall be referred to the two Co-Chairmen who shall
attempt to resolve the questions in disagreement. If the two Co­
Chairmen reach an agreement within ---- days after the dispute
is referred to them, their decision shall become final and binding on

both governments. Such a decision by the Co-Chairmen shall be
accompanied by a reasoned opinion as to the basis for their views.
In the event that the Co-Chairmen are unable to arrive at an 326 GULF OF MAINE

agreed decision, they shall refer the matter to the Arbitrator pro­
vided for in Section A above.
C) If in the circumstances described in Article II B (3)(b) or
Article II B (4), either side contends that the plan as proposed by
the country designated in Annex B is clearly erroneous under an
applicable management standard set forth in Article m. the dis­
pute shall be referred to the two Co-Chairmen, who shall attempt
to resolve the questions in disagreement. Ifthe two Co-Chairmen
reach an agreement within -- days after the dispute is referred
to them, their decision shall become final and binding on both gov­
ernments. Such a deàsion by the Co-Chairmen shall be accom­
panied by a reasoned opinion as to the basis for their views. In the
event that the Co-Chairmen are unable to arrive at an agreed deci­
sîon, they shall refer the matter to the Arbitrator provided for in
Section A above.
D) Any other dispute involving the application or interpretation
of the Convention shall be referred to the two Co-Chairmen of the
Panel concerned, who shall attempt to resolve the questions in disa­
greement. If the two Co-Chairmen reach an agreement within
-- days after the dispute is referred to them, their decision shall
become final and binding on both governments. Such a decision by
the Co-Chairmen shall be accompanied by a reasoned opinion as to
the basis for their views. ln the event that the Co-Chairmen are
unable to arrive at an agreed decision, they shall refer the matter to
the Arbitrator provided for in Section A above. In the event that a
décisionof a dispute under this section by the Co-Chairmen of one
Panel is based on an interpretation of the Convention that is in con­
flict with an interpretation contained in a decision by the Co-Chair­
men of the other Panel or the Arbitrator, either government may
refer to the Arbitrator for a definitîve.interpretation.

E) (Here insert agreed arbitration procedures, including time­
tables for prompt decisions.)
F) The Arbitrator's decisions as to the interpretation of this docu­
ment, as to its violation by either side, and as to the disputes
regarding management plans that are referred to him pursuant to
Sections B and C shall be final and binding upon the parties. Every
decision by the Arbitrator shall be accompanied by a reasoned
opinion as to the basis for bis views. The Arbitrator shall recom­
mend appropriate relief, and the parties shall consult with a view to
affording the recommended relief or other relief agreed by the par­
ties. If the parties do not agree on the proper relief to be afforded,
the Arbitrator shall award relief that shall be binding on the par­
ties.

VI. ACCESS

A) Each side agrees to grant access to fishermen of the other side
to exercise the reciproca) fishing rights specified in Annexes A,B
andC. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 327

B) (A provision relating to permits, licences and fees for commer­
cial fishermen exercising the reciprocal fishing privileges provided
for in the Convention shall be agreed during Phase II.)

C) Recreational fishing by nationals and vessels of each country
shall be permitted to continue in all waters of the other country,
subject to applicable federal, state or provincial regulations and
licence, permit and fee requirements.

VII. ADOPTION OF COMMISSION DECISIONS

Each side, in accordance with its domestic laws, shall issue regula­
tions implementing management measures which become final and bind­
ing pursuant to the Convention.

VIII. ENFORCEMENT
Each side shall enforce such regulations against ail persans in its
200-mile zone, and may prosecute any violations to the extent permitted
by domestic law. (Indude provisions relating to inspection, reporting and
exchanges of reported data.)

IX. SCIENCE
A) Each Panel may establish a scientific committee.

B) There shall be a complete exchange of relevant scientific infor­
mation between the two governments.
C) Each Panel shall coordinate the collection of statistics and
make proposais to the governments for cooperative research pro­
grams. Each Panel shall also facilitate joint oonsideration of the
status of the stocks listed in Annexes A and B.

X. ANNUAL MEETINGS
A) The Panels shall meet not later than the fifteenth of Septem­
ber in each year, and as often as necessary thereafter, in order to
develop proposais for the management of Annex A and B stocks for
the following year, and to consult regarding Annex C stocks. Ali
proposais for Annex A and B stocks shall be issued three months
before the beginning of fishing season for each stock.
B) The Panels shall meet at such other times as they or the gov­
ernments may agree.

XL PROVISION ON PORT PRIVILEGES

XII. PROVISION ON CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES TO OTHER
AGREEMENTS

XIII. PROVISION FOR WITHDRA WAL UPON NOTICE328 GULF OF MAINE

XIV. RATIFICATION

The Convention shall be ratified in accordance with the constitu­
tional processes of both countries.

ANNEXA
Annex A would list: (1) the transboundary stocks on both coasts
that are agreed candidates for full joint management; (2) the agreed enti­
tlement to a portion of the allowable catch of each such stock that fisher­
men of each country would be allowed to catch; and (3) provisions for
access into the zone of the other country as may be appropria te.

ANNEXB

Annex B would list: (1)the stocks on both coasts that are candi­
dates for jointly agreed management based on proposais submitted by the
designated country with the primary interest; (2) the agreed entitlement
to a portion of the allowable catch of each such stock that fishermen of
the other country would be allowed to catch; and (3) provisions for access
into the zone of the other country as may be appropriate.

ANNEXC

Annex C would list: (1) the stocks on both coasts that are agreed
candidates for management by the coastal state, subject only to consulta­
tion with the other state; and (2) the agreed entitlement to a portion of
the allowable catch of each such stockthat fishermen of the other coun­
try would be allowed to catch in the 200-mile resource zone of the coastal
state. · ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 329

ATTACHMENT Il

PROPOSED PRINCIPLES FOR ÜFFSHORE HYDROCARBON
SHARED·ACCESS ZONES

1. In accordance with the principles set out below, each country
would assure to the other country the right to purchase hydrocarbons* to
the extent required to allow each to receive an amount equal to one-half
of the volume of hydrocarbons produced in each shared-access zone (to
be described in Annex A).

2. Each country's rights to hydrocarbon resources of each shared­
access zone would remain unchanged on its side of the agreed bound­
ary---development and management of hydrocarbon ·resources in the

shared-access zone would take place in accordance with the national laws
and regulations of the country wîthin whose jurisdiction the resource is
located exceptas otherwise specifically provided by the Agreement.

3. The two governments would agree on a general timetable (to be
described in Annex B) for hydrocarbon development of each shared­
access zone. Each government would make its best effort to develop these
resources in accordance with the agreed timetable. In the event either
country determined it was unable to meet that timetable or believed the

other country had failed to meet the timetable, it would inform the other
country and the two governments would consult with a view to making
any adjustment in the operation of the access regime that might be neces·
sary to carry out equitably the purpose of the Agreement. If an adjust­
ment could not be agreed upon in a reasonable time, usually three
months, by the governments in consultation, they would refer the issue

for impartial settlement in accordance with paragraph 10. Should it be
determined by agreement or arbitration that one country had failed
unreasonably to meet an agreed developmental timetable, it would forfeit
in whole or in part its rightsof purchase under the Agreement in respect
of that shared-access zone until the situation was rectified.

4. If the volume of hydrocarbons produced from a shared-access
zone by one country exceeded the volume of hydrocarbons produced from
that zone by the other country by more than an agreed minimum during
the calendar year, during the succeeding year the country with the larger
production from that zone would make available for purchase by the

other country a volume of hydrocarbons in an amount equal to half the
difference. **

5. Any transaction under the Agreement would be exempt from
any form of export restriction, and deliveries pursuant to the Agreement
would be in addition to exports which would have been permitted in
absence of the Agreement.

* Further consideration is to be given to the question of whether hydrocarbons should be
made available from the shared-access zones or from O'thersources.

••for each zone and to whether clarificationed as cothe non-cumulative character of
the rights of purchase. 330 GULF OF MAINE

6. The price and origîn of hydrocarbons sold pursuant to the
·Agreement would be negotiated freely between buyer and seller. How­
ever, in the event that either country believed an additional quantity of

hydrocarbons should be made available, but had not been, for purchase
pursuant to the Agreement, the two governments would consult wîth a
view to discharging the responsibility of the surplus country to make
available for purchase at the world market price of oil or the equivalent
commodity value of gas any quantity of hydrocarbons necessary to carry
out the purpose of the Agreement, and the government of any surplus
country would undertake responsibility for making up any remaining
deficit.

7. ltwould be the responsibility of the country with an obligation
to make hydrocarbons available for purchase to inform the other country
of arrangements made to effectuate the commitment and of sales made

pursuant to those arrangements.
8. Sales made pursuant to the Agreement would be free of any
export charges or other taxes except incarne taxes and royalties.

9. For the purposes of this Agreement, obligations to make oil
avaîlable for purchase would be determined separately from obligations
to make natural gas avaîlable for purchase.

10. Any dispute arising in respect of the interpretation or

application of the Agreement would be resolved byconsultation, orfailing
agreement, by impartial procedures for dispute settlement. (Specific
procedures for dispute settlement should be developed for inclusion in the
Agreement.) 331'
ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA

Annex37

NORTH ATLANTIC ÛUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ÛIL AND ÜAS LEASE SALE No. 42
(UNITED STATES FEDERAL REGISTER, VOLUME 42,NUMBER 251, 30ÜECEMBER

1977, PAGES 65285-65290)

[Not reproducedj

Annex 38

"27TRACTS ÜELETED FROM NORTH ATLANTIC QCS SALE", UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ÛFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, NEWS RELEASE
(28JANUARY 1978)

{Not reproduced]332 GULF OF MAINE

Annex39

JOINT REPORT DYSPECIAL NEGOTIATORS ON CANADA-UNITED STATES MARJTIME

BOUNDARIES AND RELATED RESOURCE ISSUES, 28MARCH 1978

ÜEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AfFAIRS
COMMUNIQUÉ

No.29 Release: ForImmedialeRelease
Marcb 28, 1978

The Secretary of State for Extemal Affairs, the Honourable Don Jamieson,
announced today the release of the Joint Report by Special Negotiators on
Canada-U.S. Maritime Boundaries and Related Resource Issues.
The Govemments of Canada and the United States have approved the Joint

Report, the text of which is attached. The Govemments have instructed the
Negotiators - Marcel Cadieux for Canada and Lloyd N. Cutler for the United
States - to continue theirfforts to seek a comprehensive settlement of trans­
boundary maritime issues between the two countries. The Govemments have
also accepted the Negotiators' recommendation to conclude interim arrange­
ments to govem reciprocal fishing during 1978.lt isexpected that the proposed
agreement will be signed shortly andits text released at the lime of signature.
Officiais of the two Govemments will continue discussions on technical and

legal aspects of a long-tenn agreement and formai negotiations are expected to
resume in the summer. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 333

JOINT REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA AND
THE UNITED STATES BY SPECIAL MAR[T[ME NEGOTIATORS,
MARC EL CADIEUX AND LLOYD N. C UTLER

On August 1, 1977, the Governments of Canada and the United
States appointed Special Negotîators in an effort to reach a comprehen­
sive agreement covering their maritime boundaries and related marine
resource issues. In October, 1977, the two Governments approved the
basic principles of a comprehensive settlement recommended by the Spe­

cial Negotiators and directed the Negotiators to continue their discus­
sions with a view ta recommending detaîled terms. This Joint Report by
the Special Negotiators is intended to inform Governments of the current
status of the negotiations.

Since October, 1977, the Negotiators and their aides have met
regularly in both countries to address the many issues invo]ved. They
have consulted closely with their respective provincial, state and industry
interests.Together they have reviewed in detail proposais for: (1) the
allocation of management responsibilities and the assignment of agreed
fishing shares for each country in fish stocks of common interest on both

coasts; (2) specific arrangements for the development and sharing of
hydrocarbon resources in boundary areas; and (3) delimitation of the four
unresolved maritime boundaries between the two countries.

The Negotiators believe that significant progress bas been made
toward reaching an overall agreement. Of the numerous issues to be dealt
with in such an agreement, some admittedly difficultproblems yet
remain ta be resolved and the Negotiators believe that additiona1 reflec­
tion and consultation in each country will be required.

The Negotiators have agreed to recommend ta Governments the
terms of interim arrangements to govern reciprocal fishing during 1978.
The proposed arrangements would continue reciprocal fishing as previ­

ously agreed with new mechanisms for consultation and resolution of dif­
ferences and to help ensure that existing fishing patterns are maintained.
The arrangements would remain in force through 1978 unless superseded
by a comprehensive seulement or terminated by either Government after
notice. In the United States, legislative action will be required to bring
the interim agreement into force.

The Special Negotiators are of the view that with continuing effort
a comprehensive settlement can be reached in 1978. They strongJy believe
that an agreement which encompasses, in an interrelated framework, the
full range of transboundary maritime issues of common concern to

Canada and the United States, including salmon interceptions, is the
most promising means of assuring that the important maritime resources
along our common borders can be effectively managed in our mutual
interest.334 GULF OF MAINE
1. The terms and conditions of Article V of the 1977

Reeiproeal Agreement are replaced by the following:
a. On the Pacifie Coast, there shall be no fishing for
salmon by nationals and vessels of èither Party in the
.zone of the other, except salmon taken by trolling

beyond 12 nautical miles of the eoast and salmon taken
by trolling between 3 and 12 nautical miles in the area
west of a line joining Bonilla Point and Tatoosh Island;

north of a line projected due west on 47 degrees 6
minutes North latitude, and south of a line projeeted
from Bonilla Point to latitude 48 degrees 29.7 minutes
North, longitude 125 degrees 00.7 minutes West.
b. Eaeh Party shall have the right to limit sueh fishing for

salmon in its zone by nationals and_vessels of the other
to the same time periods as its·natîonals and vessels are
permitted sueh fishing for salmon in the zone of the
other.

c. In light of the number of immature salmon originating
in the rivers of the United States found in the Swiftsure
Bank area of British Columbia ,Statistieal Area 21,

Canada agrees to consult with the United States. about
the conservation nèed to close this area to all salmon
fishing from April l $, 1978 through June 14, 1978. If
the United States conèludes.tl;iat there isa conservation
need to close the fishery during such period but Canada

does not do so, the United States shall have no obliga­
tion to permit salmon fishing in its Pacifie Coast waters
by nationals and vessels of Ca1,1adaon more favorable
terms than the terms of the 1977 Reciproeal Agreement.

d. In light of thé fact that u:.s .and Canadiari regulations
differ as to the chinook salmon size limit, the United
States agrees that Canadian salmon troll vessels, in the
U.S. fishery eonserva.tion zonè off the coast of the State

of Washington, north of a line drawn due west from La
Push (47 degrees 55 minutes North latitude) may have
chinook salmon between 26 and 28 inches on board, sub­
ject tothe following conditions: ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 335

i) Ali such fish must be caught in the Canadian zone;
ii) Upon entering the U.S. fishery conservation zone,
ail vessels shall report by radio to U.S. authorities

on designated frequencies the number of chinook
salmon on board the vesse! between 26 and 28
inches in length, and shall notify the same authori­

ties upon leaving the zone. The two. Parties recog­
nize that in certain areas, salmon fishermen tradi­
tionally troll back and forth between the zones of
the two countries, and that certain problems could

arise with regard to the reporting requirements
outlined in this paragraph when vessels are con­
ducting continuous fishing operations in these

areas.It is agreed that the appropriate enforcement
authorities of the two Governments shall establish
uniform procedures which recognize this particular
situation and minimize disruption of fishing.

iii) Such fish shallbe segregated or grouped for iden­
tification on board the vesse! and the location and

number of such fish recorded by the Master in
order to facilitate inspection and enforcement. U.S.
and Canadian enforcement authorities shall make
periodic inspections to enforce this provision.

2. The two Parties note that negotiations are continu­
ing toward an agreement on interceptions of Pacifie salmon

and that both Governments are committed to an intensive
effort to conclude these negotiations in 1978. Such an agree­
ment would provide a framework for improved management,
development, and utilization of these salmon stocks. ln the

context of such an agreement, the Canadian authorities
would be prepared to work with the U.S. authorities in
developing coordina ted regulations for the ocean troll fishery,

including increased minimum size limits, such as 28 inches
for chinook salmon, and other measures, off the Pacifie
coasts of Canada and the U.S.

3. The Parties note that paragraph 1 of this Annex336 GULF OF MAINE

provides for Canadian salmon troll fishing in a larger area in
the O.S. ffshèry·coriserva-tionzone than that provided for
originally in the 1977 Reciprocal Agreement. The two Par­

ties agtee that this expansion of area shall not provide for an
increase in the total Canadian salmon troll fishing effort in
the U.S. fishery conservation zone over the existing level as
intended in Article II, paragraph 3 of the 1977 Reciprocal
Agreement. In accordance with paragraph 5 of this Annex,
the two Parties shall consult to ensure that procedures are

developed t~ monitor Canadian effort in the U.S. zone and to
exchange information regarding that effort.
4. The United States recognizes that Canadian

salmon troll vessels that might lawfully possess chinook
salmon between 26 and 28 inches periodically lay-to at night
in areas north of La Push, and that because of existing strong
southerly currents, they may, while laying-to at night, drift
south of 47 degrees 55 minutes North. The U.S. undertakes

to assure that U.S. enforcement authorities will take this fac­
tor into account, but notes that no Canadian troll vesselswith
26-28 inch fish aboard shall be permitted to·conduct fishing
operations south of La Push, nor drift further south than 47
degrees 46 minutes North latitude.

5. The two Parties recognize that the 1977 Reciprocal
Agreement deals principally with the subject of reciprocal
fishing privileges in their respective zones and that the
rational management of fisheries subject to reciprocal fishing
privileges is necessa,ryin order to ensure their effective con­

servation. The two Parties recognize that their domestic
management decisions regarding stocks of mutual interest
may have conservation impacts ofjoint concern and therefore
agree to consult quarterly, and at such other times as either
may request, regarding appropriate action each may take to

limit catches from these stocks. With this in mind, and in
order to facilitate the harmonious implementation of this
Agreement, the Parties agree that the following consultative
mechanisms and procedures shall be established: ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 337

a. There shall be established two Consultative Committees,
one for the Atlantic Coast and one for the Pacifie Coast
(hereinafter referred to as the Committees).
b. Each Committee shall be composed of members
appointed by each Party who may be accompanied by

advisors.
c. The Committees shall serve as fora for consultation on
matters concerning the implementation of this Agree­
I _ ment. Unless otherwise agreed between the Parties, ail

questions shall be referred in the first instance to the
appropriate Committee for its consideration. Each Com­
mittee shall meet at the request of either Party and at
least quarterly.
d. Each Party agrees to notify the other of proposed

regulatory measures affecting fisheries subject to recip­
rocal fishîng privileges and to consult with the other
Party on such measures within the Committees referted
to above. Such consultations shall take place prior to the

implementation of the regulatory measures concerned.
Where one Party believes that urgent conservation con­
cerns require immediate action, the Committee shall
consider the matter within 48 hours of notification to the_
' other Party during which time the proposed regulatory

measure shall not be implemented.
e. Matters which have not been successfully resolved by a
Committee, and matters of general concern which do
not pertain solely to either the Atlantic or to the Pacifie
Coasts, shall be referred to the Special Negotiators of

the long-term agreement without delay. In the absence
of either Special Negotiator the matter shall be referred
to an appropriately designated alternate.
6. In the event that a Party takes any action which, in

the view of the other Party, adversely affects its fisheries in
the zone of the Party taking action or in the boundary
regions in a manner substantially incompatible with this
Agreement, the consultative process described in paragraph 5338 GULF OF MAINE
above shall be utilized. In the event that a matter is not

thereby resolved within 14 days of referral to the Special
Negotiators or designated alternates, either Party may take
reciprocal action with regard to the activities of the fishing
vessels of the other Party to an extent sufficient to re-estab­
lish the balance of fisheries interests between the two Parties.

7. The two Parties note the importance of exchanging
catch and effort statistics on a regular and timely basis and
monitoring the fishing activities of the vessels of one country
fishing in the zone of the other. The ·Parties also note the

need for vessels to be more conspicuously marked so as to
provide for more effective enforcement surveillance. It is
agreed that the two Parties will consult, in accordance with
Paragraph 5 of this Annex, on these matters in order lo
establish more effective procedures. In particular, each Party

recognizes the interest in establishing reciprocal procedures
for reporting by vessels of the other country of entry and
departure into its zone and of catches taken in its zone, and
agrees to consult in this regard.

8. Noting Article IX of the 1977 Reciprocal Agree­
ment, the two Parties agree that in order to ensure the full
and effective enforçement of this Agreement in the boundary
region on thé Atlantic coast, the enforcement authorities of

each will closely coordinatè their inspection and enforcement
activities, including appropriate steps to facilitate the
exchange of observers on the vesselsof each Party. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 339

Annex40

TRANSITIONAL UNITED STATES FlSHING VESSEL LICENCE EXEMPTION

REGULATIONS, REVOCATION, ÜROER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1978-1833, 2 JUNE 1978
(CANADA GAZETTE, PART Il,EXTRA, 2JUNE 1978,PAGE l)

[Nol reproducedj

Annex41

f>ROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE F!SHING ZoNES OF CANADA (ZoNES 4AND 5)
ÛRDER, f>RoPOSED ÜRDER lN COUNCIL, 15SEPTEMBER 1978 (CANADA GAZETTE,
PART 1,VOLUME 112, EXTRA NUMBER 79, 15SEPTEMBER 1978,PAGES 1-.3)

[Not reproduced}

Annex42

F1SHING ZoNES OF CANADA (ZONES 4 AND 5) ÜRDER, AMENDMENT, ÜRDER IN
COUNCIL P.C. 1979-184, 25JANUARY 1979(CANADA GAZETTE, PART 11,
VOLUME 113,NUMBER 3, 14 FEBRUARY 1979,PAGES 482-483)

[Not reproducedj340 GULF OF MAINE

Annex43

MESSAGE O3 MAY 1979FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE
SENATE OF THENITED STATES TRANSMITTING THE MARITIME BouNDARY
SETTLEMENT TREATY AND THE AGREEMENT ON EAST COAST FISHERY RESOURCES,
96THCONGRESS, 1ST SESSION

96TH CONGRESS
Jst Session

SENATE

ExECUTIVE
UANDV

MARITIME BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT TREATY
WITH CANADA AND THE AGREEMENT ON EAST

COAST FISHERY RESOURCES WITH CANADA

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

THE TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO SUBMIT TO BINDING
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THE DELi MITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUND-
ARY IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON MARCH
29, 1979 {EX. U, 96-1) AND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
CANADA ON EAST COAST FISHERY RESOURCES, SIGNED AT WASHING­
TON ON MARCH 29, 1979 {EX. V, 96-1)

MAY 3, 1979.-Trewas read the first lime and, together with the accompanying papers,
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relatôbe printed for the use of the
Senate
U.S.GOVERNMENTPRlNT!NGOFFICE

WASHINGTON1979 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 341

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 3, 1979.
To the Senate of the United States:

1 transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification,two separate but closely related treaties with Canada: the
Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the

Government of Canada to Submit to Binding Dispute Settlement the
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, and
the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of Canada on East Coast Fishery Resources. Both
Treaties were signed at Washington on March 29, 1979, and they will
enter into force together upon exchange of instruments of ratification.

1 also transmit for the information of the Senate the report of the
Secretary of Statc with respect to these Treaties.
These Treaties wi\1 make an important contribution to good rela­
tions between the United States and Canada by resolving, in a way that is
fair to both Parties, a vexing dispute over fisheries and the maritime

boundary in the Atlantic which was brought to the fore when both coun­
tries extended fisheries ju risdiction to 200 nau tical miles in 1977.
The maritime boundary settlement treaty provides for the delimita­
tion of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine Arca by a Chamber
of the International Court of Justice or, ifsuch a Chamber cannot be

constituted in accordance with the wishes of the Parties, by an ad hoc
Court of Arbîtration. Resolution of the maritime boundary by impartial
dispute settlement has provcd necessary because the two countries have
not been able to agree upon the location of the maritime boundary in the
Gulf of Maine Area.
The fisheries treaty contains provisions for the conservation, man­

agement and utilization of fish stocks of mutuai interest off the east coast
of both countrics. Detailed entitlement shares for various fish stocks are
set forth in the agreement, wîth the shares subject to review every ten
years. A joint fisheries commission will be established to implement the
agreement, and dispute settlement mechanîsms will be inc\uded as part of
the institutional framework to resolvc diffcrences that might arise in the
interpretation or implcmcntation of the agreement.
1 believe that these treaties are in the best interests of the United

States. The fisheries treaty protects United States interests in the impor­
tant fisheries on Georges Bank; and settlement of the boundary will
facilitate development of the non-living resources of the continental shelf.
Further delay in rcso\ution of these issues would be dctrimental to conser­
vation of the fishery resources and could lead to serious irritants in
United States relations with Canada.

1 recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration
to these trca tîes and give its advice and consent to their ratification.

JIMMY CARTER.342 GULF OF MAINE

Annex44

f>REPAREDSTATEMENTOF LLOYD N. CUTLER SUBM11TED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEEON
FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON
MERCHANT MARINE AND fISHERIES, UNiTED STATES HOUSE OF RÈPRESENTATIVES,

96TH CONGRES$, flRST SESSION ON THE UNITED STATES-CANADIAN fISHING
AGREEMENTS, 22 JUNE 1979 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 343

[The following wai; submitted for the record:]

PR•:rARF.o STATF.MF.NT OF Li.ovo N. CuTLli:R

Thl' treatîe.<1"il!no.>don M11rch 29 with Cnnnde represent the culmination or tw"
vcu r;;or inlcn,;iv,, nc;:ot.int.ions uUu· is.«u" ofcom1c.•rvutionnml mun1;:.,nwn1. <>f ~'.:ost
iÀ',~l~fiHhc·r-iux-rPsuurct•s i11uit.hltlPIirninntion of Liu~ 1uarilinu iKm rulary tH~twf"f•11
Lhc !Jnit;,d Stnl<-s und Cnnmlu in th,· <;.,I(' uf Main,·11r<·11'l'h,•><,•tu'l,(nLiui.w,·n·
und<irt:,kt•n in Ii;:ht of lhc 1·xt<·n><inhny holh count.rit'I<of fislwrit•>1juri,1diction '" a
distance of 200 nuuticul miles from their consts. lt should be pointed out, prior \<1
1976 the Unit,:,d States and Canada discussed the delimit.ation of the contine11t.,l
shelr in the Gulf' of Maine Area. However, an agreement on the continental shclf
delimit.ation had not been achieved whl'n, in 1976, both the United St.ateR uml
Canada enacted legislation e:<tending fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles. The esL~l,
lishment of fisheries wnes by both countries made the delimitation issue of pressin~
importance, most particularly in light of the fact that the area of jurisdictio11
claimed by both the United States and Canada overlapped in the extremely rich
fishing area of G1.'0rf.!OBHank. We havt, now conduded treatics which provide for th,·
coordinated conirervation and mnnagemPnt. of F'.m1G t oust fishliries of mutunl conct,rn
bo both countries and, having failed to reach a negotiated settlement of the bountl·
ary it.self, we have agreed with Canada to submit the issue of the maritime bound­
ary delimination to binding third party dispute settlement.
Before going into the spedfics of the fisheries 01,,reement, let me outline for Y""
the întcrrelatiom;hip of the hound11ry mtt.lcmunt nnd fisheri,.s trentie!I. The, tw"
treaties will enter into force simult.an1.'0u.~ly,thut is by their own provisiom1 ncithn
can enter into force until such time as thl.! other enters into forŒ. 1'his provision,
ensures thal the maritime boundary will be estnblîshed and lhat we wîll not firnl
ourselves bound by a long term fishcries agreement while the dispute over tl1•·
maritime boundary lîngers on.
The maritime boundary settlement treaty provîdes for the submission of th,·
maritime boundary dispute to a chamber of the World Court on terms set out in th,·
Special Agreement annexed to the treaty. Thal Special Agreement asks a spedal
chamber of the Court to be composed of five persons, three of whom shall be eloct,~I

by and from the members of the Court. and two of whom shall be chosen hy lh•·
Unit<,d Statrn und Canudu, to drnw th1•linu which 11halldivide the L'Onlincnt.al11hi,JI
and fisheries zonuHor thu Unit..:d Suites nnd Canadu in lht· (:u1r of Mainu aro·a
The settlement of the maritime boundary_ and fisheries issues is vital. The exi~t­
enΠof a disputed area in whlch both the United States and Canada claim jurisclil',
tion ovur fisheries prevents effective conservation and management of imp,ort.lln!
living TlJSOurces.ln the absence of an agreement two unilateral and uncoordinut<,I
sets of fisheries management regu!utions ure in effect in the disputed nren for wmr·
stocks. For other stocks differinJ,:"nnlionnl views over what each country shoulol
harvlJSt. or differing views over how a stock should be managed, have hinden~ "'
frustrated the implementation of conservation programs. ln this situation there is a
tendency on the part of each country's fishermen to increase their fishing effort t,,
levels which ir unubuted mny prejudicc fulurt: use!\ of the fish Ntocks hy holh
1:ounltiC"HT. hi, nlfo<·t.of increm;('(I l'fforl. wn-"drnmnticnlly 1,vid,,n,.;,..,Jin 11178,wlu·n
Cnnadn incn·U,'<IH ilI.1.kn of cod, hml<lock und lol>Ht..,rin lhc cliHl>Ul,ednrt,u t,suth
un uxtent thal ils sharo of Georgei, Uunk-southern New England cod rose from lr
percent for the i9ü.f,-.7Gperiod to 21, perŒnt in 1978, its haddock share off New
England increased from Jf, percent to :18 perŒnt and ils share of lobsters in th,,
disputed area from 29.3 percent in 1976 to r,9 percent in 1977. From fishermen t,,
consumer, it is in everyone's bcst interest to est.ablish a menns of enablinl! fishr•r­
men of both counlril.!s to fish for ;:unrrmleed sharc.'Sin a non-eompetilive manm•r
which will proll..-clthe resources from over-exploit.ation und thu con~'qUCnt 1.•conum­
ic hardship. C.:Ontînuation or thu st.alus quo for a p_rotracted period mny exaŒrlmt,·
existing tensions and lead to serious problums in U.S...Canadian relations. Addition­
ally, the uncertainty created by the disrmte precludes development of hyd.-ocnrhon
rc•HoUrcr,; of sign ifictnJKoll•ntiul.
Thc hrn,ic ohjŒt.ivc of the Vish1,ri,·s Agn~,numt i.~ to 11rot,,t;l.lhe ust,ihlislw,I
lisherieH ol' both counlrics in the disi,ut.,,d tireu and cn~ure the onforly ~rowlh ,,J
fishcries for stocks which hnve been depleted by third country fishinr: or nul fully
utih1.ed hy U.S. fishermen. The Agreemunt seL~ forth specific principlC!!, based ""
the U.S. Fiahery Conservation and Management Act of IH7!i, which will govc,r,,
lish<>ri,,. 11n11)!11mr•unntd f'n.~urc 1.hul.cncl, ~tock will be munu;:,...I in n coortlinntNI
11ii11,ru
'l'h,•fiHlwri,•ngn•• •meltl. ,.,.t.ahliHlu·j,,int.tInit.,~ISt.nt.,•H-1U<ilun fislwri,.,. """
mission t.hr<1ughwhich the many Hlock~or mut.iwl concern [.()hoth the tJniU,d Slul,•s GULF OF MAINE
344

und Canada occu rri ng olT our J,4111 (',OU11.nn be•1,ITC'Ctivl'lmy nnn1Œd. Thl' commin­
sion would hnvc 14 membt.•n;, 7 nppointcd by cuch Party, and i co-chai rmcn who
would not be part of the national sections. Esch national section will have one vote.

which will be cast as decided by a majority of its members, The U.S. section would
include three rcpresent.atives (rom the New England Regionnl Fbihery Management
Coundl, two n')lr!'M'nl.-iliv1'fflrom lht• Mid-1\tlanlic fl.,,i:-iomil l•'i,dwr.v Manni:-t1m(,nt.
Counci Iami l.wo (]owrnuwnt nfficinls frorn U1l' Nnlimml Oc(•rmir nn,t /\t.111<11111ht-r1·
Adminislr11tion. This ,;omrnis.'<ionwill 1m,vid" 11 forum for conl.inuini:- l~1111mll11tions
on lishcry mutlcr~ and will be reeponsiblc for lh1, munngem.,nl of 11tock11listcd in
the annexes lo the /\greement. The stocks [i11tedin Annex /\ ure tho,iu which where
normally regnrded as trnnsboundary stocks, whîch wîll be jointly mnnaged by the

two Parties through the commission. The stocki. listcd in Anni:x R nrc those in
which one Party hns n primnry interellt und for whic:h thot one Pnrty will be
responsible for proposing management mcasures. 'l'he stocks lisled in Annex C are
those in which one Party has an overriding interest and for which the commission
will provide a forum for consultation. The Agreement provides for different proŒ­
dures tailored to each management regime for resolving dispute><,
As Imentiont>d enrlier, Mr. Chnirmim, the mnnngcmcnt mechnnisrn entablished
by the Agreement provides for a joint management to tmnsboundary stocks such as

mackerel and polloc:k, which migrate off the coasts of both Canada and the United
States, and management by either Canada or the United States of stocks in which it
has the primary interest. Under the Agreement the United States has primary
m1mngement n;o~ponsibility, nnd the greater 11hare of the a\lowable catch, of the
grent majority of stocks in the di11putcd nrl'n of Georges Bank. U.S. li11hern1en wîll
maintain their dominance in the cod, haddock, yellowtaîl nounder, redlish and
white hake lisheries 9ff New England and will reap the main benelit from herring
and mackere\ as those stocks are replenished. -

ln light of the distribution of stocks and the U.S. historical catches, as well as the
opportunities for increased lishing which results (rom the exclusion of third country
vessels which.formerly engaged in unrestricted lishing in the aren, the entîtlement
shares established by the Agreement are fair and equitably balanccd. With one
rninor exception, each U.S. entitlement to stocks found on Georges Bank exceeds the
share of the total catch which the U.S. took over the 1965-77 period. For example,
whi!e the U.S. 1965-77 share for haddock off New England was !i2.R percent, the
U.S. share under the Agreement is 711 percent; the U.S. HICif,-77share for Georges
Bank-southern New Englnnd cod was 47.4 percent, while under the Agreement the
U.S. share is 83 percent; and, the U.S. share for Georges Bank scallops under the

Agreement is 26.65 percent, while the U.S. share for 196!i~77 wrui HU) percent.
Additioru1lly, it should be noted that the U.S. 1mtitlcment undcr th,, /\1tr<'('m1•ntis
in the nrr;i nr !lO pt,rctml for mnny sp,:,ci('>which tlm U.S. hn,; 1wv,,r fish,,d in nny
lu~<, arlHHlnl, thus nm,rding un 0111,urlunily for ,mhsl.antiul growth und dt,vclup·
ment in the U.S. lïshing indu11lry. ~·or exnmplc, the U.S. cntiUcmunt for ooth rcd
and silver hake is 90 percent in area 5Ze while the U.S. historical share of the
total catch was LOS percent and 7.66 percent respectively. The U.S. share for many
importnnt stocks covcrcd hy the A,::recm,mt is ,qimilnrly ,mhnnŒ<I wht•n vicw,,cl
from th" IK,rsp1_,cliv1o•f thu rolio of U.S. histnricn l 11har<11t1o Cunmlian hi,itorica 1
sharcs. ln the cusc of 11ixtecn11tocks,the U.S. 11hureexCl"Cdsthe hi,itoricul U.S. shure
of lhe combined U.S. and Canadien catch. These stocks include scallops in 5Ze,
rnackerel in 3, 4, 5 and 6, white hake in 4_VWX,cod in 5Z, 4VsW and 4X, haddock in

4VW, 4X, and 5, and redfish in 4VWX and 5.
At this time, allow me to say a brief word about the determination of U.S.
!1istorical ·,hares. Tt is obvious that including catch data prior to \!llii'iwould tendto
increase the U.S. average proportion of the long-term combined U.S.-Canadian
catches from a numbe:r of stocks, particularly those stocks on Georges Bank and off
New Englnnd, since Canada did not enter these lisheries until the late 1!)50's and
ear!y 19f.O's,Howcver, these negotiations were conducted under the prcmi11Cthut it
was ('!;.seniI to rench u i;hari ng urrnnl{ement. for rl'flOUl'Cth11t ure vulnernhlo, tn
ovcrlishing und :on.• uvuiluhlt• lo hoth coun1.ries "" boundary or lran,iboundary

stocks. 'l'his <.'!>nliIII if thl"C!!urceH are l.ohu sustn ined IIt prod ucl ive Icvds ovur
the long tcrm.
For those stocks subject to substantial existing U.S. and Cnnndinn lisheries, it
could not be expected that any sharing arran1,rcment could be negotiated that would
cnus" a major d islocntion in the exiNting lïshuric,, or one country lhnt would n•­
douml !.o Lu: l~mdit of th" ot her counlry. 1'hus, tlw rc<.~,nt hiNtoricaI eukh <lata wns
conHidcred Lu bo, or morn rclevancc to lhl' 1wgoli;,Lion or cnlitl.,mcul shnrcH th;in
,Iota from earlicr periods. J,'or example, the United States succesi;fully maint.am~ ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 345

that its share of Georges Bank scallops should be the approximate share it took in
the last couple of years rather than the 15 percent it took during 1971-76.
The terme of the Agreement neither present an imbalance in favor of Canada, nor
are they inconsistent with the intent of the Fishery Q:inservation and Management
Act. Again, the principles on whkh management is tobe based are fully consistent.
with thŒe contained in our own fisheries leg:islation. Now, let me discus.s the
benefits ofreciprocalfishing under this agreement.
At the present time we have no fisheries agreement with Canada. There is no
flShing by either country in the undisputed fishing zone of the other. Without an
agreement, U.S. fishermen can no longer flBh off Canada (or cocl,haddock, redfüh
and pollock.
The Agreement would allow U.S. fishennen to resume fishing for redfish off
Canada for a 10 year period. In return Ce.nadian vessels would be permitted to fish
for 9 percent of the total allowable catch established by the U.S. for Loligosquid for
a eimilar period off the ooast of the U.S. The Açt"eement would restore to U.S.
flBhennen permanent iu:eessto cod and haddock m Canadian waters. Under the
Agreement U.S. fishermen will fish the redfi.sh in the Canadian zone under the
same terms and conditions as the Canadian redfash fishermen. On the other hand,
under the Agreement the U.S. may im_JJOSm e ore stringent restrictions on the
Canadian Loligo fiehermen than on the U.S. Loligo fashennen in order to assure,
particularly, strict limita on the Canadian Loligo fishermen'e incidental catch of
·other fash euch as butterflBh. Whîle it is alwaye difficult to make a oomparison of
the relative economic worth of particular fisheries, it is clear that the 9 percent
Loligo entitlement is a fair trade for the 35 percent redfish entitlement in 4V, 4W,
and 4X, not to speak of the redflsh entitlement in 4R, 4S, 4T and 30 or 3P.
As I mentioned, accesa to cod and haddock in Canadian waters would also be
restored under the Agreement. The Agreement gives the U.S. an entitlement to 10
percent of the haddock in Ares 4.X and 4VW, and 7.5 pereent of the cod in 4X,
allowing approxima.tely a hundred U.S. vessels to resume their traditional fi.shery
for these species. We estimate that in 1980 the redfish, cod, and haddock entitle­
ments in Canadian waters will be worth well over $4 million in revenues to
fashermen, and almost $7 million to processors and wholesalers. We believe this
alone.result in a gain of over a hundred full-time jobs in the proceesing sector
There are some particulsr aspects of the Fisheries Agreement which warrant
specific analys4, especially in ligbt of the criticisms which have been ellpressed by
some segments of the frahing industry. These include the U.S. scallop entitlement
under the Agreement, the role of the Regional Councils and the duration of the
Agreement.
Mr. Chairman, firet let me addrees the eubject of ecallops. Prior to 1960 the U.S.
has the predominant scallop interest on Georges Bank. Through a subsidy program,
however, the Canadian fleet was able to expand substantially, while U.S. scallopers
were turning tbeir efforts sway CromGeorges Bank w the mid-Atlantic grounds. As
a result, since the early 1960'&Canada has taken: the predominant share of scallops
OD Georges Bank.
There are three important fact.s to bear in mind in analysing the initial U.S.
entitlement under the Agreement to 26.65 percent of the scallops on Georges Bank.
First, the U.S. 26.65 percent entitlement approximates the recent U.S. catch Jevels
of approximately 20 percent. Second, some 70-80 percent of the scallops on Georges
Bank ~me from the dispu.ted area. Third, althoug_h the provisional estim~te for a
potential long term sustainable catch level for Georges Bank scallops Π10,000
metric tons, the average annual combined U.S. and Cariadian catch for 1977-78 was
over 17,000metric tons. .
Because this is presently Canada's largest fishery on Georges Bank and because it
takcs place mostly in the disputcd arca, Canada would not agree to an_y U.S.
entitlemeiit higher than that basically reflecting the statue quo. ln a.ssessmg the
scallop provisions of the agreement it must be noted that the New England Regional
Fishery Management Council is only now developing a scallop management plan,
with the result that eince the passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act the U.S. scallop fleet has been unregulated. Furthermore, becauae of the very
high prkes which scallops are bringing, many new vessels have entered the fashery
and more can be expected. If constraints are not placed on both the U.S. and
Canadian scallop fleets, the resource may be seriously, if not critically, depleted to
the detriment of al! ofus,most particularly the scallop industry.
While is is not difficult to underst.and the motivation of the critics of the Agree­
ment who wish to see Canadian vessais expelled from the scallop fishery which they
have conducted on Georges Bank over the past twenty years, thill is eimply an346 GULF OF MAlNE

unrealistic objective. And there can be no question that continuation of an unregu­
Jated scallop fishery, while clearly attractivein the very short run to those vessels
pre&ently engaged in this highly lucrative f18hery, is not in the long-term interest of
the United States.
On the subject of the role of the Regional Councils under this Agreement, critics
of the Agreement have argued that it will create an impractical manageinent
bureaucracy which will weaken the role of the Regional Councils. This criticism
does not take into aecount the natu:re of the issues and misrepresents the provisions
of the Agreement.
The Agreement ensuree that under the proposed East Coaat Fi.sheries Commission
neŒssary management decisions concerning those stocks affected by the fisheries of
both countdes will be made in a timely and coordinated manner. If the Commission,
or Government, cannot corne to a meeting of the minds, decisions will be referred to

a dispute seulement procedures, thereby, both guaranteeing that decisions wil ln
fact be made and promoting decision-making at the Commission level. lt should be
noted that while Annex A stocks will be jointly managed through the Commission,
U.S. management measures for Annex B stocks for which the· U.S. haa pdmary
management responsibility will be reviewed in the Commission and put into effect,
subject to -change only if they are round to be "clearly inconsistent" with the
governîng principles set forth in the Agreement. With respect to Annex C stocks for
which the U.S. haa management responsibility, the Commission will serve only aa a
forum for consultation on the management measures developed by the U.S. The role
of the Regîonal Councils will not be subordinated under the Agreement, but will be
enchanced because the U.S. will have a voice in the management of several stocks
found in the Canadian zone.
Under the Fishery Comervation and Management Act the Regional Councils
initiate the management procesa, for which the Secretary of Commerce has final
authority and responsibility. Under the Agreement the Coundls will initiate and
otherwise have a signîficant voice in implementing the U.S. position. Preparation of

management proposais for the many stocks for which the U.S. has primary manage­
ment responsibîlity will be the task of the Regional Councils. Since the U.S. nation­
al section, five of whose seven members will corne from the Regional Councils, will
caat a single vote on ail decisions in the Commission, it is clear that the Council
members will have the majority voice in determining the U.S. position.
Let me now sa.y a few words on the duration of the Agreement. It has been
argued by critks of the Agreement that it is unbalanced and, therefore, should be of
limited duration.
Balance depencls upon perspective. For example, if w:ehad no f!Sheries.agreement,
and in an acljudication of the boundary the U.S. position was fully upheld, we woul~
be under no obligation to allow Canada access to any of the fisheries resources of
Georges Bank, and we could have a free band in the management of those fisheries.
On the other band, what if the Canadian position prevailed? ln that case U.S.
f18hermen would be barred from the northeastern thîrd of Georges Bank, an impor­
tant area for acallops, cod, haddock and many other specîes. Moreover, because in
that circumstance ail the stocks on Georges Bank would be transboundary in
nature, we would still have tomanage the entire Georges Bank jointly with Canada.
The Fishery Agreement provides însurance against the inherent risks of the bound­
ary adjudication. As such it should be permanent, since the boundary will be
permanent.

Furthermore, it must be recognized that the entitlement shares of each country
are not frozen for ail time, but are subject to e.ree.djustment every ten years based
primarily on the location of the stocks with respect to the maritime boundary, once
the.t boundary haa been determined. In order to avoid sudden disruption and to
provide insuranΠin the event of an adverse decision in the boundary adjudication,
the Agreement provides that neither country's share of any particular stock can in
the long run be reduced by more than one-third.
There are those who have e.rgued that the U.S. should have concluded an agree­
ment with Canada simply to delimit the maritime boundary, letting the chiP5 fall
where they may with each aide flShing on its own aide of the line. There e.re severa!
reasons we have concluded two agreements rather than one. First, it was not
possible to ree.ch agreement with Canada for resolution of the bounde.ry issue absent
e.long term flSheries agreement. Second, while good fences may me.ke good neigh­
bors in some situations, many of the fish in question simply do not respect such
boundaries and their conservation is dependent upon a cooperative effort. Without
such a coopere.tive effort the f1Shermen of either country could thwart the well­

intentioned comervation measures undertaken by the other and both the fishermen
and fl8h would suffer. But bearing in mind the relevance of the location of the ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 347

boundary to just entîtlement shares, we have included in the Agreement provision,
for readjustment of those entitlemenU. following delimitation of the boundary. Surh
redeterminations can be made every 10 years, based on the locatio:i of the stocks
and certain other factors.
The Agreement establishes an equitable balance in terms of entitlements and
access viewed in hiatorical context. lt provides a very aignificant opportunity for
growth in the U.S. harvest and establishes a mechaniBm for effective conservations
and management. This will mean long term gains for ail concerned. The stabilit}
that resulU. from l!Ound conservation and management will provide for orderl}·
expansion of the industry and for the preservation and growth of valuable fisher;·
resources off our coast.

U.S. GOVE}INMENT COMMENT$ ON ClUTlCISMS OF THE UNITED STATF.S-CANADL\N
AGIIEEMENT ON E/1.mCOAST FIBHERY RESOURCES
On May 15, 1979, the American Fisheries Defense Committee, an organization
representing segments of the U.S. fishing industry, issued a press release attacking
the recently concluded U.S.-CSnadian Agreement on East Coast Fisheri,es and the
related Treaty providing for sett!ement of the U.S. Maritime Boundary with Canada
in the Gulf of Maine Area. In the view of the U.S. Government the press release of
the American Fisheries Defense Committee is inaccurate in many respects and
seriously misleading.
1.The Defense Committee argues that "the State Department would trade awa1
this country's stake in the valuable fishery rel!Ourcesof Georges Bank" for Canadas
cooperation in submitting to arbitration a minor seabed boundary dispute coverinij
a 'small fraction of the fishing grounds of concern • • ' (about 12 percent).
The United States did not trade away U.S. fisheries on Georges Bank. Under the
Agreement the U.S. entitlement share for every stock which iBfound in the area of
overlapping claims iB equal to or higher than. the percentage of the total cstch
which has been taken by U.S. fishermen from 1965-77, and with respect to many
stocks covered by the Agreement the U.S. entitlement share far exceeds, by as rnuch
as ten times, the share the U.S. has historically taken. The U.S. share for many
important stocks oovered by the Agreement is simîlarly enhanced when viewed
from the perspective of the ratio of U.S. historical shares to Canadian histories!
shares. In the case of sb!:teen stocks, induding scalh,ps in 5Ze, mackerel in 3, 4, 5
and 6. white hake in 4VWX. cod in 5Z. 4VsW and 4X, haddock in 4VW, 4X and 5.
and redfish in 4VWX and 5 the U.S. share vis-à-vis Canada exceeds the ratio of
UThe boundary diapute is not "minor." The area of overlarping daims covers
approximately 32 percent of Georges Bank, and 42 percent i the new Canadian
claim is cons1dered, embracing one of the richest fishing grounds in the world. That
ares also has si~ificant oil and ~as potential. Settlement of the issue is extremely
important to U.S.-CSnadian relations. The two treaties now before the Senate pro­
vide a means of settling the dispute and for increased entitlement aharea for stocks
found in the boundary region to either country depending on the out.corne of the
boundary adjudication.
At the same time the Fishery Areement protects the esaential fishery interests
of both countries in the event o a disadvantageous outcome of the boundary
adjudiciation by limîting the amount of the adjustment of stock shares and stretch­
ing out the time over which the full adjustment would occur, while providing for
coordinated management and long term conservation of the stocks. Opponents of
the treaties apparently prefer a winner take ail approach.
2. The Defense Committee claims that the fisheries agreement would ''grant
heavily subsidized Canadian fishermen permanent access to e:cclusiueUnited States
fisheries which have historically yielded a substantial share of the overall East
Coast fisheries catch" Œmphasis addedJ.
The Agreement does not grant Canada permanent access to any e:cclusiue U.S.
fishery. Every f:shery for wfüch Canada bas an entitlement under the Agreement,
with the single exception of the ten year fishery for Loligo squid, is a f1Shery which
could pursue ein the absence of an agreement. The fish stocks concerned are distrib.
uted throughout Georges Bank, including the disp~ted area, or migrate across the
Fundian Channel to the waters off Nova Scotia. Under the Agreement the United
States is entîtled to the greater share of every flBhstock found south of the Fundian
Channe! except scallops, i:iollockand cusk.
8. The Defense Committee claima that the Agreement provides for CO-manage­
ment and in sorne cases gives Canada primary contrai over a substantial area of the
U.S. 200-mile fisheries zone.348 GULF OF MAINE

Annex4S

"INTERJOR DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS HIOH Bms TOTALINO $816,516,546FOR
ÛFFSHORE ÛIL AND GAS LEASES ON GEORGES BANK IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC",
ÜNITED STATES ÜEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
NEWS RELEASE (31ÜECEMBER 1979)

[Not reproduced]

Anoex46

"TREATY DELAY SNAOS U.S. TIES TO CANADA", BY HENRY G!NIOER
(THENew YoRKnMES, 15JUNE 1980)

[Not reproduced]

Aonex 47

TELEX FROM THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE:TO THE UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD CONCERNINO ENFORCEMENT OF UNITED STATES FISHERY LAWS IN

THE GULF OF MAINE (19 NOVEMBER 1981)

[Not reproduced]-
1

ANNEXES TO M.EMORIALOF CANADA 349

Annex48

CANADA-NOVA SCOTIA AGREEMENT ON ÛFFSHORE ÛIL AND ÜAS RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT AND REVENUE SHARING (2 MARCH 1982)

[Not reproduced)

Annex49

CANADA ÛIL AND ÛAS EXPLORATORY PERMITS (1964-1971)

[Not reproduced]350 GULF OF MAINE

Annex50

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AUTHORITIES AND UNITED STATES
COMPANIES CONCERNING CANADIAN REGULATIONS WJTH RESPECT TO ÛFFSHORE
EXPLORATION (AITACHMENTS ÛMITTED) (1969 AND 1975)

6400 North Central Expressway,
P.O. Box 64400,
Dallas, Texas 75206.

October 13, 1969.

Mr. M. Bell,
Conservation Engineer,
Resource Administration Division,
Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources,

Ottawa, Alberta, Canada.

Dear Mr. Bell:

After beginning operations as scheduled early in August, ESI bas now com­
pleted 3,731miles of new,detailed contrai for addition to the 14,391mile recon­
naissance survey completed during 1968. This work effectively provides a
2 12 x 5 mile grid of gravity and magnetic contrai offshore New Jersey and
Long Island as shown on the attached plat. Alibathymetry, navigation gravity
and magnetic channels were digitally recorded at six-second intervals for com­
puter processing at our Dallas headquarters.
This completes one of the two major blocks of new control ESI proposed to
the industry earlier this year. Operationf our MV PEGASUS is now continu­
ing on some specialized projects for specific clients, after which we plan to com­

plete 3,485 miles of new detailed work on the second block of control outlined
over the Georges Bank Area.
Representatives of your company are invited to visit our Dallas office to dis­
cuss our 1968and 1969work with our staff.
May we set an appointment for your visit?

Very truly yours,

EXPLORATION SURVEYS lNC.

(Signed) SHELBY D. Pins,
Senior Vice President,
National Sales Manager.
SDP/ps
Enclosure : Map ANNEXE TSOMEMORIA OLFCANADA 351

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Ministèrede \'Energie, des Mines et des Ressources
File Number 970-62
N° à rappeler 970-23-2

OTTAWA 1,November 5, 1969.
Mr. Shelby O. Pitts,
Senior Vice President,
National Sales Manager,
Exploration Surveys Inc.,
6400 North Central Expressway,
P.O. Box 64400,
Dallas, Texas 75206,
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Pitts:
I refer to your letter of October 13, 1969,apparently inviting this Division to
purchase certain geophysical data acquired by your Company during opera­
tions off the East Coast in68and 1969.
We note from the map accompanying your letter that the geophysical surveys

in question were undertaken in part over areas for whichnada Oil and Gas
Permits have been issued by the Federal Govemment of Canada, and thataddi­
tional surveys are planned for these areas. Your attention drawn to the fact
that under the federal Regulations in force for offshore areas with respect to
which Canada has sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resourcesf the
seabed and subsoil, such exploration can be legally undertaken only by the hol­
der of an exploratory licence. Moreover, a licensee who carries out exploratory
work on Canada Lands is required to supply this office with certain informa­
tion and materials as set out in the Regulations, including a duly completed
Offshore Program Notice for prior approval. A copy of the relevant Regula­
tions, the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations, is attached for your informa­
tion, along with a copy of our publication, OFFSHOREEXPLORATIO-N
INFORMATIO ANDPROCEDURE wS,ich sets out the manner in which parties con­
templating offshore work must first comply with certain Canadian require­
ments.
The govemmental records indicate that your Company bas neither applied

for nor been issued an exploratory licence. Il would appear, therefore, that un­
authorized surveys have been conducted and that additional as yet unauthor­
ized surveys may be planned by your Company with respect to certain Canada
Lands off the East Coast. We have brought this information to the attention of
our Department of External Affairs, as well as to the other govemmental
Departments that have important responsibilities conceming the Canadian
Offshore and from whom all operators. are required to obtain clearances
before conducting offshore work.
I would suggest that you get in touch with this Division as soon as possible in
order to try to effect some sortresolution of this situation.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) D. G. CROSBY,
Chief,

Resource Administration Division. 352 GULF OF MAINE

6400 North Central Expressway,
P.O. Box 64400,
Dallas, Texas 75206.
December 3, 1969.
Mr. D. G. Crosby,
Chief,
Resource Administration Division,
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, RE: 970-62
.Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 970-23-2

Dear Mr. Crosby:
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1969regarding our 1968operations
in the Georges Bank Area, east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. We especially ap­
preciate receiving your publications covering the "Canadian Oil and Gas Land
Regulations", and "Offshore Exploration Information and Procedures".
Exploration Surveys Inc. requested and received a permit from the U.S. Geo­

logical Survey for our 1968and 1969 operational areas, and supplied regular
reports to that agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy and the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries. You are aware of the location of our work in 1968.No
work was done in the area in question during 1969as our projected operations
did not fully materialize.
Our 1968exploration permit, which was requested from the U.S. Geological
Survey on April 3, 1968,included a detailed map of the proposed tracklines
over our area of projected operations. The program was laid out to encompass
the Outer Continental Shelf adjacent to the United States out to a water depth
of 200 meters. Although we saw no reason to refer to the 1958Geneva Conven­
tion in our request, the program appeared to us to be laid out in accordance
with the Convention to cover the U.S. Continental Shelf. Our OCS Permit
No. E-2-68, issued April 23, 1968,does not refer to the Convention, but recog­
nizes that our operations will lie in the "Outer Continental Shelf'.
Ali our operations in the Georges Bank area were conducted in international

waters, using a radio-navigation network consisting oftwo transmission towers
established on the Massachusetts coastline. We took no samples, established no
buoys, used no explosives or chemicals, and in fact did nothing to disturb any
commercial or natural activity.
The operations ofour company are speculative in nature, in that weare inter­
ested only in the gathering of potentia\-field geophysical data atour own ex­
pense, which is offered for sale to companies who may be interested in using
our data for guidance in further exploration activity. It is not our intent to
acquire any interest in lands, leases, or to participate in causing exploratory
wells to be drilled,ssuch activity would probably constitute a conflict ofinter­
est in our relationship with our many clients.
During the course of our work in 1968,we learned that exploration licenses
covering certain specific areas may have been issued hy the government of Can­
ada. We felt thatif valid licenses had indeed been issued, then the possibility of
future multiple sales of our data might be attenuated over such areas. We there­
fore asked for boundary information from the U.S; Department of State which

infonned us, on September 5, 1968, that a United States-Canadian boundary
had not been determined. On the basis ofthis information, we decided that ad­
ditional speculative work in the eastem limits of Georges Bank would not be to
our best economic interest.
Information gathered and owned by Exploration Surveys Inc. is not used by
us for any purpose other than to provide the information directly to those who ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 353

can usefully employ the data toward exploration of the seabed and subsoil.
Naturally, we hope that there willbe some Canadian operators interested in the
data we have available for sale in international waters. If such pl.'rchasesare
made, we presume the monies spent by such operators will be credited against
any obligations they may have to the Canadian govemment for expenditures
over their Iicense areas. ln any case, if you will provide us an accurate map of
license areas over seabeds claimed by Canada, we will be happy-to inform any
prospective purchasers that they will be expected to advise your office about

the acquisition and use of any information they may acquire from us.

Verytruly yours,

EXPLORATION SURVEYS INC.

(Signed) SHELBY D. Plrrs,
SDP/bcm Senior Vice President.

970-62
970-23-2

ÛTTAWA 1,December 10,1969.
Mr. Shelby D. Pitts,
Senior Vice President,
Exploration Surveys Inc.,
6400 North Central Expressway,
P.O. Box64400,
Dallas, Texas 75206,
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Pitts:
I refer to your letter ofDecember 3, 1969,concerning certain geophysical sur­
veys carried out by your Company off the East Coast.
Asstated in my letter to you of November 5, 1969,according to the map en­

closed with your letterof October 13, 1969,the geophysical surveys in question
were undertaken in part overareas for which Canada Oiland Gas Permits have
been îssued by the Federal Government of Canada, and it would appear that
additional work is planned for these areas. l draw your attention once again to
the fact that your Company bas not fulfilled certain necessary Canadian
requirements, as set out in the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations, a copy
ofwhich was sent to you with my November 5 letter.
ln the last paragraph ofyour December 3letter, you assume that ifCanadian
permittees purchase data obtained from the subject surveys, such expenditures
willbe allowed against the work requirements oftheir Canada Oil and Gas Per­
mits in the Georges Bank area. Please be informed that this is not the case, at

least not under the circumstances that now prevail.
According to our records, your Company has neither applied for nor been
issued a federal exploratory license, which is required under the Canadian
Regulations before offshore exploration work is carried out, whether or not a
party is already a permittee. The subject surveys are, therefore, unauthorized.
Until such time as this situation is rectified by your Company, as much as it
is possible to do so after the fact, i.e. by obtaining a Canadian exploratory
license and supplying this office with the necessary reports, expenditures for
this data are not applicable to the work requirements of Canadian permits. I354 GULF OF MAINE

should mention here that when work is done on a speculative or participation
basis, as in this case,e not only require prior approval of the proposed pro­
gramme, we require technical reports from the operator upon completion of the
exploration programme, and in addition the operator must supply us with a
duly certified statement of expenditures to ensure that cumulative permit
work credits allowed as a result of purchases of the data by Canadian permittees
do not exceed the cost of the programme.
ln your December 3 letter you request a map showing the areas claimed
by Canada in the Georges Bank area. We are sending under separate cover a
detailed permit map that includes this area, along with an Index listing the per­
mittees and indicating the size, distribution and other details of their permit

holdings. However, I might comment that your Company would appear to be
familiar already with the distribution of these permits since they are indi­
cated in some detail on the map that accompanied your letter of October 13.
I would suggest that you contact our Senior Conservation Engîneer,
M r. H. D. Bell,for the purpose of effecting some sort of resolution of this situa­
tion (his telephone number is 994-5444, area code 613, and his address is this
Division, Ottawa).

Yours very truly,

(Signed) D. G. CROSBY,
Chief,

Resource Administration Division.
D. G. Crosby/cm
c.c.:Mr. J. A.Beesley

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada
Energy
Energie, Mineset Ressources Canada
Energie
YourNo. Votre référence
Our No. Notre référence 8145-7

580 Booth Street,
Ottawa, Ontario,
KIAOE4.
June 27, 1975.
ERICO lncorporated,

The Halbouty Center,
5IOO Westheimer, Suite 250,
Houston, Texas 77027,
U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

A brochure issued by your company (copy attached) which has recently been
brought to our attention, indicates that you are planning to undertake geophysi­
cal and sample coring programs in the Atlantic offshore including the Georges
Bank area over the northeast portion of which exploratory permits for oil and
gas have been issued by the Federal Government of Canada. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 355

We wish to draw your attention to the fact that, under the ferlerai Regulations
in forcefor offshore areas with respect to which Canada has sovereign rights to
explore and exploit the resources of the seabed and subsoil in accordance with
the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, such exploration can be
legally undertaken only by the holder of a Canadian exploratory licence. More­

over, a licensee who carries out exploratory work on Canada Lands is required
to supply this office with certain information and materials as set out in the
Canadian Regulations, including a duly completed Offshore Program Notice
for prior approval. Copies of this form are enclosed. A copy of the relevant Regu­
lations,the Canada Oiland Gas Land Regulations, is also enclosedfor your in­

formation, along with a set of permit maps illustrating the areas covered by
Canada Oil and Gas Permits and a copy of our publication, OFFSHORE
EXPLORATIO-NINFORMATIOA NNDPROCEDURES w,hich sets out the manner in
which parties contemplating offshore work must first comply with certain
Canadian requirements.

The governmental records indicate that your Company has neither applied
for nor has been issued a Canadian exploratory licence.ltwould appear, there­
fore,that unauthorized surveys may be planned by your Company with respect
to certain Canada Lands in the Georges Bank region. We have brought this in­
formation to the attention of our Department of External Affairs, as well as to

other govemmental departments that have important responsibilities concern­
ing the Canadian Offshore which operators are required to take into account
before conducting offshore work.
Iwould suggest that you get in touch with this Branch as soon as possible in
order to try to effect some sort of resolution ofthis situation. We will be pleased

to answer any questions you may have.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) D. G. CROSBY,

Director,
Resource Management and
Conservation Branch.
End.

ERICO lncorporated,
The Halbouty Center,
5100 Westheimer, Suite 250,
Houston, Texas 77027.

Ju\y 3, 1975.

Mr. D. G. Crosby, Director,
Resource Management & Conservation Branch,
Energy, Mines, and Resources Canada,
580 Booth Street,
Ottawa, Canada KIA OE4. RE: 8145-7

Dear Mr. Crosby:
I apologize for any recent problems that may have resulted. from ERICO's
Atlantic Coast proposais in the Georges Bank area. We were assured by our356 GULF OF MAINE

geophysical subcontractors that obiàining a permit to shoot one regional seis­
mic line in Canadian waters would be achieved through the proper channels
and that issuance ofsuch a permit would l!).Osltikely pose no major obstacles to
our program.
ln any event, ERICO's program in Georges Bank (as described in our Atlan­
tic Coast Projects brochure) bas been cancelled due to a Jack of industry sup-
port. . ·
Thank you for sending copies of the Offshore Program Notice, Canada Oil
and Gas Land Regulations, and Offshore Exploration Information and Pro­

cedures. With this information in band, we willtake care to avoid potentiaJ mis­
understandings in the future.

·Verytruly yours,

(Signed) DR.CuvroN F. JORDAN,·
Research Coordinator.
CFJ/bn

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada

Energy
Energie, Mines et Ressources Canada
Energie

YourNo. Votre référence
Our No. Notre référence 8145- 7

580 Booth Street,
Ottawa, Ontario,
KIAOE4.

July 30, 1975.
President,··
Digicon Inc.,
3701 Kirby Drive,
Houston, Texas 77006,
U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

It has recently corne to our attention that you may be planning to undertake
geophysical work over an area in the Atlantic offshore that includes the north­
east portion of Georges Bank where exploratory pennits for oil and gas have
been issued by the Ferlerai Govemment of Canada.
Wewishto draw your attention to the fact that, under the ferlerai Regulations
inforce for offshore areas with respect to which Canada bas sovereign rights to

explore and exploit the resourcesof the seabed and subsoil in accordance with
the 1958Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, such exploration can be
legally undertaken only by theholder of a Canadian exploratory licence. More- ANNEXET SOMEMORIA OLFCANADA 357

over, a licensee who carries out exploratory work on Canada Lands is required
to supply this office with certain information and materials as set out in the
Canadian Regulations, including a duly completed Offshore Program Notice
for prior approval. Copies or this fonn are encAocopy or the relevant Regu­
lations, theanada Oiland Gas Land Regulatîons, is also enclosed for your-in­
formation, aJong with a set or permit maps illustrating the areas covered by

Canada Oil and Gas Pennits and a copy or our publication, OFFSHORE
EXPLORATIO-N INFORMATIO NNDPROCEDUREw S,hich sets out the manner in
which parties contemplating offshore work must first comply with certain
Canadian requirements.
The govemmental records indicate that youro nipan yis not at present hold­
ing aCanadian exploratory licence. It would appear, therefore, that unauthor­
ized surveys may be planned by your Company with respect to certain Canada
Lands in the Georges Bank region. We are bringing this information to the at­
tentionof our Department of Extemal Affairs, as well as to other govemmental
departments that have important responsibilities conceming the Canadian
Offshore which operators are required to take into account before conducting
offshore work.
I would suggest that you get in touch with this Branch as soon as possible in

order to try to effect some sort of resolutîon orthis situation. We will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) D. G. CROSBY,
Director,
Resource Management and
Conservation Branch.
Encl.

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada
Deputy Minister
Energie, Mines et Ressources Canada
Sous-ministre
Ottawa, Ontario
KIAOE4.

MEMORANDUTM OTHEMINISTER

In a recent memorandum we mentioned that another geophysical company,
DIGICON, Houston, was planning a seismic program on the Canadian side of
the equidistance line in the Georges Bank area without first obtaining Cana­
dian authorization. It was also mentioned that a letter had been sent to DIGI­
CON along lines similar to that sent previously to ERICO, and a copy was
attached foryour interest.

Don Crosby now infonns me that DIGICON bas since obtained a ferlerai
Exploratory Licence and has in addition submitted the requisîte Offshore Pro­
gram Notice. The program involves 3,000 miles or seismic survey. With the358 GULF OF MAINE

approval of the Offshore Program Notice on August 13, DIGICON is now
conforming with Canadîan requirements and the matter is under control as
regards conforming to the relevant Canadian Regulations.

(Signed) [Jllegiblej
(for) G. M. MAcNABB.
cc:
Mr. E. G. Lee - Extèmal Affairs
Mr. P. Purcell - A.G.C.
M. L.H. J.Legault - D.0.E.
Cdr. R. A. Evans - D.N.D.

DGCROSBY /de
8145-7
Canada-U.S.
August 13, 1975 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 359

CERTIFICATION

1,the undersigned, L H. Legault, Q.C., Agent for Canada, hereby certify
that the copy of each document attached as a Documentary Annex in
Volume II of the Annexes to the Memorial Submitted by Canada is an
accurate copy, whethcr prepared by photographie means or by transcrip­
tion.

(Sit:ned) LH. LEGAULT. Q.C.360 GULF OF MAINE

Volume III

DIPLOMA TIC AND ÜFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Annex1

LETTER OF )·APRI1965 FROMTHE UNITED STATES ÜEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
TO THE CANADIAN ÜEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL
R.ESOURCES (THE REGULATIONS ÛRIGINALLY ATTACHED TO THIS LETTER HAVE

BEEN ÛMITTED)

[See II, Annex 53} ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 361

Annex 2

LEITER OF8 Af>RIL1965FROM THE CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN
AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL IlESOURCES TO THE UNITED STATES ÜEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR (THE REGULATIONS Ü,RlGINALLY ATIACHED TO THIS LITTER HAVE BEEN
ÛMITTED)

Ottawa, April 8, 1965.

L.T. Hoffman, Esq.,
Assistant Director - Lands and Minerais,
Bureau of Land Management,

United States Department of the lnterior, 900-23
Washington, D.C. 20240,
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

Thank you for your letter of April 1, with which you enclosed a copy of
your Regulations, Minerai Leasing and Pipelines on the Outer Continen­
tal Shelf, and a set of your leasing maps for the Cape Flattery and
Copalis Beach Areas off the west coast.

The disposition of oil and gas rights for the submerged lands off Canada 's
sea-coast is administered by the Department of Northern Affaîrs and
National Resources. Accordingly, the Department has issued Canada Oil
and Gas Permits off Canada's Atlantic, Pacifie and Arctic coasts and in

Hudson Bay. The attached small-scale sketch map indicates the areas in
which these off-shore Permits have been îssued.

Enclosed is a copy of the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations, as
amended. We are sending you, under separate caver, complimentary
@) copies ofour maps showing off-shore Canada Oil and Gas Permits issued
off the east and west coasts. These materîals are available to the public at
the offices of the Resources Division. There is no charge for the Regula~
tions, but there is a charge of $3.00 per copy for the maps. Enclosed with
the maps you will find an index listing the holders of off-shore Canada

Oil and Gas Permits. P\ease note that each Permit is referred to in the
index by the co-ordinates of its northeast corner.

I believethe above materials will meet the request for information in your
letter. Wewtll be pleased to be of further assistance as may be possible.

We notice that the maps accompanying your letter of April 1 outline
your system of leasing b\ocks but do not show the !cases that have been
issued to petroleum companies, for example, those purchased at the Sale
of October 1, 1964. We would appreciate receiving maps from you362 GULF OF MAINE

indicating the locations of such leases, as well as maps showing any !cases
you may have issued off the east coast.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) [illegible]
for A.D. Hunt,
Chief,

cc:. A.E. Gotlieb, Esq., Resources Division
Legal Division,
Dept. of Externat Affairs,

Ottawa, Ont.

D.G. Crosby/jn/D ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 363

Aooex3

® RECONSTRUCTIONS OF PORTIONS OF PERMIT MAPS SHOWING ÜFFSHORE CANADA
Ü!L AND GAS PERMITS ISSUED OFF THE EAST AND WEST COASTS OF CANADA ASAT
8APRIL 1965AND RECONSTRUCTIONS OF INDEXES LISTING THE HOLDERS OF
THESE PERMITS
(These reconstructions reproduce the information provided on large-scale

maps and accompanying indexes whichwere sent to the United States Depart­
men~of the lnterior pursuant to the letter of 8 April 1965from the Canadian
Department of Northern Affaîrs and National Resources.)

PORTION OF
PERMITINDEX

RECONSTRUCTED TO INDICA TE
EXPLORATORY PERMITS
ISSUED AS AT
8 APRIL 1965

NOTES

1. Ali permits six years, unless otherwise noted.

2. The grid area involved in each permit is located by the.co-ordinates
of its northeast corner.

, Addition of the Jetter N., S., E., or W., indicates that the permit cov­
ers only the North, South, East or West half of the gri~ area.

Àdditionof the letter P indicates that only part of the grid area, or
half grid area, is involved.

EXAMPLE

Permit No. W-000 52-50. 133-30 S would mean Permit No. W-000 covers the
south half of the grid area whosc northeast corner is 52° 50' north latitude and
133° 30' west longit udc. ' 364 GULF OF MAINE

@) EAST COAST - GEORGES BANK

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Permittee Acreage

W-4!7 43-40, 64-15 6-11-63 Shell Canada Limited 92,393
W-438 43-30, 64-30 92,644
W-439 43-30, 64-15 92,644
W-454 43-20, 65-00 92,895
W-455 43-20, 64-45 92,895
W-456 43-20, 64-30 92,895
W-457
43-20, 64-15 92,895
W-470 43-10, 65-45 93,146
W-471 43-10, 65-30 93,146
W-472 43-10,65-\5 93,146
W-473 43-JO,65-00 93,146
W-474 43-10, 64-45 93,146
W-475 43-10, 64-30 93,146
W-476 43-10, 64-15 93,146
W-488 43-00, 65-45 93,396
W-489 43-00, 65-30 93,396
W-490 43-00, 65-15 93,396
W-491
43-00, 65-00 93,396
W-492 43-00, 64-45 93,396
W-493 43-00, 64-30 93,396
W-494 43-00, 64-15 93,396
W-500 42-50, 65-45 93,644
W-501 42-50, 65-30 93,644
W-502 42-50, 65-15 93,644
W-503 42-50, 65-00 93,644
W-504 42-50, 64-45 93,644
W-505 42-50, 64-30 93,644
W-506 42-40, 65-45
93,891
W-507 42-40, 65-30 93,891
W-508 42-40, 65-15 93,891
W-509 42-40, 65-00 93,891
W-510 42-40, 64-45 93,891
W-511 42-30, 65-45 94,138
W-512 42-30, 65-30 94,138
W-513 42-30,65-15 94,138
W-514 42-30, 65-00 94,138
W-515 42-20, 65-30 94,384
W-516 42-20, 65-15 94,384

W-928 41-20, 66-15 20-5-64 Texaco Exploration Company 95,844
W-929 41-30, 66-15 95,602
W-930 41-40, 66-00 95,360
W-931 41-40, 66-15 95,360
W-932 41-40, 66-30 95,360
W-933 41-50, 65-45 W 47,559
W-934 41-50, 66-00 95,118
W-935 41-50, 66-15
95,118
W-936 41-50, 66-30 95,118
W-937 42-00, 65-45 W 47,437
W-938 42-00, 66-00 94,875 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 365

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Permittee Acreage

w.939 42-00, 66-15 20-5-64 Tel\aco Ellploration Company 94,875
W-940 42-00, 66-30 94,875
W-941 42-10, 66-00 S 47,346
W-942 42-10, 66-15.S 47,346

W-1913 41-20, 66-30 30-12-64 The California Standard 95,844
Company
W-1914 41-30, 66-30 95,602
W-1915 41-30, 66-45 95,602
95,360
W-1916 41-40, 66-45
W-1917 41-50, 66-45 95,118
W-1918 42-00, 66-45 94,875
W-1919 41-50, 67-00 95,118
W-1920 42-00, 67-00 94,875
W-1921 41-20, 66-45 E 47,922
W-1998 42-00, 67-15 E 47,437
W-1999 41-40, 67-00 E 47,680
W-2000 42-10, 66-30 13-1-65 94,630

W-2001 42-10, 66-45 94.630
W-2002 42-10, 67-00 94,630
W-2003 42-10, 67-15 S 47,346
W-2004 41-10, 66-30 14-1-65 96,084

W-2212 42-00, 67-15 W 15-1-65 Socony Mobil Oil of Canada, 47,437
Ltd.
W-2213 41-50,67-!5 E 47,559
W-2214 41-40, 67-00 W 47,680
W-2215 41-30, 67-00 E 47,801

W-2220 43-00, 66-00 S 27-1-65 The California Standard 46,729
Company
W-2221 43-00, 66-15 S 46,729
W-2222 42-50, 66-00 93,644
W-2223 42-50, 66-l 5 93,644

W-2224 42-40, 66-00 N 46,915
W-2225 42-40, 66-15 N 46,915366 GULF OF MAINE

WEST COAST - JUAN DE FuCA STRAJT

Permit Date of
No. location Issue Permittee Acreage

W-88 48-40, 125-00 8-8-61 Shell Oil Company of Canada, 84,477

limited
W-89 48-40, 125-15 84,477
W-90 48-40, 125-30 84,477
W-91 48-40, 125-45 84,477
W-92 48-40, 126-00 84,477
W-93 48-50, 125-15 84,202
W-94 48-50, 125-30 84,202
W-95 48-50, 125-45 84,202
W-96 48-50, 126-00 84,202
W-97 48-50, 126-15 84,202
W-98 49-00, 125-45
83,926
W-99 49-00, 126-00 83,926
W-100 49-CMU26-15 83,926
W-101 49-10, 126-00 P 83,300
Wcl02 49-10, 126-15 83,649
W-105 49-20, !26-15 83,371

W~231 48-40, 124-45 W 16-8-61 Husky Oil Canada ltd. 42,239
W-238 48-50, 125-00 S 34,800
W-239 49-00, 125-30 S 41,800

W-240 49-00, 125-30 N 23-8-61 The Calgary & Edmonton 29,500
W-241 49-10, 125-45 Corporation Limited 59,000

W-293 49-20, 126-00 P-S 17-6-63 Shelt Oil Company of Canada 38,250
Limited
W-541 48·20, 125-1S 1-11-63 Shell Canada Limited 85,026
W-542 48~20, 125-30
85,026
W-543 48-20, 125-45 E 42,513
W-544 48-30, l25-00 84,752
W-545 48-30, 125-15 84,752
W-546 48-30, 125-30 84,752
W-547 48-30, 125-45 84,752

W-595 48-30, 126-00 E 3-3-64 Western Minerais Ltd. 42,376
W-606 49-10, 125-30 S 6,300
W-607 49-00, 125-15 S 39,100
W-608 48-50, 125-00P-N 14,900
W-609 48-50, 124-45 P-S 6,750
W-610 48-40, 124-45P-E 34,050
W-611 48-40, 124-30 P-S 35,500

W-1901 48-30, 124-00P 10-12-64 John G.M. Hooper 37,300
W-1902 48-30, 124-15 P 37,500
W-1903 48-30, 124-30 P 17,100

W-2228 49-20, 124-00 P-N 5-2-65 British AmericanOil Company 30,000
Lîmited ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 367

WEST COAST - ÜIXON ENTRANCE

Permit Dateof
No. Location Issue Permittee Acreage

W-224 53-50, 130.45 8-8-61 Shell Oil Company of Canada, 75,601
Ltd.
W-Z25 SJ-50, 131-00 75,601
W-226 54-00, 130-45 75,304

W-227 54-00, 131-00 75,304

W-23.'i 54-10, 131-00 16-8-61 Canadian Husky Oil Ltd. 75,006

W-236 54-20, 131-00 W 37,354
W-582 53-20, 131-30 N 30-1-64 SheH Canada Limited 38,208
W-584 53-30, 131-30 76,193
W-585 53-30, 131-45 P 52,160

W-586 53-40, 131-30 75,897
W-587 53-40, 131-45 P 52,774
W-589 53-50, 131-15 75,601
W-590 53-50, 131-30 75,601
W-591 53-50, 131-45P-E 35,386
W-592 54-00, 131-15 75,304
W-593 54-00, 131-30 P 70,155
W-594 54-00, 13l-45 P-S 6,073

W-1858 54-30, 131-15 10-12-64 John G.M. Hooper 74,407
W-1859 54-40, IJl-30 74,107
W-1860 54-30, 1J1-30 74,407
W-1861 54-40, 131-45 74,107
W-1862 54-30, 131-45 74,407

W-1863 54-20, 131-45 N 37,316
W-1864 54-40, 132-00 74,}07
W-1865 54-30, 132-00 74,407
W-1866 54-20, 132-00 N 37,316
W-1867 54-40, 132-15 74,107
W-1868 54-30, 132-15 74,407
W-1869 54-20, 132-15N 37,316
W-1870 54-40, 132-30 74,107
W-1871 54-30, 132-30 74,407
W-1872 54-20, 132-30 N 37,316

W-1873 54-40, 132-45 74,\07
W-1874 54-30, 132-45 74,407
W-1875 54-20, l32-45 P 71,200
W-1876 54-40, 133-00 74,107
W-1877 54-30, 133-00 74,407
W-1878 54-20, 133-00P 67,600
W-1879 54-10, 133-00P 52,400
W-1880 54--40,133-15 S 37,091
W-1881 54-30, 133-15 74,407
W-1882 54-20, 133-15 74,707
W-1883 54-10, 133-15 75,006
W-1884 54-00, 133-15 75,304368 GULF OF MAINE

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Permittee Acreage

w.1sss 53-50, 133-15 10-12-64 John G.M. Hooper 75,601
W-1886 53-40, 133-15 75,897
W-1887 53-50, 133-00 W 37,800
W-1888 53-40, 133-00 75,700
W-1889 53-30, 133-00 76,193
W-1890 53-20, 133-00 N 38,208
W-1891 69,700
53-30, 132-45 P
W-1892 53-20, 132-45 P 37,800
W-1893 53-30, 132-30 P 22,100
W-1894 54-30, 133-30 74,407
W-1895 54-20, 133-30 74,707
W-1896 54-10, 133-30 75,006
W-1897 54-00,133-30 75,304
W-1898 53-50, 133-30 N 37,763
W-1899 54-30,133-45 S 37,24\
W-1900 54-20,133-45 E 37,353 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 369

Annex4

LETTER OF14 MAY 1965FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
TO THE CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFfAIRS AND NATIONAL
REsOURCES

[SeeIl,Annex53]370 GULF OF MAINE

Annex5

LEITER OF28 MAY 1965 FROM THE CANADIAN ÜEPARTMENT OF N ORTHERN
AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL R.ESOURCES TO THE UNITED STATES ÜEPARTMENT Of THE

lNTERIOR

Resource Development Direction du développement
Branch des ressources

Ottawa, May 28, 1965

L.T. Hoffman, Esq.,
Assistant Director - Lands and Minerais,
Bureau of Land Management,
United States Department of the Jnterior,
Washington, D.C. 20240, 900-23-2 900-27
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

J wish to acknowledge receipt of your !etter of May 14 concerning the
matter of permits and leases in off-shore areas on the continental shelf.I
hope to be able to send you a reply answering the specific points raisedin

your letter within the next few days.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed)
[il!egibleJ
for A.D. Hunt,
Chief,
D.G. Crosby/jn/D Resource Management Division ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 371

Annex6

LETTER OF 16 JUNE 1965 FROM THE CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN
AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE UNITED STATES ÜEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR

Ottawa, June l6, 1965.

L.T. Hoffman, Esq.,
Assistant Director - Lands and
Minerais,
Bureau of Land Management, 900-23-2

United States Department of 900-27
the lnterior,
Washington, D.C. 20240,
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Thank you for your letter of May 14, conccrning the matter of Canada

Oil and Gas Permits and United States Leases in off-shore areas on the
continental shetf.

We can appreciate your concern respecting the positions of the lines of
demarca tîon of the resources of the seabed on the con tinental shclf off
the east and west coasts. We wish to assure you that wc have utilizcd a
median line as dcscribed in the third paragraph of your letter, con­
structed in accordance with the equidistance principle as defined in
Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, to determîne the
limits of the off-shore areas within which to issue Canada Oil and Gas
Permits. lt may help clarify matters somewhat to explain that since the

exact position of such a median Jine may be open to some interpretation,
we issue permits covering grid areas up to and straddling these off-shore
median lines. In the case of a permit straddlîng a median lîne, a caution­
ary statement is included in the permit to the effect that it is issued sub­
ject to the lands covered thereby being Canada Lands.

Ibelieve the foregoing answers the various points raised in your letter.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) [illegible]
for A.D. Hunt,
Chief,
D.G. Crosby/ph Resource Management Division372 GULF OF MAINE

Annex7

LETIER OF 16AUGUST 1966 FROM THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN ÜTTAWA
TO THE CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND 'fEcHNICAL SURVEYS

[See IIAnnex 54] ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 373

Annex8

LETTER OF 30AUGUST 1966 FROM THE CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF
EXTERNAL AffAIRS TO THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN ÜITAWA
(WITH ATTACHMENTS, AS RECONSTRUCTED)

File Legal/P.A. Lapointe/de
Div.
Diary

Ottawa, August 30, 1966

Dear Mr. Oison:

I wish to refer to your letter of August 16 which you addressed to
Mr. J.W. McNeil, Director, Research Development Branch, Department
of Mines and Technical Surveys, concerning Canadian exploratory per­
mits in that part of the Continental Shelf which is situated off the East­
ern Coast of Canada. In view of this Department's general interest in the
exploration activities being carried out on the Canadian Continental
Shelf in close proximity to areas under the jurisdiction of foreign coun­
trîes, it was deemed preferable that this Department should answer your
query. In order to avoid unnecessarily long delays, we would very much
appreciate your directing any future enquiries of a similar nature to the
Legal Division of this Department.

As we have commented previously in a letter to the United States
Department of the Interior, the policy of the Canadian Government has
been to issue permits covering grid areas up to and straddling the
medium (sic)line which divides the areas of jurisdiction between Canada
and the United States since the exact position of that line might be open
to some interpretation. However, when such is the case a cautionary
statement is included in the permît to the effect that ît îs issued subject to
the lands covered thereby being Canada Lands. The attached map and
index will provide you with ail avajJable information concerning permits
which have been issued under the Oil and Gas Land Regulations off the
Southeast Coast of Canada.

As to your request for information on operational plans and
schedules of oil companies holding permits in the above mentioned area,
our policy has been to regard the question of the publicity to be given to
such plans as the permit holders may have as the exclusive responsibility
of the companies concerned. The competitive nature of their business is of
such scope that only they can reasonably establish the criteria for their
publicity requirements. The Canadian Government is, of course, made
aware of these plans but only insofar as it is necessary to èxercise proper

jurisdictional contrai over such operatîons in accordance with existing
legislation. While we cannot, therefore, make such information public,
the fact is that a considerable amount of information bas over the years374 GULF OF MAJNE

been released through the press and we call your attention in particular to
the trade magazine "Oîlweek".

Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further assist-
ance.

Yours sincerely,

(Signet!) P.A. LAPOINTE

for Under-Secretary of State
for External Affairs

Robert K. Oison, Esq.,
Second Secretary,
United States Embassy,
100 Wellington Street,
Ottawa, Ontario

PORTION OF
PERMIT INDEX

RECONSTRUCTED TO JNDICATE
EXPLORATORY PERMITS
ISSUED AS AT
30 AUGUST 1966

NOTES

1. Ali permits six years, unless otherwise noted.

2. The grid area involved in each permit is located by the co-ordinates
of its northeast corner.

Addition of the \ctter N., S., E., or W., indicates that the permit cov­
ers only theNorth, South, East or West half of the grid area.

Aqdition of the letter P îndicates that only part of the grid area, or
half grid area, is involved.

EXAMPU'.

Permit No. W-000 52-50, 133-30 S would mean Permit No. W-000 covers the
souch half of the grid area whose northecorner is 5250' north latitude and
!).1°30' wes1 longitude. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL01' CANADA 375

EAST COAST~ GEORGES BANK

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Permittee Acreage

W-417 43-40, 64-15 6-l 1-63 SheH Canada Limited .92,393
W-438 43-30, 64-30 92,644
W-439 43-30. 64-15 92,644
92,895
W-454 43-20. 65-00
W-455 43-20, 64-45 92,895
W-456 43-20, 64-30 92,895
W-457 43-20, 64-15 92,895
W-470 43-10, 65-45 93,146
W-471 43-10, 65-30 93,146
W-472 43-10, 65-15 93,146
W-473 43-10, 65-00 93,146
W-474 43-10, 64-45 93,146
93,146
W-475 43-10, 64-30 93,146
W-476 43-10, 64-15
W-488 43-00, 65-45 93,396
W-489 43-00, 65-30 93,396
W-490 43-00, 65-15 93,396
W-491 43-00, 65-00 93,396
W-492 43-00, 64-45 93,396
W-493 43-00, 64-30 93,396
W-494 43-00, 64-15 ·93;396
W-500 42-50, 65-45 93,644
93,644
W-501 42-50, 65-30
W-502 42-50; 65-15 93,644
W-503 42-50, 65-00 93,644
W-504 42-50, 64-45 93,644
W-505 42-50, 64-30 93,644
W-506 42-40, 65-45 93,891
W-507 42-40, 65-30 93,891
W-508 42-40, 65-15 93,891
W-509 42-40, 65-00 93,89]
42-40, 64-45 93,89]
• W-510
W-5ll 42-30, 65-45 94,138
W-512 42-30, 65-30 94,138
W-513 42-30, 65-15 94,138
W-514 42-30, 65-00 94,138
W-515 42-20, 65-30 94,384
W-516 42-20, 65-15 94,384

W-928 4!-20, 66-15 20-5-64 Texaco Exploration Company 95,844
W-929 41-30, 66-15 95,602
W-930 41-40, 66-00 95,360
W-931 41-40, 66-15 95,360
W-932 41-40, 66-30 95,360
W-933 41-50, 65-45 W 47,559
W-934 41-50, 66-00 95.118
W-935 41-50, 66-!5 95,118
95,118
W-936 41-50, 66-30
W-937 42-00, 65-45 W 47,437
W-938 42-00, 66-00 94,875
W-939 42-00, 66-15 94,875
W-940 42-00, 66-30 94,875376 GULF OF MAJNE

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Perrnittee Acreage

W-941 42-lOm 66---0S 20-5-64
W-.942 42-10, 66-15 S . Texaco Explor~tion Company 47,346
47,346
W-1913 41-20, 66-30 30-12-64 The California Standard 95,844

W-1914 41-30, 66-30 Company
W-1915 41-30, 66-45 95,602
95,602
W-1916 41-40, 66-45 95,360
W-1917 41-50, 66-45 95,118
W-1918 42-00,66-45 94,875
W-1919 41-50, 67-00 95,l18
W-1920 42-00. 67-00 94,875
W-1921 4l-20, 66-45 E 47,922
W-1998 42-00, 67-15 E 47.437
W-!999 41-40, 67-00 E 47,680
W-2000 42-10, 66-30 13-1-65 94,630
W-2001 42-10: 66-45 94,630
W-2002 42-10, 67-00 94,630
W-2003 42-10, 67-15 S 47,346
W-2004 41-10, 66-30 14-[-65
96,084
W-2212 42-00, 67-15 W !5-l-65 Socony Mobil Oil of Canada, 47,437
Ltd.
W-2213 41-50, 67-15 E " 41,559
W-2214 41-40, 67-00 W
W-2215 41-30, 67-00 E 47,680
47,801
W-2220 43-00, 66-00 S 27-1-65 The California Standard 46.729
Company
W-2221 43-00,66-15 S 46,729
W-2222 42-50, 66-00
W-2223 42-50, 66-[5 93,644
93,644
W-2224 42-40, 66--00N 46,915
W-2225 42-40, 66-15 N 46,915
W-2445 41-40,65-45 16-7-65
W-2446 41-50,65-45 E Texaco Explor~tion Company 95,360
W-2447 41-50, 65-30 47.559
W-2448 42-00, 65-45 E 95,118
47,437
W-2449 42-00, 65-30 94,875
W-2450 42-10,65-15 94,630
W-2451 42-10,65-30 94,630
W-2452 42-lO. 65-45 94,630
W-2453 42-10, 66-10 N 47,284
W-2454 42-10, 66-15 N 47.284
W-2455 42-20,65-45 94,384
W-2456 42-20, 66-00 94,384
W-2457 42-20,66-15 94,384 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 377

Annex9

LETIER OF22 NOVEMBER 1966FROM THE CANAD1AN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
MINES AND RESOURCES TO THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN ÜTTAWA
(wITH ÀTTACHMENTS, AS REcoNSTRUCTED)

900-23-2
Ottawa 4, November 22, 1966

Mr. Robert K. Oison,

Second Secretary,
United States Embassy,
100 Wellington Street,
Ottawa, Ontario.

Dear Mr. Oison:
ln accordance with our recent telephone conversations, enclosed please

find the following publications:
Canada Oiland Gas Permit Map No. 100- West Coast

Canada Oil and Gas Permit Map No. 150- East Coast

Index for Water Permits (Except Arctîc).

1am sorry for the delay in supplyîng these materials. As explained over
the telephone, we have just completed bringing the maps and indexes up­
to-date. Additional copies of the maps may be obtained for $3.00 each -
the index is supplied free of charge.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) [illegi ble]
D.G. Crosby,
Chief,
Resource Administration
Division
D.G. Crosby/je378
GULF OF MAINE

PORTION OF
PERMIT INDEX
RECONSTRUCTED TO INDICA TE
EXPLORA TOR Y PERMITS
ISSUED AS AT
22 NOVEMBER 1966

NOTES.

1. Ail permits six years, unless otherwise noted.

2. The grid area involved in each permit is located by the co-ordinates
of its northeast corner.

Addition of the !etter N., S., E., or W., indicates that the permit cov­
ers only the North, South, East or West half of the grid area.

Addition of the letter P indicates that only part of the grid area, or
half grid area, is învolved.

EXAMPLE

Permit No. W-000 52-50, 133-30 S would mean Permit No. W-000 covers the
south half of the grid area whose northeast corner is 52° 50' north latitude and
133° 30' west longitude. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 379

EAST COAST - GEORGES BANK

Permil Date of
No. Location Issue Perrnittee Acreage

W-417 43-40, 64-15 6-1 l-63 Shell Canada Limited 92,393
W-438 43-30. 64-30 92,644
W-439 43-30. 64-15 92,644
W-454 43"20. 65-00 92,895
W-455 43-20, 64-45 92,895
W-456 43-20, 64-30 92,895
W-457 43-20, 64-15 92,895
W-470 43-1o. 65-45
W-471 43-10, 65-30 93,146
93,146
W-472 43-10, 65-1S 93,146
W-473 43-1o. 65-00 93,146
W-474 43-1o. 64-45 93,146
W-475 43-10, 64-30 93,146
W-476 43-10, 64-15 93.146
W-488 43-00, 65-45 93,3%
W-489 43--00.65-30 93,3%
W-490 43--00. 65-15 93,396
W-491 43-00, 65-00 93,396
W-492 43-00, 64-45
W-493 43-00, 64-JO 93,396
93,396
W-494 43-00, 64-15 93,396
W-500 42-50, 65-45 93,644
W-501 42-50, 65-30 93,644
W-502 42-50, 65- 15 93,644
W-503 42-50, 65-00 93,644
W-504 42-SO, 64-45 93,644
W-505 · 42-SO, 64-30 93,644
W-506 42-40, 65-45 93,891
W-507 42-40, 65-30
W-508 42-40, 65-15 93,891
93,891
W-509 42-40, 65-00 93,891
W-510 42-40, 64-45 93,891
W-511 42-JO, 65-45 94,138
W-512 42-JO, 65-30 94,138
W-513 42-30. 65-15 94,138
W-514 42-Jo: 65--0o 94,138
W-515 42-20, 65-30 94,384
W-.516 42-20, 65-15 94,384

W-928 41-20, 66-15 20-.5-64 Texaco Exploration Company 95,844
W-929 41-30, 66-15 9S:602
W-930 41-40. 66--00 9S:360
W-931 41-40, 66-15 95,360
W-93Q 41-40, 66-30 95,360
W-933 41-.50, 65-45 W
W-934 41-50. 66--00 47,559
95.118
W-935 41-so: 66-!5 95,118
W-936 41-.50,66-30 9.5,118
W-937 42--00. 65-45 W 47,437
W-938 42.00: 66-oo 94,875
W-939 42--00,66-1.5 94,875380 GULF OF MAINE

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Pcrmittee Acreage

W-940 4::..00, 66-30 20-5-64 Tex.aco Explor!tion Company 94,875
W-941 42-10, 66--00S .
4D46
W-942 42-IO, 66--15S 47,346
W-1913 41-20, 66--30 30-12--64 The California Standard 95,844

Comyany
W-1914 41-30,66--30 95,602
W-19!5 41-30,66-45 95,602
W-19!6 41-40, 66-45 95,360
W-19!7 41-50, 66-45 95,! 18
W-1918 42-00, 66-45 94,875
W-1919 41-50, 67-00 95,118
W-1920 42-00, 67-00 94,875
W-1921 41-20, 66-45 E 47,922
W-1998 42-00, 67-15 E 47,437
W-1999 4l-40, 67-00 E 47,680
W-2000 42-10, 66-30 13-1-65 94,630
W-2001 42-10, 66-45
94,630
W-2002 42-10, 67-00 94,630
W-2003 42-10, 67-15 S 47,346
W-2004 41-10, 66-30 14-1-65 96,084
W-2212 42-00, 67-15 W
15-1-65 Socony Mobil Oil of Canada, 47,437
Ltd.
W-2213 41-50, 67-15 E 47,559
W-2214 41-40, 67-00 W 47,680
W-2215 41-30: 67-00 E 47,801

W-2220 43-00,66--00S 27-1-65 The California Standard 46,729
Company
W-222! 43-00, 66-15 S 46,729
W-2222 42-50. 66-00 93,644
W-2223 42-50, 66-15 93,644
W-2224 42-40, 66-00 N 46,915
W-2225 42-40. 66--15N 46,915

W-2445 41-40, 65-45 16--7-65 Tex.aco Ex.plor~tion Company 95,360
W-2446 41-50, 65-45 E 47,559
W-2447 41-50, 65-30 ~ 95,I 18
W-2448 42-00, 65-45 E 47,437
W-2449 42-00, 65-30 94,875
W-2450 42-10, 65-15 94,630
W-2451 42-IO, 65-30 94,630
W-2452 42-IO, 65-45 94,630
W-2453 42-10, 66-00 N 47,284
W-2454 42-10, 66-15 N 47,284
W-2455 42-20, 65-45
94,384
W-2456 42-20, 66-00 94,384
W-2457 42-20, 66-15 94.384 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 381

WEST CoÀST - JUAN DE FUCA STRAIT

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Permittee Acreage

W-88 48-40, 125-00 8-8-61 Shell Oil Company of Canada, 84,477
Limited
W-89 48-40, 125-15 84,477
W-90 48-40, 125-JO 84,477
W-91 48-40, 125-45 84,477
W-92 48-40. 126-00 84,477
W-93 48-50, 125-15 84,202
W-94 48-50, 125-JO 84-202

W-95 48-50, 125-45 84,202
W-96 48-50, l26-00 84,202
W-97 48-50, 126-15 84,202
W-98 49-00, 125-45 83,926
W-99. 49-00, 126-00 8),926
W-100 49-00, 126-15 8),926
W-101 49-10, 126-00 P 83.300
W-102 49-10, 126-15 83,649
W-105 49-20. 126-15 83,371

W-237 48-40, 124-45 W 16-8-61 The Calgary & Edmonton 42.239
W-238 48-SO, 125-00 S . Corporation Limited 50% 34,800
W-239 49-00, 125-30 S Western M inerals Ltd.50% 41,800
W-240 49--00,125-30 N 2)-8-61 " 29,500
W-241 49-10, 125-45
59,000
W-293 49-20, J26-00 P-S 17-6--63 Shell Oil Company of Canada 38,250
Limited

W-541 48-20, J25-l 5 1-11-63 Shell Canada Limited 85,026
W-542 48-20, J25-30 " " 85,026
W-543 48-20, 125-45 E 42,513
W-544 48-30, 125-00 84,752
W-545 48-30, 125-!S
W-546 48-30, 125-30 84,752
84,752
W-547 48-JO, 125-45 84,752
W-595 48-30, 126-00 E 3-3-64 Western Minerais Ltd. 42,376
W-606 49-10, 125-30 S #
6,300
W-607 49-00, 125-15 S 39,100
W-608 48-50, 125-00 P-N 14,900
W-609 48-50, 124-45 P-S 6,750
W-610 48-40, 124-45 P-E 34,050
W-611 48-40, 124-JO P-S 35,500

W-1901 48-30, 124-00 P 10-12-64 Pan American Petroleum 37,300
Corpo!ation
W-1902 48-JO, 124-15 P 37,500
W-1903 48-30, 124-30 P 17,100

W-2228 49-20, 124-00 P-N 5-2-65 British Amerîcan Oil Company 30,000
Limited 382 OULf OF MAINE

Perm il Date of
No. Location Issue Pcrmittcc Acrcagc

W-2277 48-40. 124-l5 f>-S 7-5-65 Herbert ~- Riplcy 1!,500
W-2278 48-30, 124-15 P-S " 7.600
W-2279 48-30, 124-00 P-N 12.000
W-2280 48-20. 124-00 P-N J,000
W-2281 48-30, 123-45 P-S 22,900

W-2282 48-20, 123-45 P-N 30.300
W-2458 49-00, 125-00 P-5 30-8-65 Raddison Oil & Gas Ltd. 26,400

W-2565 49-20. 126-00 N 1-6-66 Abrams Oil Management Ltd. 11,000 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 383

WEST COAST - 01XON ENTRANCE

Pcrmi1 Date of
No. l.ocation ls,uc Pcrmittcc Acrcagc

W-224 53-50. 130-45 8-8-61 Snell Oil Company of Canada. 75.601
Ltd.
W-225 53-50. D 1-00 75.601
W-226 54-00, 130-45 75.3(}4

W-227 54-00, 131-00 75,304
W-582 53-20. IJl-30 N 30-1-64 Shcll Canada Limitcd 38.208

W-584 5J-20. IJl-30 38.208
W-585 53-30. 131-45 P 52,160
W-586 53-40, IJl-30 75,897
W-587 53-40, Bl-45 P 52.774
W-589 53-50, 131-15 75.601
W-590 53-50. 131-30 75,601
W-591 SJ-50. 131-45 P-E 35.386
W-592 54-00, 131-15 75,304
W-593 54-00, 131-30 P 70.155
W-594 54-00, 1Jl-45 P-S
6,073
W-1858 54-JO, 131-15 10-12-64 Pan Amcrican Pctrolcum 74,407
Corr~.ration
W-1859 54-40, 1J1-30 74,107
54-JO, 131-30
W-1860 74.407
W-1861 54-40, 131-45 74,!07
W-1862 54-30. 131-45 74.407
W-1863 54-20, 131-45 N 37316
W-1864 54-40, 132-00 74.107
W-1865 54-30. 132-00 74.407
W-1866 54-20, 132-00 N 37.316
W-1867 54-40, 132-15 74,107
W-1868 54-30, 132-15 74.407
W-1869 54-20, 132-15 N
37,316
W-1870 54-40, 132-30 74.!07
W-1871 54-30, 132-JO 74.407
W-1872 54-20. 132-30 N 37,316
W-1873 54-40, 132-45 74,107
W-1874 54-30, 132-45 74,407
W-1875 54-20. 132-45 P 71,200
W-1876 54-40, 133-00 74,107
W-1877 54-30. 133-00 74.407
W-1878 54-20. 133-00 P 67,600
W-1879 54-1o. 133-00 P 52,400
W-1880 54-40, 133-15 S
37,091
W-1881 54-30. 133-15 74,407
W-1882 54-20. 1JJ-15 74,707
W-1883 54-10, 133-15 75,006
W-1884 54-00, JJJ-15 75.304
W-1885 53-50, l33,l5 75.601
W-1886 53-40, 133-15 75,897
W-1887 53-SQ, 1JJ-00 W 37,800
W-1888 53-40, 1JJ-00 75,700
W-1889 53-30. 133-00 76,193 384 GULF OF MAINE

Permit Date of
No. Location Issue Pcrmittee Acreagc

W-1890 53-20, 133-00 N 10-12-64 Pan American Pctrolcum 38,208
W-1891 53-30, 132-45 P Corporation 69,700
W-1892 53-20, 132-45 P 37.800
W-1893 53-30, 132-30 P 22,100
W-1894 54-30, !33-30 74,407
W-1895 54-20, 133-30 74.707
W-1896 54-10, 133-30 75.006
W-1897 54-00, 133-30 75.304

W-IS9S 53-50, 133-30 N 37,763
W-IS99 54-30. 133-45 S 37,241
W-1900 S4-20, l33-45 E 37,353
38,281
W-2473 53-20, 131-30 S 26-11-65 Shell Canada Limited
W-2559 54-20, 131-15 S 11-5-66 Offshore Oil and Gas 37,391
Corporation l.td.
W-2560 54-10, 131-15 75,006

W-2561 54-10, !31-30 P 12-5-66 Pan Amcrican Petroleom 57,924
Corpo:ation
W-2562 54-20, 131-30 P-S 37,053
54-10, 131-45 P
W-2563 49,941
W-2564 54-10, 132-00 P 58,994 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 385

Annex 10

LETIER OF28 NOVEMBER 1966 FROM THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN ÛITAWA
TO THE CANADIAN 0EPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES

EMBASSY
OFTHE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ottawa, Ontario

November 28, 1966

Dr. D. G. Crosby
Chief, Resource Administration Division

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Centennial Tower - 13th tloor
Ottawa

Dear Dr. Crosby:

Many thanks for the permit maps which you enclosed with your letter of
November 22. Your cooperation in this matter is deeply appreciated.

I have not received a reply to your question regarding nationality restric­
tions on U.S. offshore leases but will contact you as soon as it is received.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) [illegible]
Robert K. Oison
Second Secretary
ofEmbassy386 GULF OF MAINE

Aooex 11

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 10 MAY 1968

{See II, Annex 55} ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 387

Annex 12

LETTER OF 13 SEPTEMBER )968 FROM Tl--lllCANADIAN ÜEPARTh1ENT OF EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS TO THE CANADIAN EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON (AITACHMENT ÛMITTED)

EXTERNALAFFAIRS AFFAIRESEXTÉRIEURES

To: Canadian Embassy, Washington
From: Under-Secretary of State for
External Affairs, Ottawa
Reference: Our telex L-744 of Sept. 5

and your te\exes 1856 and J857 of May 10
Security: CONFJDENTIAL
Date: September 13, 1968

Number: L- 761
Subject: Canada-U.S.A. Continental Shclf

1. As already explained in telephone conversations between your
Miss Burwash and Mr. Lapointe of our Legal Division, we are not yet in
a position, pending consideratîon of the subject malter by Cabinet, to

answcr in a formai way the U.S. Aide-Mémoire of May 1 O. lt îs of course
the opinion of ail officiais concerned that the talks formally proposed by
the United States for delineating the boundaries between the United
States and Canada on the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine and in
the Juan de Fuca Strait, will eventually take place, and the sooner the
better.

2. ln the meantime and in order to get things started, we would be
grateful if you would pass on to State Department the attached copy of
t.he Canadian regulations concerning offshore exploration. By so doîng,
we will be answering the request made by the United States in· their
Aide-Mémoire where they suggest that consultations take place with
regard to the necessity of protecting the living resources of the sea agaînst
the pollution and disturbance which might resu!t from minerai explora­

tion and exploitation. Vou should draw the attention of State Department
officiais to page 2 of the schedule attached to the form-letter, "Ferlerai
Agencies Concerned with Offshore Exploration", which provides that off­
shore operators are obliged to give the Department of Fisheries 90 days
advance notice before the commencement of marine seismic surveys. We
are advised by the Department of Fisheries that these arrangements have
been quite satisfactory. The Department of Fisheries, whenever neces­
sary, sends observers on seîsmic operations who are provided with elec­
tronic fish-finding devices which indicate the presence of concentrations

of fish. If large numbers of fish are present. the fishery observer is
empowered to call for a postponement of operations. Through the cooper­
ation of the exploration companies with the Department of Fisheries, it
has been possible to keep fish kîlls to an acceptable level.388 GULF OF MAINE

3. We would be grateful to receive any comments the United States
authorities may have in respect of these regulations, às well as copies of
theîr own regulations. We are, of course, prepared to discuss these mat­
ters at any time which might be convenient to both governments.

(Signed) J.A. BEESLEY
for Under-Secretary of State
for External Affairs ANNEXES TO MEMORlAL OF CANADA 389

Annex 13

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 5 NOVEMBER 1969

{See II, Annex 56, "Note/rom the Department ofState to the Embassy of Canada,
dated 5 November 1969'1390 GULF OF MAINE

Annex14

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 366 OF1 DECEMHER 1969

No. 366

The Canadian Embassy refers to the Note from the Departrnent
of State dated NOl'Cm ber 5, 1969, eoncerning activities on the continental
shelf in the Gulf of Maine and the delimitation of Canada-United States
continental shelf boundaries.

The Canadian Government has noted the views exprcssed by the
United States Government with respect to the Gulf of Maine. The Gov­
ernment of Canada shares the eoncern of the Government of the United

States with· respect to pollution hazards arising from offshore minerai
exploration and exploitation. ln response to the United States Aide­
Mémoire of May 10, 1968, on thîs subject, the Canadian Embassy on
September 23, 1968, transmitted to the State Department copies of the
Canadian regulations eoncerning offshore exploration. No pollution dam­
age has resulted from offshore operations under these regulations, and
fish kills resulting from marine seismic surveys have been kept to an

acceptable level.
The Canadian Government is unable to accept the suggestion of

the United States Government for a temporary suspension of ail minerai
exploration and exploitation or drilling activitîes in the Gulf of Maine,
pending agreement on the boundary line. The Canadian Government
must also emphasize that it has not agreed at any time to a moratorium
on minerai exploitation on Georges Bank.

With respect to exploration permits issued by the Government of
Canada in the Gulf of Maine, the Canadian authorities on a number of
occasions have pointed out that the procedure followed by Canada was in
accordance with the principle of equidistance established by the Geneva
Convention on the Continental Shelf. The United States authorities did

not register any protest to this procedure.
The Canadian Government welcomes the proposai of the United
States Government for consultations on measures to safeguard fisheries

from possible oil pollutionin the Gulf of Maine, and will propose a time
and place of meeting for this purpose early in 1970.

The Canadian Government will also be pleased to receive the
suggestions of the United States Government concerning possible dates
for the initiation of formai negotiation of the Canada-United States con­
tinental shelf boundaries. The Canadian Government proposes, howevér,
that the first phase of the negotiatîons should deal only wîth the offshore
boundaries in the Gulf of Maine and the region of Juan de Fuca Strait.

Washington, D.C.,
December 1, 1969. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 391

Annex 15

UNITED STATES D!PLOMATIC NOTE OF 19 FEBRUARY 1970

The Department of State refers to its note of November 5, 1969,
to the Embassy of Canada indicating that it would suggest in the near
future dates for the initiation or formai negotiation of the United-States
(sic) Canada continental shelf boundaries. The Canadian Government, in

a note dated December 1, 1969, agreed to these negotiations and pro­
posed that the first phase of the negotiations should deat with the off­
shore boundaries in the Gulf of Maine and the region of the Juan de Fuca
Strait.

The United States is now pleased to suggest initiation of these
negotiations in Washington during either the week of April 20-24, I970
or the following week. If either of these times is inconvenient, the United
States would welcome suggestions for alternative dates. An initial one­
day session is envisaged. The United States Delegation will be headed by

Assistant Secretary or State for European Affairs Martin J. Hillenbrand.
The United States considers that it would be best to negotiate ail

four United States-Canada offshore boundaries at the same time since
any settlement reached with respect to one of these boundaries might pro­
vide guiding principles for the remaining boundaries. However, the
United States would be willing to initia te the negotiations as suggested by
Canada with consideration of the offshore boundaries in the Gulf of
Maine and the region of the Juan de Fuca Strait.

Department of State,
Washington, February 19, 1970392 GULF OF MAINE

Aonex16

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 18JANUARY 1974(WITH ATTACHMENT)

[See Il, Annex 59} ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 393

Annex17

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 47 OF 8FEBRUARY 1974

No. 47
The Ambassador of Canada presents hîs compliments to the

Secretary of State and has the honor to refer to the Secretary's Notes of
January 18concerning lobster fishîng.

The Canadian Government, while sympathizing with the princi­
ples of resource conservation and maximum suitable (sic) yield underly­
ing Public Law 93-242, reserves its position as to the interpretation by
the United States of the relevant provisions of the 1958 Covention on the
Continental Shelf and further reserves ail its rights in this matter.

The Canadian Government notes with satisfaction, that the
United States will not, at this time, seek to apply this legislation to
Canadian vessels engaged in lobster fishery in areas of the continental
shelf which might appertain to the United States under Article 6 of the
Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Canadian Government is pre­

pared to enter into any discussionon this matter which might be proposed
by the United States authorities.

The Ambassador of Canada avails himself of this opportunity to
renew to the Secretary of State the assurances of his highest consider­
ation.

Washington, D.C.
February 8, 1974.394 GULF OF MAINE

Aunex18

UNITED STATESCIRCULAR NOTE OF 2 MAY 1974

The Acting Secretary of State presents his compliments to Their
Excellencies and Messieurs the Chiefs of Mission of the Governments
whose fishermen have been known to or currently do fish in the North­
west Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the United States and others con­
cerned with Northwest Atlantic fisheries, and has the honor to inform the
Chiefs of Mission that the United States Government considers that a

sufficient period of time has elapsed to allow fishermen operatîng in the
region to become familiar wîth the new legislative requirements regard­
îng American lobster as described in the Secretary of State's circular
note of January 18, 1974.

United States enforcemen t officers have been inform ing fishermen
of the new requirements concerning American lobster and of United
States policy concerning continental shelf fishery resources generally.
They have reported that the fishermen contacted were aware of the new
requiremen ts.

The United States Government appreciates the cooperation
extended by other governments in bringîng the contents of the Secretary's
note to the attention of their fishermen and requests that they be
informed that United States enforcement officers will now begin to

enforce United States continental shelf fishery resource rights to the full­
est extent. In this connection, ît is recalled from the January 18 note that
"fishermen are expected to return to the sea îmmediately any American
lobsters which may be taken incidentally in the course of directed fisher­
ies for other species found in the region. Fishermen who encounter con-·
centrations of American lobsters in the course of their fishing operations
should take immediate steps to avoid such concentrations in future tows."
Continental shelf fishery resources should be returned to the sea with a
minimum of injury. We wish to note that these provisions apply for ail

United States continental shelf fishery resources, a list of which was
enclosed with the Secretary's. note of January 18, off any coast of the
United States.

Enclosure:
List of Addressees

Department of State
Washington, May 2, 1974 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 395

Annex 19

UNITED STATES D1PLOMATIC NOTE OF 11 SEnEMBER 1974 (WlTH ATTACHMENT)

[See Il, Annex 59)396 GULF OF MAJNE

Annex20

CANADIAN ÜIPLOMATIC NOTENo. 1126 OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1974

No. 1126

The Department of External Affairs presents its compliments to
the Embassy of the United States and wishes to advise the Embassy that
the Government of Canada has been given to understand that the Gov­
ernment of the United States has granted a permit to a group of compa­
nies for the purpose of carrying out marine seismic exploration relating to
the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine, in particular, in that area
known as Georges Bank. The permit referred to is understood to cover an
area beyond the equidistance line and consequently extends into an area
of the continental shelf which is regarded by the Government of Canada
as being within Canadian jurisdiction.

The Department of External Affairs wishes to reiterate the posi­
tion of the Government of Canada that the equidistance line constitutes
the proper basis for the demarcation of the continental shelf boundary in
the Georges Bank area, in accordance with Article 6(2) of the Con­
vention on the Continental She/f (Geneva /958), as stated during the first
phase of the negotiations undertaken between the two countries and
which have yet to be concluded.

The Department of External Affairs therefore wishes to express to
the Embassy of the United States its concern with regard to granting a
permit for these activities, which have no basis in international law, and
would accordingly be grateful if the Government of the United States,
pending the conclusion of bilateral negotiations, took appropriate mea­
sures to prohibit exploration activities being carrieci out pursuant to this
permit on the Canadian continental shelf in the Georges Bank area.

The Department of External Affairs avails itself of this opportu­
nity to renew to the Embassy of the United States the assurances of its
highest consideration.
Ottawa,
September 19, 1974. 397
ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA

Aonex21

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 216OF 16 ÜCTOBER 1974

[See Il, Annex 60, "Note/rom the Embassy of the United States to the
Department of External A.ffairs,dateJOctober 1974'1

Annex 22

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 15 MAY 1975

[See II, Annex 61] 398 GULF OF MAINE

Annex23

CANADIAN DIPLOMATlC NOTE No. \80 OF3 JUNE 1975

Canadian Embassy Ambassade duCanada

Note No. 180
The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Depart-

, ment of State and has the honour to refer to the Department of State's
Note of May 15, 1975, concerning certain actions that the United States
Government intends to take with respect to the continental shelf in the
Gulf of Maine area. The Canadian Government shares the interest of the
United States Government in arrivîng at a mutually satisfactory solution
of the problems raised by the question of the delimitation of the continen­
tal shelf in the Gulf of Maine region. The Canadian Government is,
therefore, prepared to consult with the United States Government in

order to resume continental shelf boundary negotiations, at the earliest
possible date, taking into account relevant domestic and international cir­
cumstances.

Pending such amicable resolution of the issue, however, the
Canadian Government cannot acquiesce in any measure taken by the
United States Government intended to constitute an exercise of jurisdic­
tion or sovereign rights over that portion of the continental shelf in the
Gulf of Maine region which lies on the Canadian side of the line of equi­
distance. On the basis of the Geneva Convention of 1958 on the Conti­
nental Shelf, the principle of equidistance is the applicable principle of
international law, sirice there is no agreement yet between the two coun­

triesand no special circumstances of relevance to the issue. Action of the
nature contemplated by the United States of America, be it through the
solicitationof nominations by the United States Department of the
Interior or through actual leasing, would run counter to these principles,
to which the Canadian Government continues to adhere, and its validîty
cannot be recognized. The Canadian Government, therefore, reserves its
rights and the rights of its nationals including the rights already granted
under Canada Oil and Gas Permits, in respect of the whole of the area of
the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine region lying on the Canadian

side of the line of equidistance. Should the United States Government
proceed with its contemplated action, the Canadian Government intends
to make its position a matter of public record so that individuals and
companies concerned with exploration and exploitation in the area may
be aware of this position.

The Canadian Government also takes note of the United States
Geological Survey's intention "to conduct certain deep sea drilling opera­
tions within the Gulf of Maine during the course of the coming summer
as a portion of the deep sea drilling program". If any or ail of such opera­
tions were to be related to that portion of the continental shelf lying on

the Canadian side of the line of equidistance, the consent of the Canadian ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 399

Government should be sought in accordance with the provisions of
Article 5, Paragraph 8, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continen­
tal Shelf.

The Canadian Government is ready at any time to enter into
negotiations with the United States Government with a view to finding
appropriate solutions to these and other related issues.
The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.

WASHINGTON, D.C.
June 3, 1975400 GULF OF MAINE

Annex24

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1975

The office of the United States Coast Guard in Washington were
kind enough recently to provide an official of the Canadian Embassy with
a copy of Commandant Instruction 5921.!D of March 19, 1975, rcgard­
ing the enforcement of United States legislation on lobster fishing by for­
eign fleets. The Canadian authorities are most gratefu[ for the informa­
tion so provided. They deem it imperative, howevcr, to state thcir position

on the so-called "boundary lines" delîmiting the respective continental
she!f jurisdictions of Canada and the USA for the purpose of the Instruc­
tion. These lincs appear in Attachment (2) to the Instruction, entitlcd
"Boundaries that Delimit What ls Clearly the U.S. Continental Shelf".

The Atlantic "boundary line" suggested in numbered paragraph 1
of the Attachment takes Machias Sea! Island as its starting point. lt has
been universally recognized over the years that Machîas Sea! Island
forms an integral part of Canada 's terri tory and clearlyfalis within the
full sovercignty of Canada. Any continental she!f boundary between
Canada and the USA in this area would have to take into account that

Machias Sea[ Island is Canadian territory and that Canada's territorial
sea, and, beyond, its continental shelf, extend along the lsland's coastline
facing the Gulf of.Maine.

As to the other points of this same "boundary !ine", most of them
lie considerably eastward of the line that shoutd apply. Under interna­
tional law Canada claims and exercises exclusive sovereign rights to the
continental shelf in this area up to the line of equidistance. Article 6 of
the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, to which both Canada and the
USA are parties, lays down that in the absence of an agreement bctween
neighbouring states, and unless another boundary line is justified by spe­
cia! circumstances, the boundary line is the median linc, every point of
which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which

the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In the Canada/USA Atlan­
tic area no special circumstances exist that might justify some other
boundary than the line of equidistance.

The Canadian authorities have noted that numbered paragraph 6
of the Attachment has the "boundary line" in the British
Columbia/Washington area run along the parallel of 48° 20" (sic) North
Latitude. This line has no basis in international law. Once again the only
valid line for dividing the continental shelf in this area would be one
based on the provisions of Article 6 of the 1958 Continental Shelf Con­
vention.

The Canadian Government wishes to record formally that it
reserves ail its rights in respect of ail matters relating to the delimitation
of the continental shelf boundary in the areas referred to above. The pur­
ported "boundary lines" unilaterally advanced by the USA have no force ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 401

and effect under international law and are without precedential value or
significance; they cannot properly be applied against Canada, Canadian

vessels or Canadian lîcensees for any purpose whatever. As to the other
"boundary lines" set out in numbered paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Attach­
ment, they too constitute unilateral delimitations and therefore can be
taken only as evidence of what the United States may consîder to be
appropriate continental shelf boundaries in the Dixon Entrance and
Beaufort Sea regions.

The Canadian authorities have notcd with satisfaction that the
U.S. authorities have decided not to seek to enforce against Canadian
vesse\s the U .S. legislation on lobster fishing by foreign fleets. While
recognizing the desire of the U.S. authorities in this way to avoid raising
associated boundary questions, the Canadian authorities must point out

that these questions would also arise if the USA were to seek to enforce·
its lcgislation against third statcsn areas of the continental shelf apper­
taining to Canada under international law. No such enforcement action
by the USA in the areas concerned could be based on or support a daim
to sovereign rights thcrein.

The Canadian authoritics trust that the vicws expressed above will
be taken înto due account in the application and enforcement of the U.S.
lobster legîslation.402 GULF OF MAINE

Annex25

CANAl)[AN DIPLOMA TIC NOTE No. 52 OF 2 fEBRUAR Y 1976

No. 52

The Embassy of Canada prcsents its compliments to the Depart­
ment of State and has the honour to refer 10 the intention of the United
States Department of the Interior, as announced on January 2, J976 to
open areas on the Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Maine region for leas­

ing for the exploration and exploitation of minerai resources.
According to the announcement, 206 tracts have bcen selected by
the United States Department of the Interior for intensive study in the
process of preparing a draft environmental impact statement preliminary

to the proposed sale of oit and gas leases on the Continental Shelf. A
number of these fall on the Canadian side of the line of equidistance.
The Embassy wishes to refer the Departmcnt to its Note No. 180
of June 3, 1975 outlining in detail the Canadian position concerning

actions by the United States in respect of Continental Shelf areàs on the
Canadian side of the equidistance line. The Embassy wishes once again to
point out that the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, to which
Canada and the United States are bath parties, provides in Article 6 that
when no agreement exists concerning the delimitation of the Continental
Shelf and, as in the case of the Gulf of Maine area, in the absence of spe­
cial circumstances, the applicable boundary line is to be drawn on the
basis of the principle of equidistance. In thesc circumstanccs, itis the
view of the Canadian authorities that the Department of the lntcrior

should limit its environmcntal studies and its proposed sale of tracts to
Continental Shelf areas falling on the United States side of the line of
equidistance.
The Embassy wishes to express the concern of the Canadian

authorities that if the Department of the lnterior were to proceed with its
plans in respect of areas lying beyond the line of equidistance, this could
s_eriouslyhamper the progress of the discussions now underway to reach
agreement on the delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Gulf- of
Maine rcgion. Notwithstandîng the difficulties to be overcome in these
discussions,the Ca nadian authori ties consider that an accepta hie delimi­
tation on the basis of the principlcs of international law is possible, pro­
vided both parties avoid measures contrary to the positive spirit which
charactcrized the exploratory discussions on December 15, 1975, which

latter are expected to continue on February 17, 1976 in Washington,
D.C.

The Embassy of Canada avails itse!f of this opportunity to renew
to the Departmen t of Sta te the assurances ofits highest considera tian.
Washington, D.C.

February 2,·l976 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 403

Aonex26

UNITED STATES ÛIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 10 FEBRUARY 1976

[See II, Annex 62)404 GULF OF MAINE

Annex27

CANADIAN AIDE· MÉMOIRE OF 8 MARCH 1976

The United States authorities are referred to the meeting of the
Canadian and United States fisheries officiais held in Ottawa on October

22, 1975.
Discussions at that meeting underlined the importance both coun­
triesattached to the continuation of their good fisheries relations and sig­

nificance of reciprocal fishing arrangements in this context, particularly
in lightof anticipated extensions of fisheries jurisdiction. Both sides noted
the relationship between the reciprocal fishing arrangements and our
Canada-United States fisheries questions, especially regarding salmon. It
was agreed that the representatives of the two countries would meet at an
early opportunity to consider the possibility of working out more compre­
hensive reciprocal arrangements to be put into effect following the estab­

lishment of the new jurisdictional limits. In the interim, in view of the
many commitments which the Canadian and the United States officiais
have for the coming months, both sides expressed a mutuai interest in the
possibility of extending the present reciprocal fishing privileges Agree­
ment for a period of one year. This Agreement was signed and came into
force on April 24, 1970; it has since been extended, with amendments, on
four occasions, most recently as of April 24, 1975.

Accordingly, pursuant to the understanding reached in October,
Canadian authorities propose that the necessary steps for suggested
extension of reciprocal fîshing privileges agreement now be initiated. At
the same time they propose that the Canadian and United States officiais
should meet at an early date to begin consideration of more comprehen­

sive reciprocal arrangements as indicated above. Canadian officiais would
be prepared to host such a meeting in Ottawa.
The Canadian Government would be grateful to receive comments

of the United States Government on these proposais at an early date.
Washington, D.C.
March 8, 1976. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 405

Annex28

UNITED SHTES AIDE-MÉMOIRE Of 31MARCH 1976

The Department of State refers to the Canadian Embassy's Aide­
Mémoireof March 8, the meeting of the Canadian and United States
fisheries officiais heldn Ottawa on October 22, 1975, and the meeting
between Canadian and United States officiais in Seattle on February 18-

20.
The Government of the United States of America agrees that in
view of substantial progress made in furthering the understanding of
salmon problems of mutual concern at the meeting that culminated in
scheduling of formai negotiations for May 17, it is to the mutual interest
of both countries to extend the present reciprocal fishing privileges agree­

ment for a period of one year. The Government of the United States pro­
poses that this be arranged through an exchange of Notes.
In this connection, the Government of the United States notes the
possibilitythat after February 28, 1977, certain domestic legislation,
though recognizing Canadian fishing in accordance with the terms of
reciprocal agreement, may require that Canadian vessels obtain a regis­
tration permit from the Secretary of State which must be displayed in the

wheelhouse of such vessels. Should this requirement become applicable,
the United States authorities would, of course, make every effort to facili­
tate compliance with any procedures that may be necessary to obtain
registration permits.
The Government of the United States of America agrees with the
proposai of the Government of Canada that Canadian and United States
officiais should begin consideration of more comprehensive reciprocal

arrangements to be put into effect following the establishment of the new
jurisdictional limits and looks forward to the commencement of such dis­
cussion agreed to between the Governments of the United States and
Canada on May 10-12 in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Department of State,
Washington, March 31, 1976.406 GULF OF MAINE

Annëx 29

LETIER FROM THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY K.JSSINGER TO THE
CANADIAN SECRFfARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AfFAIRS ALLAN MACEACHEN
TRANSMITTEI) IN THE LETTER OF7 APRIL 1976 FROM THE UNITED STATES

AMBASSADOR THOMAS ENDERS TO THE CANADIAN SECRETARY OF $TATE FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAJRS ALLAN MACEACHEN

EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ottawa, April 7, 1976

Dear Mr. Ministcr:

I have been asked to convey to you the following message from
Secretary Kissinger:

"Dear Allan:

"During our discussions in Ottawa last October, I undertook
to keep you informed of the position of the Administration on 200-

mile fisheries zone legislation in the U.S. The Congress has recently
passed the Fisherics Conservation and Management Act of 1976
which would establish a 200-m ile fisherîes conservation zone effec-
tive March 1, 1977. -

"As you know, the Administration has consistently opposed
any such unilateral U.S. action while the Law of the Sea Confer­

ence negotîations are continuing. We hope that the delayed effec­
tive date contained in the U.S. legislation allows time for the Law
of the Sea Conferencc to resolve this issue on an international basis.
We have reservations about certain provisions of the bill, and are

hopeful these problem areas can be corrected before extended juris­
diction enters into effect. Given these considerations, the President
may not make a final decision on whether to sign this legislation
until the deadline approaches next week.

"Officiais of the Department of State have been in close
touch with your Embassy in Washington regarding the details of
the U.S. legislation and will continue these consultations in the
days ahead. I know that you and I share an apprecîation of the

importance of this issue in our bîlateral relations. Canadîan inten­
tions with regard to the establishment of a 200-mile zone are of ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 407

great importance to us and I would appreciate your keeping me
informed of your plans in this regard.

"Warm regards,

Henry A. Kissinger"

Sincerely, with much regard

(Signed) [illegibleJ
Thomas Ostrom Enders

The Honorable
Allan J. MacEachen, P.C., M.P.,
Secrctary of State
for External Affairs,
Ottawa ..408 GULF OFMAINE

Annex30

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 13 APRIL 1976

The Depar!ment of Externat Affairs refers to the Depar!ment of
State's Aide-Mémoire of March 31, 1976 agreeing to the extension of the

present Canada/USA Reciprocal Fishing Privileges Agreement for a
period of one year. The Department is pleased to accept the proposai that
this extension be arranged through an immediate exchange of notes.

The Government of Canada has noted the possibîlity that aftcr
February 28, 1977 certain USA legislation may require that Canadian
vessels operating pursuant to the Reciprocal Fishing Privileges Agree­
ment obtain a registration permit from the Secretary of State. The Gov­
ernment of Canada understands from the Department of State's Aide­

Mémoire that the purpose of a requirement of this nature would be to
give continued effect to the Reciprocal Agreement as it applics to
Canadian fishing in the U.S. zone.

The Governmcnt of Canada wishes todraw to the attention of the
Government of the U.S. of A. the possibility that, should the Canadian
fisheries jurisdiction be extended du rintheperiod in which the Reeiprocal
Fisherîes Agreement is in force, a similar adm inistrativc rcquîrcmcnt
may apply with respect to U.S. vessels under Canadian lcgislation. The
application of U.S. and Canadian laws in respect to such mattcrs as regis­

tration pcrmits would, of course, be without prejudice to the resolution of
maritime boundary questions between the two ·countries.

With respect to the question of more eomprehensive reeiprocal
arrangements to be put into effect following establishment of new jurîs­
dictional limits, the Government of Canada is gratified that the Govern­
ment of the USA has agreed that Canadian and USA officiais should
begin consideration of sueh arrangements at a meeting to be held from
May 10 10 May 12 in Vancouver, B.C.

Ottawa,
April 13, 1976 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 409

Annex 31

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 28 APRIL 1976

The Canadian authorities have taken note of recent press reports
indicating that stratigraphie drilling is now underway on the Continental
Shelr in the Gulf of Maine area. The Canadian authorities are of the view
that this drilling activity may add to the complexity of current talks

between Canada and the United States on the delimitation of the bound­
ary in the area and affect the consideration of appropria te solutions.

The Canadian authorities are concerned by the United States
decision to authorize drillingon George's (sic)Bank at this time and wish
to make clear' that such drilling cannot be considered as prejudicing in
any way the final settlement of the boundary. between the two countries.

Washington, D.C.
April 28, 1976410 GULF OF MAINE

Aonex32

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 103OF 20 MAY 1976

No. 103

.The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compli­
ments to the Department of Externat Affairs and refers to the matter of
continental shelf boundaries betweèn the United States and Canada.

Jthas only recently corne to the attention of the Government of
the United States that the Government of Canada has granted oil and gas
concession (sic) in the Beaufort Sea as far west as 141 degrees west longi­
tude. Furthermore, the Government of the United States bas heard from
public source_s that the Government of Canada has granted similar

concessions in the Dixon Entrance and Strait of Juan de Fuca àreas.
Reportedly, some of these concessions were granted as many as ten years
ago.

The United States notes these actions with concern, since they
occur in areas where the continental she!f boundaries betwecn the United
States and Canada have not beeri determined. The United States was nei­
ther consulted nor notified concerning Canadian intentions in these areas
of common interest. The Government of the United States recalls that in
itsNote of November 5, 1969, in which it reserved its rights and those of
its nationals with respect to the Gulf of Maine continental shelf bound­

ary, it a!so reserved its rights and those of its nationals with respect to
areas in the vicinity of other continental shelf boundaries between the
United States and _Canada. ·
The United States wishes to cmphasize that since the Truman

Proclamation of 1945 Canada has known that the position of the United
States with respect to continental shelf boundaries with Canada is that
they shall be determined by agreement in accordance with equitable prin­
ciples, and that this is confirmed by the 1958 Geneva Convention on the
Continental Shelf and Other Relevant Principles of International Law.
Unilateral acts of Canada cannot laya foundation for a Canadian claim
to specific boundary areas.

Until ·the exact location of the United States-Canada continental
shelf boundaries in the Beaufort Sea, Dixon Entrance and Strait of Juan
de Fuca aieas are determined, the United States can neither aècept nor
recognize as valid any Canadian authorization of exploration or exploita­
tion of the natural resoilrces of the continental shelf in areas that are or
may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The United States

once again reserves its rights and lhose of its nationals with respect to
those areas, particularly in the BeaufortSea.
The Government of the Un-ited States also wishes to note that the

views·regarding presumptions in favor 9f equidistance expressed by the
Canadîan delegation in_the negotiations conc~rning the continental shelf ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 411

·boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, and the views which were expressed
in the Embassy of Canada Note No. 52 of February 2, 1975 (sic), are not
consistent with the Canadian action in the Beaufort Sea area. The United
States, for îts part,s not aware of circumstances that would justify asser­
tions of Canadian jurisdiction as far west as the 141st merîdîan. More­
over, the use of the meridian raises questions regarding the so-called sec­
tor theory which as the Government of Canada is aware, has been
associated with attempts to interfere unlawfully with navigational and

other t"reedoms. Accordingly, the United States must rcstate its long­
standing position tliat the so-called "sector" theory is not an accepted
principle of international law.

The Government of. the United States rcquests that the Govern­
ment of Canada furnîsh to the United States information concerning the
western extent of Canadian oil and gas leascs or other permits in the
Beaufort Sea, the northern extent of any such !cases or permits in the
Dixon Entrance area,· and the southcrn extent of any such leases or per­
mits in the Strait of Juan de Fuca area. ln this connectîon the Govern­
ment of the United States would welcome an explanatioi:i of the legal

arguments regarding delimitation upon which the Government of Canada
is relying to justify those actions in each case. The Government of the
United States expresses its willingness to enter negotiations conccrning
these continental shelf boundary areas at an appropriate and mutually
convenient lime.

The Embassy of the United States takes ·1hisopportunîty to again
convey to the Department of External Affairs the assurances of its high­
est consideration.

Embassy of the United States of America,
Ottawa, May 20, 1976.412 GULF Of MAINE

Annex33

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE Of 3 JUNE 1976

Canadian Embassy
Ambassade du Canada

The Embassy of Canada refers to a proposai by the United States
National Science Foundation concerning an inter-dîsciplinary study of
the cultural impact of the changing environment in the Gulf of Maine
area.

The Canadian authorities understand that the study will involve
the taking of samples of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area.

In this connection, they wish to bring to the attentionof the Department
of State that if sampling is to occur on the Canadian side of the line of
equidistance in the Gulf of Maine area, prior consent of the Canadian
authorities should be sought for such research actiyitîes as provided in
Article 5 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.

Washington, D.C.

June 3, 1976 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 413

Anoex34

LETTER FROMTHE CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ALLAN
MACEACHEN TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY K.JSSINGER
TRANSM11TED IN THE LE1TER OF 4 JUNE 1976 FROM THE CANADIAN AMBASSADOR
J.H. WARREN TO THE UNITED $TATES SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER

CanadianEmbassy AmbassadeduCanada
1746 Massachusetts Ave N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036

June 4, 1976

Dear Mr. Secretary,
1have been requested to convey to you the followîng message from

the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the extension of
Canadian fisheries jurisdîction.

Text begîns:
Dear Henry,

Iam writing to you concerning the extension of Canadian
fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles. You will recall that in my earlier
communication in reply to your letter of April 7, 1976_,annou ncing

your Government's new legislation on extended fisheries jurisdic­
tion, I said that I would keep you informed of developments con­
cerning Canada's plans for eventual extension of jurisdiction over
fisheries. ln the course of our discussions in Nairobi we again had
an opportunity to exchange views on this subject.

You are already well aware that the state of the fisheries
resource off the North American Atlantic coast has deteriorated to
dangerously low levels and that there is great concern that unless
action is taken soon, there will be no resource left to protect in th~

future.lt is with this in mind, that the Canadian Government has
decided that it wîll take action to extend Canadîan fisheries juris­
diction out to 200 miles. lmplementation of this decision under
existing Canadian legislation will corne later this year and in any
event will be in place by January 1, 1977. I intend to announce this
decision in the House of Commons today, June 4. The text of my
statement will be communicated to you as soon as possible.

Extension of jurisdiction by both our countries presents us
wîth new opportunities and new challenges in our fisheries rela­
tions. lt also !ends greater urgency to resolving unsettled boundary

problems. Meaningful consultations are needed if we are to take
advantage of these opportunities and avoid potentially serious djf.
ficulties. In my view, we should be working together for the estab·
lishment of a comprehensive bilateral treaty framework, to be in 414 GULF OF MAINE

place by early 1977, that would provide for cooperation on a mutu­
ally beneficial basis in the conservation, management and utilisa­
tion of fish stocks of mutuai interest.

In view of the importance of these matters, iwill be following
developments closely and would hope that both of us mîght ensure
that priority consideration is given to them by our Governments.

Yours sincercly,

Allan J.MacEachen
Text ends.

The Minister's statement will, I can assure you, be sent to your
office at the earliest possible moment.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) [illegible]
J.H. Warren,
Ambassador

The Honourable
Henry A. Kissinger,
Secretary of State,
. Washington, D.C..

,, ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 415

Aooex35

LETTER FROMTHE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER TO THE
CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ALLAN MACEACHEN
TRJ\NSMITIED IN THE LETTER OF 7 JUNE 1976 FROM THE UNITED STATES
AMBASSADOR THOMAS ENDERS TO THE CANADIAN $ECRETARY OF STATE FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ALLAN MACEACHEN

Ottawa
June 7, 1976

Allan

Dear Mr. Minister:

1 have been requested to deliver to you the followîng letter from
the Secret aryof Sta te: t,

"Dear Allan:
"! appreciated very much your lctter of June 4 informing me

of Canada's dccision establishing a 200-mile fishing zone no later
than January 1, 1977. We understand the reasons for this action,
which, like our own recently passed legislation, has_been taken with
the continuing hope that a multi!atcral solution can yet be rcached
in the LOS negotiatîons thîs year.

"I particularly welcome your mention of your own conccrn
that establishment of a 200-mile fisherics zone by both of our coun­
tries [ends greater urgency to our ongoing bilatcral discussions on
unsettled boundary issues and on fisheries issues. Your concern is

shared completely by me and I believe we should redouble our
mutua! efforts to achieve solutions to bath problems before the 200-
mile zones go into effect.

"! undeistand that our respective fisheries negotiators plan to
meet in Washington toward the end of July and I will instruct the
U.S. side to seek maximum progress in these consultations.

"With regard to the bo~ndary settlement question, 1 believe
this is an especially propitious time for coming to grips with these
long-standing issues. Moreover, a boundary settlement in the Gulf
of Maine area would greatly facilitate agreement on a fisheries
treaty. I am informed that our legal advisers have agreed that it
would be desirable to establish a single boundary for both Conti­

nental Shelf and fisheries jurisdictîon in the Gulf of Maine. We
would also be prepared to include other boundary settlements in an
overall solution if broadening the scope of our negotiations would
facilitate agreement. In order to move expeditiously on this prob­
lem, we would like to schedule talks at the end of this month and
would be willing to keep at it as frequently as necessary to resolve

tqe problem this fall. If if should prove impossible to arrange a·416 GULF OF MAINE

meeting or the full Delegation in the next few weeks, it might be
feasîble for our chier negotiators to meet informally provided we
can give them the necessary guidance to make progress.

"I would be interested in your thoughts on these issues and
particularly on my suggestions regarding the way we might procced
on the boundary settlement question.

"Warm regards,

Henry A. Kissinger"

Sinccrely,
(Signed) [i/legible]
Thomas Ostrom Enders

The Honorable
Allan MacEachen, P.C.,

Secretary or State for
External Affairs,
Ottawa. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 417

Annex36

CANAOJAN DIPWMATIC NOTE No. FLP-63 OF 8JUNE 1976
(ATTACHMENTS ÛMITIED)

No. FLP-63
The Department of External Affairs presents its compliments to

the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to refer
to its note of May 20, 1976 concerning the matter of continental shelf
boundaries between the United States and Canada.

As the Embassy is aware there were discussions in Ottawa on May
25 between United States and Canadian officiais on continental shelf
boundary delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area at which time consider­
ation was given to the broadening of these discussions to cover other
unsettled maritime boundaries between the two countries.

The Department has taken note of the questions and concerns
expressed in the Embassy's note. The Department reserves îts right to
reply at a later date concerning Canadian jurisdiction in the areas in

question, the characterization of Canadian actions made in the note and
the relevance and app1icability of international law.

With regard to the information requested concerning Canadian oil
and gas exploration permits in other areas than the Gulf of Maine, the
Department understands that the appropriate Canadian authorities have
exchanged such information with their counterparts some time ago.
Nevertheless the Department is pleased to enclose this information again.

The Department of External Affairs avails itself of this opportu­
nity to renew to the Embassy of the United States of America the assur­
ances of its highest consideration.

Ottawa, June 8, 1976418 GULF OF MAINE

Annex 37

LEITER FROMTHE CANADIAN SECRETARYOF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AfFAIRS ALLAN
MACEACHEN TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER

TRANSM!ITED IN THE LEITER OF 15JUNE 1976 FROM THE CANADIAN ÀMBASSADOR -
J.H. WARREN TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF $TATE HENRY KISSINGER

Canadian [mbassy Ambassade du Canada

1746 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ..
Washington, D.C. 20036

June 15, 1976

Dcar Mr. Secretary,

1 have been re4uested to convcy to you the followiog message from
thc Sccrclary of Statc for Externa! /\ ffairs regard ing thc extension of
Ca nad ian fishcrics jurisd iciion.

Text begins:

Dear Henry,

I am plcased to note from your letter of June 7 that you share
my concern for an expeditious resolution of the problems whîch
arise as a result of the prospective extension of our fisheries juris­
dictions. As I indicated in my recent letter, 1 believe an early
accord on fishcrics should be a malter of high priority. 1 am sure
thîs sense of urgency will be shared by our delegatcs at the next
round ofbilateral talks scheduled for Washington in July.

n discussing Canad4 's decision on the extension of fisheries
·.jurisdiction in the House of Commons on June 4, 1 statcd that it

would be a major concern of mine that Canada reach a satisfactory
conclusion of our outstanding boundarics questions. While a settle­
ment of these issues, especîally in the Gulf of Maine, could consti­
tute an important factor· in the attainment of long-term fisheries
arrangements, such a settlement would not in itself resolve al! of
the immediate prob!ems arising from the imminent extension of our
fisheries limits. Moreover, it may well prove impossible to conclude
in such a short period of time a final settlement of the complex

boundary issues which have been outstanding for so many years,
and the Jack of such a settlement should not prevent us from enter­
ing into fisheries arrangements. In view of the possibilîty that final
boundary solutions might take longer to put into place I would sug­
gest that, while pursuing long-term fisherîes solutions, we should
also keep op~n the prospect of interim arrangements, as_ was
recently discussed by Canadîan and United States officiais in Van­

couver. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 4f9

ln order to move forward as quickly as possible on the bound­
aries issue, I would agree that officiais should meet at the carliest
feasible date, which for our side would be around mid-July. More­
over, Jagrce, as you have indîcated, that we should now.be moving
towards more comprehensive negotiations. ln the meantime, it
could be useful and, from our point of vicw, is certainly feasible, for
'informai contacts to be maintained betwcen the two sicles.

Yours sincerely,
Allan J. MacEachen

Text ends.

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) [illegible]
J.H. Warren,
Ambassador

The Honourable
Henry A. Kissinger,
Secretary of State,

Washington, D.C.420 GULF OF MAINE

Anoex38

UNITED STATES Ame-MÉMOIRE OF 2 AUGUST 1976

The Department of State refers to the Embassy of Canada's Aide­
Mémoire of June 3, 1976, conceming "a proposal by the United States

National Science Foundation concerning an interdisciplinary study of the
cultural impact of the changing environment in the Gulf of Maine area."

The Department of State takes the occasion to reiterate to the
Embassy of Canada that the United States Government does not accept
the proposition that the continental shelf of the United States of America
in the Gulf of Maine area is delimited by the "line of equidistance." The
position of the United States Government concerning an appropriate
delimitation of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area is well
known to the Government of Canada and need not be reiterated here.

However, the Department of State does wish to emphasize the impor­
tance it attaches to a negotiated delimitation of the continental shelf in
the Gulf of Maine area at the earliest possible date. Tt hopes that the
boundary issue will be settled well before the research in question gets
underway.

Department of State,
Washington, August 2, t976. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 421

Annex39

CANAl)lAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 19AUGUST 1976

The Canadian authorities have taken note of a recent Press
Release of the U.S. Department of the lnterior indicating that USGS is
carrying out a corehole drîlling programme on the continental margin off
the cast coast of North America this summer. Canadian authorities
understand that four of the proposed sites for drilling are on George's

(sic) Bank. As already indicated in our Aide-Mémoire of April 28 con­
ceming stratigraphie drilling in the area, Canadian authorities are con­
cerned that such activities may add to the complexity of current talks on
delimitation of the boundary in the area.

The Canadian authorities wish to bring to the attention of the
Department of State the fact that the Canadian Government has not to
date authorized any form of drilling in the area. The Canadian authori­

ties hope that the United States authorities will not authorize any further
activities which may affect an appropriate solution of the boundary issue
and wish to make it clear that such activities cannot be considered as pre­
judicing in any way the final settlement of the qoundary between the two
countries.

Washington, D.C.
August 19, .1976422 GULF OF MAINE

Annex40

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF IO SEPTEMBER 1976

The Department of.State rerers to the Embassy of Canada's Aide­
Mémoireof August 19, 1976,conceming the United States Geological Survey
core drilling programon the continental shelf in the Gulf or Maine area.

The selected sites referred to in the Embassy's Aide-Mémoire al!
fall on the United States side of a line developed using the principle of

equidistance. None of the selected sites is located in·continental shelf
areas claimed by both Governments. A!though the United States Govern­
ment reserves the right to take appropriate steps to explore and exploit
the resources of the entire continental shelf appertaining to the United
States of America under international law, the Government of the United
States bas taken pains to avoid any actions at this time that might com­
plicate the efforts being made by both Governments to resolve the Gulf of

Maine area boundary question at an early date.
The Department of State notes the positions taken by the Govern­

ment of Canada in its notes of June 3, 1975, and February 2, 1976, and
expresses the hope that the Canadian Aide-Mémoire does not portend
developments that could forther complicate the resolution of the mari­
time boundaries in the Gulf of Maine area.

The position of the Government of the United States concerning
the appropria te delimîtation of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine
area is well known to Canadian authorities and need not be reiterated
hcre. However, the Department wishcs to cmphasize again the impor­
tance it attaches to a negotiatcd delimitation at the earliest possible date.

Department of State
Washington, September JO, 1976. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 423

Annex41

LETIER OF 22 ÛCTOBER 1976 FROM THE CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
ExTERNAL AFFAIRS DoN JAMIESON TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
HENRY KISSINGER

October 22, 1976

Dear Henry,

1write to thank you for suggesting we get together as we did last
week and to express my appreciation for your hospitality. lt was a most
useful meeting and I look forward to other occasions of this kind in the
future.

I thinkwe both agreed that the most important and urgent subject
discussed was that of maritime boundaries and fisheries. lt was my
understanding that by the end of our discussion we had made some

progress on what is admittedly a most complicated subject. I had hoped
that the bilateral fisheries discussion on Tuesday of this week cou Id build
upon the measure of understanding reached between us last Friday. You
will recall that throughout our discussions I strcssed that the possibility of
a negotiated line somewhere between the boundaries claimed by the two
sicles could only be considered if this were coupled with resource sharing
arrangements, including joint fisheries management, for a zone extending

beyond the area bounded by the daims of each side. 1wonder if this lat­
ter part of the proposed basis for negotiation was fully taken into account
by your officiais engaged in the fisheries discussions this week. It would
be helpful if you would let me know whether your understanding of the
proposed basis of negotiation issimilar to mine on this point. l should be
interested in your views also as to whether it would be useful to prepare
an agreed minute of the understanding reached in our discussion.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Don JAMIESON424 GUlF OF MAINE

Annex.42

LElTER FROM THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER TO THE
CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAl AFFAIRS DoN }AMIESON
TRANSMITIED IN THE LElTER OF 12NOVEMBER 1976FROM THE UNITED STATES
AMBASSADOR THOMAS ENDERS TO THE CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR

ExTERNAl AFFAIRS DoN JAMIESON

EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ottawa

November 12, 1976

Don

Dear Mr. Minister:

I have been asked to deliver to you the following letter from the
Secretary of State:

"Dear Don:

"Thank you for your letter of October 22 concerning ourdis­
cussion of maritime boundaries and related resource issues. I cer­
tainly share your understanding that we had made progress on
these issues, and I regret that some di fferences of interpreta tion
apparently have arîsen.

"My understanding is that we agreed to continue our efforts
to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of our various maritime
boundaries and related resource issues. To facilîtate this effort, I
understood that we agreed on four basic points with particular ref­
erence to the Gulf of Maine area:

"{l) to try to find a mutually agreeable boundary line;

"(2) in the interval, while negotiations are going on, to work
out mutually agreeable procedures for dealing with the
fishery activities of third parties;
"(3) to negotiate reciprocal fishery arrangements not neces­

sarily bound by our two cl.aimed boundary lines;
"(4) to work out cooperative arrangements concerning hydro­
carbons on similar terms.

"In my view these four points represent important progress,
but they obviously do not answer ail the bard questions, including

the one put in your letter. You did indeed make clear that such an
agreement by Canada on a compromise boundary line would be
possible only if coupled with a satisfactory Jong-term fisheries
agreement. My understanding of the basis on which we agreed to ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 425

, continue our fishery negotiations toward a long-term agreement
was that .we would seek arrangements that would be reciprocal and
mutually agreeable and would not necessarily be limited to the zone

between our two lines. Itwas not my understanding that our fisher­
ies negotiations for short-term arrangements would be premised on
joint fisheries management in an area extending beyond the zone of
overlappîng daims, but that access to fisheries of interest in an area
not necessarily bound by our two claimed boundary lines could be
negotiated for the short-term.

"1 would hope that our agreement on the general princîples
such as those I have outlined above could serve as a framework for
continuing negotiations for the short-term arrangements and long­
term agreement - in effect as the agreed minute of understanding
you suggested.

"1 am confident that you sharc my view tha t at this stage the
important point is to gct the talks moving both on specific boundary
lines and on the important related resources issues. If you agree, let
us instruct our negotia tors to resume their work at once, recogniz­
ing that with respect to fishcrics, the immediate need is the ne.gotia­
tion for short-term arrangements which will avoid contlict while we
\\ pursue our longer term objectives.

Warm regards,

Henry A. Kissinger"

With much regard Sincerely,
(Signet!) [llegi hie]
Thomas Ostrom Enders

The Honorable
Donald Campbell Jamieson,
Secretary of State for
External Affairs,
Ottawa.426 GULF OF MAINE

Annex43 -

LETIER OF 3 0ECEMBER 1976 FROM THE CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DON )AMIESON TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
-- HENRY KISSINGER

OTTAWA, December 3, 1976.

Dear Henry,
Thank you f9r your leùer of November 12, 1976 concerning mari­
time boundaries and related resource questions.

I appreciate your initiative in setting out genera[ princîples to
serve as a framework for continuing negotiations. Although I am in sub­
stantial agreement with the suggested framework, I have noted that cer­

tain elements on which I thought we had ·reached an understanding in
Washington - in particular long-term joint fisheries management - are
not addressed. Nevertheless I instructed Canadian officiais to develop
proposais for the November 18-19 bilateral fisheries consultations which
would build on the points set out in your letter and which would be non­
prejudicial to the boundaries positions of bath sides. I ~ad thought that
the approach put forward by Canadian officiais suggesting the use of an
ICNAF sub-area or areas met bath criteria and consequently, was con­

cerned to hear that United States officiais were unable to accept it.
As it appears that further fisheries negotiations ·cannot be
arranged before the end of December, it is now clear that the extended

Canadian fisheries jurisdiction will corne into effect on January 1. 1977
without either interim or long-term agreement having been concluded. In
these circumstances it would be my intention to recommcnd to my col­
leagues that Canada show restraint and forebearance in the enforcement
of its ex.tended jurisdiction. vis-à-vis the United States and thereby avoid­
ing action which might lead to conflict in the boundary areas and/or
prejudice the maritime boundaries and fisheries negotiations.

I am advised, however, that som~ United States officiais have
ex.pressed the view that the United States may not be· in a position to
ex.ercise reciprocal forebearance when the United States ex.tended fisher~
ies jurisdiction cornes into effect on March 1, 1977. In my opinion it
would be most unfortunate ifthis were the case. Moreover. I have some
difficulty in seeing how we on the Canadian side could be expected to

ex.ercîse forebearance in the absence of an understanding from the United
States side to act in a parallel manner. Such an understanding would of
course be far short of the permanent agreement or interim arrangement
that we had earlier hoped for. but I am confident that it would go some
way to avoiding the occurrence of incidents that could greatly complicate
the work of our boundaries and fisheries negotiators.

I look forward to the opportunity of discussing with, you at nex.t
week's meeting in Brussels, bath the idea of adopting an ICNAF ·sub- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 427

area for our short-term purposes and secondly, an understanding on

mutual forebearance.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Don JAMIESON

The Honourable Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
Secretary of State,

Washington.428 GULF OF MAINE

Annex44

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 6 0ECEMBER 1976

The Canadian authorities wish to confirm that they are prepared
to pursue full-scale negotiations (including representativesof the affected
interests) with the United States, for a period of two weeks beginning

Jan uary 17, 1977, with a view to working out short-term or interim fîsh­
eries arrangements intended to avoid connict in maritime boundary areas
and altow the time needed for the negotiation of long-term arrangements.
While fully appreciating the efforts the United States authorities have
made to reach a mutually agreeable accommodation of the respective
fîsheries interestsof the two countries, the Canadian authorities at the
same time must reaffîrm the doubts they have previously expressed con­

cerning certain elements of the United States proposais outlined in a
document conveyed to the Embassy of Canada on October 28, 1976.

With regard to the Aide-Mémoire (sic) transmitted to the
Canadian Embassy on November 18, the Canadian authorities would
only add, to the views they have already stated, that they are grateful for
the assurance provided concerning the United States Government's posi­
tion, under United States legislation, in respect to ensuring compliance by
its own nationals with the provisions of any agreement entered into with

the Government of Canada.
Washington,

December 6, 1976. ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 429

Annex.45

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 22DECEMBER 1976
(ATIACHMENT ÛMITIED)

The two hundred mile fisherîes jurisdîctions of Canada and of the
United States of America will corne into effect on January I and March
1, 1977 respectively.

As the Department of State is aware, negotiations have been
underway for some time between Canadian and United States officiais to
work out both interim and long-term fisherics arrangements to govern
fisheries zones. Separate negotiations have a\so been underway on mari­

time boundary delimitation which would inter aliaestablish the \atera!
limîts of our extended fisheries zones upon an agreed basîs. Unfortu­
nately, agreement has not yet been reached either on înterim or long-term
fisheries arrangements or on maritime boundary delimitation.

With respect to the questions of interim and \ong-term fisheries
arrangements, the Canadian authorities have agreed that, in view of the
fact that mutually acceptable fisheries and boundaries arrangements may
not yet be in place as of January 1, 1977 when Canada's extended fisher­
ies jurisdiction cornes into effect, Canada will, for the time being, waive
the requirement for United States fishing vessels to obtain Canadian
licences when engaged in pursuing current fisheries activities in the pro­

posed Canadian fisheries waters, and wîll exercise restraint as appropri­
ate in the enforcement of Canadian laws against United States vessels
and fishermen in the proposed Canadian fisheries waters, on the under­
standing that the United States authorities will act in a similar manner
on and after March l, 1977 with respect to Canadîan vessels and fisher­
men engaged in pursuing current Jisheries activities in the proposed
United States fishing zone, in the event that there has been no agreement
on interim bilateral or permanent fisherîes arrangements by the date of
the coming into force of the United States Fisheries Management and

Conservation Act. Accordingly attached to this Note is a copy of the
Canadian regulations entitled "The Transitional United States Fishing
Vesse! Licence Exemption Regulations" [For the text of the Regulatîons
see Annexes to the Memorial Submitted by Canada, Volume Il, Annex
32]:

The Canadian authorities wil\ continue to pursue negotiations in
both fisheries and maritime boundaries issues in the spirit of the talks
between the Canadîan Secretary of State for External Affairs and the
United States Secretary of State and the longstanding friendship and co­
opera tionw hich has characterized Canada/United States relations.

Washington, D.C.
December 22, 1976.430 GULF OF MAINE

Auuex46

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 626OF 22 DECEMBER 1976
(ATTACHMENTS R.ELATINGTO BOUNDARY AREAS ÜTHER THAN THE GULF OF MAINE
AREA HAVE BEEN ÜMITTED)

No. 626

The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Oepart­
ment of State and has the honour to refer to Note No. 103 of May 20,
1976 from the United States Embassy in Ottawa to the Department of
External Affairs concerning continental shelf boundaries and to Public
Notice No. 506 entitled "Maritime Boundaries Between the United
States and Canada''. published in the United States Federal Register of
November 4, 1976.

The Embassy notes that in a number of areas the co~ordinates of
the limits of the continental shelf and prospective fisheries jurisdiction set

out in Notice No. 506 differ from the co-ordinates for the relevant areas
set out in the text of the proposed Order-in-Council published in the
Canada Gazette on November 1, 1976, a copy of which is enclosed [For
the text of the proposed Order in Council see Annexes to the Memorial
Submitted by Canada, Volume li, Annex 29]. While the Order-in-Coun­
cil relates to fisheries jurisdiction only, the co-ordinates set out therein in
respect of boundary regions also encompass areas of the continental shelf

over which Canada has exercised jurisdiction for a number of years. The
Government of Canada does not accept or recognize as valid, for the rea­
sons set out below, the co-ordinates set out in the United States Notice
where they encroach upon the prospective Canadîan fishing zones as
described by the co-ordinates set out inthe proposed Order-in-Council.

The Embassy wîshes to take this opportunity to make clear the
views of the Government of Canada on each of the boundary areas in
question. The Department of State will note from the following that
Canada has used the median or equidistance approach in each case
except where the boundary has already been regulated by international

agreement or international arbitra I award:
(a) ln the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank arca most of the United
States co-ordinates fall north-cast of a line of equidistancè.
The Canadian co-ordinates have becn drawn in conformity

with the equidistance principlc in accordance with the provi­
sions of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the'Conti nentaI Shcl f
to which bath the United States and Canada are parties. lt will
be recalledthat Article 6(2)of the Convention provides:

"Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the terri­
toriesof two adjacent States, the boundary of the conti­
nental shelf shalt be determined by agreement between
them. In the absence of agreement, and unless another
boundary line is justified by special circumstances, the ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 431

boundary shall be dctermined by application of the rule of
equidistancc from the nearest points of the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea of each Statc îs

measurcd."

Canada has for many ycars exercised jurisdiction over the
resources of its continenta I shelf in accordancc wîth the terms
of the Convention. Sincc 1964 Canada has issued oil and gas

exploration pcrmits up to and straddling the line of equidis­
tance, with the perrnits for tracts straddling the line being
conditional upon their fallîng under Canadian jurisdiction.
This practice was confirmed in an exchange of letters between
Canadian and United States officiais in 1965, whcn the United
States Department of the Jnterior concurred in the median line

as the appropriate basis for the delimitation of the continental
shelf as between Canada and the United States off both the
East and West Coasts. During the ensuing period of state
practice, no protest or objection was made by the United
States until 1969.

(b) ln Grand Manan Channel the United States co-ordinates fa]]
on the Canadian sicle of the equidistance line. The Canadian
co-ordinates have been drawn in conformity with the equidis­
tance princîplc as reflected in the 1958 Geneva Convention on
the Territorial Sea and· the Contiguous Zone and, pending
agreement between the two countries by negotiation or third
party settlement proccdures, at no point go beyond the median

lîne. Jt will be reca!led that Article 12( 1) of the Convention
provides:

"Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent
to each other, neither of the two States is entîtled, failing
agreement between them to the eontrary, to extend its ter­
ritorial sea beyond the median linc every point of which is
cquidistant from the nearest points on the basc]ines from
which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two
States is measured .... "

The proposed United States co-ordinates appear to constîtutc a
new daim to jurisdiction over areas which are subject to

Canadian jurisdiction or sovereignty, induding Canadian
internai waters. Canada has long exercîsed sovereignty over its
internai and territorial waters in the Bay of Fundy and adja­
cent areas, including the waters around Grand Manan Island.
(c) The United States co-ordinates do not take into account

Canadian sovereignty over Machias·seal Island. The Embassy
refers the Department of Sta te to previous communications
from the Governmenl of Canada on this malter and in particu­
lar to the Department of Extemal Affairs Aide-Mémoire of
September 22, 1976 which reiterated that there is no evidence432 GULF OF MAINE

either to bring mto questiùn the long standing Canadian sover­
eignty over Machias Sea] Island or to support any United
States claim to the Island.

(d) Seaward of Juan de Fuca Strait the proposed Canadian co­
ordinates do not gu beyond the equ1distance line, pending
agreement between the parties by ncgotiation or third party
sett lement procedu res. The United States co-ord inates, whîle
based on the princip!e of equidistance, do not take into account
Canadian territorialsea baselines drawn in accordance with
esta blished principies of interna tiona I law, as reflectcd in the

l958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Con­
tiguous Zone. Il will be recallcd that Article 4( 1) of the Con­
vention providcs:

"In localities where the coast line is deeply indented and
eut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in
its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines
joining appropriate points may be cmployed in drawing
the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured."

(e) The United States co-ordinates inside Dixon Entrance do not
take into account the AB Line established by the Alaska
Boundary Arbitration Award of 1903. ln the Order-in-Council
published November 1, 1976 the Canadian Government has
not published co-ordinates inside the Dixon Entrance since the
international boundary in the areas has already been de!i­
neated by that Award. Canada has long exercised sovereignty

over its internai and territorial waters in the Dixon Entrance
area on the basis of the J903 Award.
(t) The United States co-ordinates in the Beaufort Sea do not
take into accounl the international boundary established by
the Treaty of 1825 between Great Brîtain and Russia and con­
firmed in the Trea ty of 1867 between the United States and
Russia. The Government of Canada has for many years exer­

cîsed jurisdiction in the Beaufort Sea up to the 141 ° mcridian
boundary including sovereign rights over the continental shclf.
While Canada has refrained from asserting jurîsdiction beyond
the equidistance line for the delimitation of those maritime boundaries

between Canada and the United States not already delimited by treaty or
arbitration,it reserves its rights with respect to areas beyond the equidis­
tance line in those cases where there exist circumstances comparable to
those on which the United States' claim in the Gulf of Maine area îs
based. (Attached are charts setting out the limits of Canadian claims
based on the same principles as those on which the United States' claims
are based, and which would be relevant in the event of a reference of this
question to third party settlement.)

The Embassy is pleased to note that the co-ordinates set forth in
the United States Notice are intended to be without prejudîce to any
negotiations with Canada. Itwill be recalled that the Canadian Order-in- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 433

Council published on November 1, 1976 similarly states that "... the

limits of the fishing zones of Canada as established in the annexed Order
are intended to be without prejudice to any negotiations or to any posi­
tions which may have been or may be adopted respecting the lîmîts of
maritime boundary jurisdiction ... "

Canada will continue to pursue negotiations with the United
States towards a mutually acceptable settlement in the spirit of long­
standing friendship and co-operation which has characterized
Canada/United States relations.

The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.

Washington, D.C.
December 22, 1976434
GULF OF MAINE

· Annex47

ÜNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 30DECEMBER 1976

The Departmcnt of Stale refers the Embassy of Canada to discus­
sions between Secrctary Jamieson and Secretary Kissinger on Octobcr 15

regard ing the des irabiIity of exerci sing rcst rai nt coning deve!opmcn t
of non-living resourccs in the boundary area of the Gulf of Maine. On
November. 4 the United States Government announced that both coun­
trîes would avoid steps for the time being rclating to the developrnent of
non-living resources in the boundary areas concerncd which could preju­
dice negotîation of a boundary settlcment.

ln this conncction, the Department is p!cased to inforrn the
Embassy that the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
lnterior announced on December 7 that 28 tracts have been rernoved

from a proposcd summer 1977 sale of North Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas leases. The announcement notcd that thîs action was
designed to assure for a short period of time that ongoing boundary
negotiations between the two countrics are not prejudiced.

Department of State,
Washington, Deccmber 30, 1976 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 435

Annex 48

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 8JANUARY 1977

The Embassy of the United States refers to the U.S.-Canada Gov­

ernment-to-Government Fisheries Consultations held in Ottawa, Novem­
ber l7-I9, 1976, the Canadian Embassy's Aide-Mémoire of December
22, 1976, the Department of State's Aide-Mémoire of December 30,
1976, and the U.S.-Canada Fishcries Negotiations on a Short-term
Agreement scheduled for January 17-31, in Los Angeles.

The United States Government believes the task now before
negotiators of our two Governments is to define appropriate short-term
arrangements to be in place by March 1, 1977, so tha t negotia tions can
be resumed on long-term fisheries arrangements· to be effective aftcr
January 1, 1978.

As the Department of State infonned the Embassy of Canada in
its Aide-Mémoire of December 30, 1976, in any event, after March !,
1977, Canadia n fishing in the Unîted States fishery conserva lion zone
needs to be pursuant to an international agreement which recognîzes
United States jurisdiction south of the equidistance line in the Gulf of

Maine area.
The Canadian Government bas taken the view that short-term
fisheries arrangements must include provision for joint U.S.-Canadian

management of fisheries stocks on the whole of Georges Bank.
As previously made clear, the United States cannot enter into a
short-term fisheries arrangement that involves joint management south of

the equidistance line in the Gulf of Maine area.
The United States Government is of the view that elements of a
short-term arrangement should include: An expiration date of Decembcr

31, 1977; no thîrd-party fishing in the areas betwccn our two lincs;
mutual forbearance in the areas between our two lines vis-à-vis fishennen
of our two countries; access on a reciprocal basis for fishennen of our two
countries to the respective fishery zones of each that lie beyond the pub­
lished lînes; arrangements that would ease, on a reciprocal basis the
administrative burdens which otherwise would apply; enforcement by
each country in îts own fishery zone outside of the areas between our two
lines;and in the areas between our two lines flag state enforcement
against nationa!s of our two countries and enforcement by either Govern­
ment against third flag vessels. Such short-term arrangements obviously
must provide for reciprocal access to fisheries on terms which do not

prejudice published daims or the outcome of subsequent negotiations for
long-term arrangements.
If îtis not possible to reach agreement on arrangements which
would provide for reciprocal access to fisheries on terms which do not

_prejudice published daims, nor prejudice the outcome of subsequent436 GULF OFMAINE

negotiations for long-term arrangements, a further question arises as to
the basis on which the two Governments should proceed after March 1,
1977. It wouId appea r thatif the two Governmen ts are not <1bleto reach
agreement on arrangements which reflect the special character of the
relationship between our fishermen, they should at least be prepared to

offer the same terms as have been offered third parties. For its part,
absent a reciprocal agreement, the United States Government is prepared
to negotiate a governing International Fishery Agreement with Canada
concerni ng Canadian fishing in the United States Fishery Conservation
Zone after Ma rch 1, 1977. 1n order to become effective on or about
March 1, 1977 such an agreement should be con cluded as expeditiously
as possible. The necessity for such an agreement, of course, is a judgment
for the Canadian Government to make. ln that instance, the United

States Government also would wish to negotiate for access, on terms no
more restrictive, to fisheries within the Canadian fisheries zone.
The United States Government is prepared to proceed on either

basis. It would be of assistance in preparing for the January 17 negotia­
tions, however, ta know beforehand how the Canadian Government
intends to proceed.

Embassy of the United States of America,
Ottawa, January 8, 1977. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 437

Aonex49

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 14JANUARY 1977

The Embassy of lhe United States of America has the honor to
refcr to the recent discussions between the Canadian Secretary of State
for External Affairs and the Amerîcan Ambassador concerning fîsheries

and maritime boundary issues, and is pleased to confirm that the Govern­
ment of the United States is prepared to procecd on the basis of the fol­
lowing understandings, which we believe are consistent wîth the positions
taken by the Canadian Secretary of State during that meeting.

The Government of the United States is prepared to cndeavor to
conclude a short-term fishery agreement whieh would expire on Dccem­
ber 31, 1977, and wouId not be extended. The Govern ment of the United
States is prepared to negotîate this agreement to reflect a pattern of fish­
ing which is consistent with the status quo. The short-term agreement
would not provide for joint management or joint surveillance and would

be struetured in a way to be consistent with coastal sta te jurisdiction out­
side the area between the lines published by the two Governments.

The Government of the United States continues to believe that the
elements of a short-term agreement are apparent and that they are set
forth in the Embassy's Aide-Mémoire of January 8, 1977. The Govem­
ment of the United States is pleased to leam that the Government of
Canada can agree that the short-term agreement nced not provide for
joint management or joint enforcement in the areas outside the lines pub­
lished by the two countries.

During 1977, the Government of the United States is prepared to
proceed with negotiations on long-term arrangements for each of the four
maritime boundary areas. In the Gulf of Maine, these arrangements
would consist of four elements: boundaries, long-term fishery arrange­
ments, long-term hydrocarbon arrangements, and arrangements regard­

ing marine pollution. These four elements would be considered, as appro­
priate, for the other three maritime boundary areas.

The Government of the United States welcomes the suggestion of
the Canadian Secretary of State with regard to third party settlement
and is prepared to reach a mutual understanding now to submit the Gulf
of Maine area maritime boundary, and other maritime boundaries as
may be agreed, to binding third party seulement if the two countries can­
not reach agreement by the end of 1977. The Government of the United
States would wish to resume discussion of boundary issues including ref~
erence to third party dispute settlement procedures, should that prove
necessary, as soon as possible.

Embassy of the United States of America,
Ottawa, January 14, 1977.438 GULF OF MAINE

Annex50

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 17JANUARY 1977

The Department of External Affairs refers to the Embassy's Aide­
Mémoires of January 8 and January 14, 1977, to the related discussions
concerning fisheries and maritime boundaries, and in partîcular, to the
Canada-USA negotiations for a short-term fisheries agreement being

held from Jan uary 17-31, 1977, in Los Angeles.
With regard to the suggestion in the Aide-Mémoire of January 8
that the Canadian Government is of the view that short-term fisheries

arrangements would inc!ude provisions for joint Canada-USA manage­
ment of fish stocks on the whole of Georges Bank, the Department wishes
to eonfirm that Canada is not seeking joint management in the short
term. Rather, what is essential in the view of the Canadian Government
is that these arrangements shou!d not be prej udicîal to the positions of
either Government on the boundaries issue.

1n thîs connection the Departmen t recalls the para !lei sta temen ts
issued by the two Governments in the Canada Gazette on November 1,
1976 and the Federal Register on November 4, 1976, respectîvety,
intended to avoid prejudice "to any negotiations or any positions which

may have been or may be adopted respecting the limits of maritime juris­
diction". lt wishes to reiterate îts view that certain basic elements in the
United States proposais of October 28 for short-tcrm !ïsherîes arrange­
ments were prejudicial to the position of the Canadian Government with
regard to the seulement of the boundaries and that from a Canadian per­
spective this approac h is therefore not an approprîa te basis for negot ia-
tîons. The Department notes with înterest the revised wording on coastal
state jurisdiction in paragraph 2 of the Aide-Mémoire of January 14 and
is prepared to discuss this approach in the hope that when developed in

concrete terms, it could provide a framework that avoids prejudice to the
positions of either Government with regard to the settlement of bound­
aries and rclated long-term arrangements.

The Canadian Government is in general agreement with the ele­
ments to be addressed in short-term arrangements as set out in paragraph
6 of the Aide-Mémoire of January 8, on the understanding that they
would be incorporated within such a non-prejudîcial framework.

Turning to other elements in the Aide-Mémoire of January 14:

A) It is the Departmcnt's view that the short-term fishing arrangements
would have to be extended beyond December 31, !977 ifa permanent
boundary settlcment has not been achieved in the meantime and the
malter is being refcrrcd to a third party.

B) The Department assumes the reference to a pattern of fishing con­
sistent with the status quo involves the use of the allocations already
agrced between Canada and the United States in the ICNAF context ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL Of CANADA 439

C) With regard to the references to "joint management", "joint surveil­
lance" and "joint enforcement", the Department's view is that the

Canadian proposais at the November 18-19 fisherics consultations do
not constitute joint management, joint surveillance, or joint cnforce­
ment in any sense implying dual jurisdiction.

D) The Department notes that third party procedure has so far. been
addressed in principle but as yet only in general terms. ln partîcular,
further consideration is needed as to which boundaries might be
referred to third party procedure. Moreover, with regard to the
assumption in the Aide-Mémoire concerning the bînding nature of
third party ·procedure, it is the view of the Department that agree­

ment will be needed on the nature of the process including its various
stages.
E) For the longer term, the Department notes the reference in the penul­

timate paragraph of the Aide-Mémoire of January 14 to four ele­
ments which, it is suggested, would comprise arrangements to be
negotiated in respect to the Gulf of Maine and would be considered,
as appropriate, for the other three maritime boundary areas. The
Department notes the USA agreement that these four elements -
boundaries, long-term fishery arrangements, long-term hydrocarbons
arrangements, and arrangements regarding marine pollution - are
interrelated and will need to be addressed. The Department wishes to
point out that no agreement had yet 1:feenreached as to how these ele­

ments might be treated; nor has it yet been agreed that there should
be a similar treatment for the various boundary areas. These are mat­
ters for further consideration.

The efforts of the Government of the United States to facilitate
negotiation of maritime boundaries and related issues are appreciated.

The Canadian Government for its part is equally concerned that negotia•
tians move forward expeditîously. To this end, the Government of
Canada is approaching the January 17 negotiations with every intention
of concluding a shorHerm fisherîes agreement that will allow ,timc for
negotiations to proceed in a favourable atmosphere towards the seule­
ment of the boundaries and long-term reciprocal resource arrangements.

OTTAWA, January 17, 1977.440 GULF OF MAINE

Aooex51

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 18 FEBRUARY 1977

[See II, Annex 66, "Notefrom the Department ofState to the Embassy of Canada,
dated 16February 1977''] ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 441

Annex52

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTENo. 97 OFI MARCH 1977

No. 97
The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the De.part·

ment of State and has the honour to rcfer to the rcciprocal fisherics
agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of
the United States signed in Washington on Fcbruary 24, 1977.

The Embassy is p!eased to notify the Departmcnt of State that, in
accordance with the provisions of Article XV 11 Jof the agreement, the
Government of Canada has completed all internai procedures necessary
to bring this agreement into force.

The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Department of State the assurances of îts highest considera tion.

Washington, D.C.
March 1, 1977442 GULF OF MAINE

Annex53

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 26 MAY 1977

The Canadian authorities have taken note of the press release
issued by the United States Department of the lnterior on December 20,
1976, announcing approvaI by the United States Geological Su rvey for a
second deep stratographic (sic) test well to be drilled in the Georges Bank
area. As already indicated in Aide-Mémoires of April 28 and August 16,
1976, and in a recent discussion between the Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources Gillespie and Secretary of the Interior Andrus concerning

drilltng in this area, the Canadian authoritics are concerned that such
activities may add to the comp!exity of continuing negotiations on mari­
time boundaries delimitation since they occur in an area where the
boundary between Canada and the United States has not been settled. ln
the Canadian Embassy Note 626 of December 22, 1976, the Government
of Canada reserved its position in this area.

. The Canadian authorities question whether United States authori-
zations of exploratory drilling in the Gulf of Maine area are consistent
with the position of the United States as set out in the United States
Embassy's Note No. 103 of May 20, 1976, and in the State Department's

Note of February 18, 1977, that maritime boundaries are to be deter­
mined by agreement or with the views expressed by the United States
delegation during informai tegal discussions on maritime boundary
delîmitation that there is no presumption in favour of the princip!e of
equidistance. In the absence of agreement between the United States and
Canada regarding the applicable rules of law, the fact that the drilling
sites in question fall on the United States side of the line of equidistance
does not exclude the possibility that such sites are located in areas which
may be subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. lt is for this reason that the

Government of Canada has reserved its rights with respect to areas
beyond the equidistance linc in those cases where there exist circum­
stances comparable to those on which the United States' daim in the
Gulf of Maine is based. Unti! the exact location of the Canada/United
States maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank area îs
settled, Canada can neither accept nor recognize as valid any United
States authorîzation of exploration or exploitation _of the natural
resources of the Continental Shclf in such areas.

The position of the Govcrnment of Canada concerning the appro­
priate delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Maine area is
well known to the United States authorities and need not be reiterated

here. The Government of Canada, however, continues to favour nego­
tiated settlements of the maritime boundaries between the two countries
and, therefore, believes it is important that no action be taken, pending a
final determination of the boundaries, which could prejudice such settle­
ments. ln this connection, the Canadian authorities wish to bring to the
attention of the State Department once again the fact that the Canadian ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 443

Government has nol, to date, authorized any form of drilling in the

boundary areas. The Canadian authorities have taken note of the infor­
mation containcd in the Department of State Note of Dec,embcr 30,
1976, concerning the removal of certain tracts in the boundary area in
the Gulf of Maine from a proposcd sale of oil and gas leases. lt is hoped
that the United States authorities wil! similarly refrain from drilling
throughout the boundary areas.

Washington, D.C.
May 26, 1977444 GULF OF MA1NE

Annex54

CANADIAN DIPLOMATICNOTE No. 221 OF26 MAY 1977
(WITH ATTACHMENT)

The Embassy of Canada presents îts compliments to the Depart­
ment of State and has the honou r to refer to the Dcpartment of State
Note of February 18, 1977. The Embassy docs not propose to address at
this stage ail the points raiscd in the Department of State's Note and

reserves the right to make further comments at a later date. However, the
Embassy considers ît important, to avoid misundcrstandings, to address
at this time certain questions of fact concerning the Canadîan position as
advanced in negotiations to date and certain questions of international
Jaw raised by the Note.
Wîth respect to an important question of fact as to positions ta ken

by the Government of Canada in the course of the negotiations between
officiaisof the two countries, the Note of February 18, 1977 reads in
part:

"In the area seaward of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the
area seaward of Dixon Entrance, the two Governments
have taken the same basic position that equîdistance is an
appropriate means for determining a maritime boundary in
accordance with special circumstances. There are no spe­
cialcircumstances in those areas."

"... (D)uring the course of the aforementioned legal dis­
cussions, the Canadian negotiators repeatedly asserted that
there were no special circumstances in the maritime bound­
ary areas between Canada and the USA. Of course, the
Government of Canada is free to change its position
regarding these matters ... "

The records of the Canadian negotiating team on the position of
the Government of Canada as to the principles of international law appli­
cable in the areas seaward of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and seaward of
Dixon Entrance make clear that in the legal discussions between
Ca nadian and USA officiais begun in 1970 and resumed in 1975/7 6, the
Canadian Government has consistently pointed out that factors deemed

to be special circumstances by the USA in the Gulf of Maine couId have
equal application in other areas. This, however, cannot be taken to sug­
gest that the factors deemed to be special circumstances by the USA in
the Gulf of Maine are îndeed special circumstances in fact or in law, or,
assuming the existence of special circumstances in this region, which the
Canadian Government does not admit, that they are necessarily those
advanced by the USA or would give the effect asserted by the USA. The
Canadian Government has not changed its position but rather, from the

outset, has reserved ail its rights in these matters. As an example of such
reservations, the Embassy would point to the relevant preambular para­
gra ph in the Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 4 and 5) Ortler PC 1977-1 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 445

of January 1, 1977 and various statements made by the Canadian side in
the course of negotiations with the USA. Relevant extracts from the text

of the statement made by the leader of the Canadian negotiating team in
Washington on July 23, l976 are attached.
With respect to applicable principles of international law, since

both states are parties to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental
Shelf, it is assumed that il is common ground that Article 6 of the Con­
vention is the applicable law:

"\. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the terri tories
of two or more States whose coasts are opposite each other,
the boundary of the continental shclf appertaining to such
States shall be determined by agreement betwcen them. ln
the absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line is
justified by special circumstances, the boundary is the median
line, every pointof which is equidistant from the nearest point
of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
of each State is mcasured.

2. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territorics
of two adjacent States, the boundary of the continental shelf
shall be determined by agreement between them. ln the
absence of agreement, and unless anothcr boundary !ine is
justified by special circumstances, the boundary shall be

determined by application of the principle of cquidistance
from the nearest points of the baselînes from which the
breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured."

The Canadian Government regards as at variance with the plain meaning
of Article 6 the position of the USA Government as stated in the Note of
February 18 that:
"... under the I958 Convention on the Continental Shelf,
and applicable principles of international law, maritime

boundaries are to be determined by agreement and in
accordance with equitable principles. The Government of
the USA is also of the view that equidistance is an appro­
priate method for determining a maritime boundary when
there are no special circumstances in the area and when
equidistance results in a boundary in accordance with equî­
table princip\es."

The Canadian Government is not aware of any legal authority for such
an interpretation of the Convention which, in its view, is not consistent
with Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea­
ties which states,

"A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance
with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the
treaty in their context and in the light of its object and pur­
pose."

The Government of Canada assumes that îtis comm9n ground that bath
countries are bound by the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental 446 GULF OF MA!Nll

Shelf and that it constitutes the essential basis for determining the rights
and obligations of the two countries under international law with respect

to the delimitation of the continental shelf between them. In order to
avoid any misunderstanding as to the basis on which negotiations are t~
be carried forward, ît îs important that both sides have a clear under­
standing, prior to the resumption of those negotiations, of the views of the
other regarding the legal rights and obligations of the two sicles.

The Government of Canada notes that the position of the USA
Government in the Beaufort Sea is that "... there are no special cîrcum­
stanccs in the area and equidistance produces a maritime boundary in
accordance with equita ble prînciples." lt wilI be recallcd tha t in the
United States Embassy Note No. 103 of May 20, l976, the Governmcnt -
of the Unîted States sta tcd that "the views regardi ng presumptions in
favour of equidistance exprcssed by the Canadian delcgation ... are no!

consistent with the Canadian action in the Beaufort Sea area." ln the
presentation of the Canadian dclcgatîon at the bilateral discussions on
maritime boundaries held in Washington on July 23, 1976, and in the
Canadian Embassy's Note No. 626 of Dccember 22, 1976, it was pointcd
out that the 14! 0 meridian was esta blished as the interna tiona! boundary
in that area by the Treaty of !825 between Great Britain and Russia. As
the Treaty is binding upon Canada and the United States as successor
states, it is the view of the Canadian Government that the prcsumptions

. in favour of cquidistance refcrrcd to in the United States Embassy Note
No. 103 of May 20, and presumably refJected in the United States co­
ordinatcs set out in Public Notice No. 506 of November 4, 1976, are not
applicable.

1n this context, the Canadian Govcrnment further recalls the rcf­
erencc in the United States Embassy Note of May 20, 1976, to the Tru­
man Proclamation of 1945. lt would appreciate clarification of United
States views as to the precise nature, exlent and scope of the Declara tion
in light of subsequent state practice of other states based on it,involving,
in certain cases, interference with freedom of navigation and othcr frce­
doms. lt wil! be recalled that, although the Govcrnment of Canada was
invited to associa te itsflwith the United States action at tha t time, it did
not do so. Wîth regard to the refercnce in the Note of May 20 to the sec­

tor theory, the Canadian Government is not awarc of those circumstances
referred to in which the scctor theory has been associated with attempts
to interfere unlawfully with navigational and other freedoms, and would
be grateful to receîve clarification on this point.

The Canadian Government notes that "the Governmcnt of the
USA continues to maintain that the sovereignty to Machias Seal Island
rests with the USA for the reason set out in the Aide-Mémoire of Sep­
tember 15, 1976.... " The Aide-Mémoire stated that "... sovereign title
to the Island . . . rests with the United States under Article 11of the
definitive Treaty of Peace of 1783 between the United States and Great
Britain." The Government of Canada does not accept that Article II of

the aforementioned Treaty conferred sovereign title to Machias Sea!
Island to the United States. There exists conclusive documentary evi­
dence of long standing exercises of_sovercignty by British, New Bruns- ----------- -------

ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 447

wick and Canadian authorities over-the is!and, including continuous and
unchallenged occupation since 1832. The Canadian Government wishes
to reiterate once again the position most recently conveyed in the
Emiïassy of Canada Note No. 626 of December 22, 1976, that there îs no
evidence either to bring into question the longstanding Canadian sover­

eignty over Machias Seal Island or to support any United States daim to
the island. In the Canadian view, the United States assertion concerning
Article Il of the aforementioned Treaty does not in itself constitute such
evidence. In the absence of prima facie evidence to support an alternativè
daim to sovereignty over Machias Sea! Island, the Government of
Canada does not accept that sovereignty over the island is in dispute and,

consequently, does not consider it an appropri_ate matter for-negotiation.
The Government of Canada favours an early resumption of

negotiations with the United States with a view to conc\uding a mutually
acceptable maritime boundaries seulement in the spirit of longstanding
friendship and co-operation which has characterized Canada/USA rela­
tions.

The Embassy of Canada avails. itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.

Washington, D.C.
May 26, 1977448 GULF OF MAINE

EXTRACTS FROM THE TEXT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MR. M. D. COPITHORNE,
LEADER OF THE CANADIAN TEAM, AT THE MARITIME BOUNDARY TALKS HELD IN
WASHINGTON ON 23 JULY 1976, ATIACHED TO THE CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE
No. 221 OF 26 MAY 1977

"lt is the Canadian position that the principles applicable to the
boundary delimitation in the Gulf of Maine are also relevant to the situa­
tion in the three other maritime boundary areas, that is to say "in the
absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line is justified by
special circumstances, the boundary should be deterrnined by application

of the principle of equidistance ... " ln our view, the situation off Juan de
Fuca is similar to that in the Gulf of Maine and, therefore, the same gen­
eral principles should apply in both instances. Canada could assert a
daim to a more southerly boundary on the basis of seabed configuration,
in particular the Juan de Fuca Canyon, and traditional Canadian fishing
south of the equidistance line, but we do not intend to pursue this line of

argument, at least at this stage, because, in our view, the strong presump­
tion in favour of the equidistance principle should prevail here as well as
in the Gulf of Maine."

"Il is, of course, the Canadian position that there is a strong pre­
sumption in favour of th'eequidistance principle and that the concept of
"special circumstances" should be given a restrictive interpretation.
Therefore, Canada is prepared to consider a boundary based on equidis­
tance outside Dixon Entrance, as it is off Juan de Fuca Strait and in the

Gulf of Maine. If,however, the contentions that there is not a presump­
tion in favour of the equidistance princip]e and/or that special circum-'
stances should be given a broad interpretation were to prevail, it is our
view that "special circumstances" prevail here, i.e. the delimitation
should follow a continuation of the final azimuth of the land boundary,
i.e. the AB fine, or the 54°40' paralle[ of latitude." ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 449

Annex55

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 27JUNE 1977

{See Il, Annex 67}

Annex56

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 7JULY 1977

[See Il, Annex 67} 450 GULF OF MAINE

Annex57

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC Nom No. 329 OF27 JULY 1977

Note. No. 329
The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Depart­
ment of State and has the honour to refer to the Department of State's

Note of June 27, 1977,its Aide-Mémoire ofJuly 7, and subsequent discus­
sions conceming the unsettled maritime boundaries between the two
countries.

The Government of Canada notes the Department of State's view
that further legal debate wil\ not .contribute to a solution of this problem
and that such debate shou!d be set aside for the time being. The Govern­
ment of Canada also notes, however, that the delimitations published by
the two Governments have been based on different legal principle-Sand
different diplomatie approaches. It therefore considers that, if the two
parties are to be put on an equal footing in the forthcoming negotiatîons
so that they can proceed towards a settlement on a fair basis, both parties

must take into account reservations that have been formally expressed.
The Government of Canada has noted the refusai by the Govern-
• ment of the United States to accept Canada's reserved positions based on

the same principles of international law as those asserted by the United
States. The Government of Canada nevertheless continues to reserve its
right to assert claims based on these or other positions and declares that
it wîll assert such claims as and when appropria te..

The Government of Canada understands that the two sides are in
agreement that positions asserted, and proposais made during the course
of the forthcoriling negotiations will be without prejudice to positions that
have been, or may be, adopted by cither party respecting the limîts of
their maritime jurisdiction.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the task of the Special
Negotiators is a comp!ex and difficult one. lt believes that the foregoing
statement of positions aJ?.dunderstandings will assist in achieving a nego­
tiated seulement of the outstanding maritime boundarics and related
resource issues between the two countries.

Washington, D.C.
July 27, 1977. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 451

Annex 58

UNITED STATES D1PLOMATIC Nom OF 4 AUGUST 1977

The Department of Statc acknowledgcs the Embassy of Canada's
note No. 329 of July 27, l977.

The Governmenl of the United States of America also under­
stands that the two sides arc in agreement that the positions assertcd, and
proposais made durîng the course of the forthcoming negotiations wî!l be

without prejudicc to positions that have been, or may be, adopted by
either party respecting the limits of thcir maritime jurisdîction.

With respect to the other points made in the Embassy note, the
Governmcnt of the United States maintains its position as previously
expressed to the Government of Canada.

Department of State
Washington, August 4, 1977. 452 GULF OF MAINE

Annex59

CANADIAN 0IPLOMATIC NOTE No. GNT-067 OF 3NOVEMBER 1977
(WITH ATTACHMENT)

No. GNT-067

The Deparlment of External Affairs presents its compliments to
the Embassy of the United States and has the honour to refer to the cur­
rentCanada/USA maritime boundaries negotiations.

As the United States' authorities are aware, the Government of
Canada is fully committed to these negotiations which have as their
abject a comprehensive settlement of ail outstanding maritime boundaries
and related resource issues between the two countries. The Government
of Canada is pleased to note that the negotiations are progressing in a
satîsfactorymanner and is hopeful that they will achieve a mutually
satisfactory accommodation of the respective maritime interests or the

two countries consistent with applicable rules and principles of interna­
tional law.
The Government of Canada is of the view that a successful out­

corne to the present negotiations could be facilitated if each Government
is fully aware or the views of the other concerning theîr rights and obliga­
tions with respect to maritime boundaries delimitatîon under interna­
tional law. Governments' views as to their rights and obligations are, of
course, a function of evolving international law and the Government of
Canada, consequently, is committed to reviewing periodically its actions
and positions to ensure that they are in conformîty with applicable rules
and principles of international law as developed and darified through
. conventions, state practice, judicial decisions, etc.

The Government of Canada has indicated on many occasions, and
most recently in the formai statement delivered by Ambassador Cadieux
at the Department of State on September 8, 1977, that the limits of the
fishery zones published in Order-in-Council P.C. 1977-1 of January 1,

1977 are without prejudice to any negotiations or to any positions which
may have been or may be adopted respecting the limits of maritime juris­
diction. Moreover, the Government has consistently reserved its rights to
daim continental shelf and fisheries jurisdiction to areas beyond the line
published in the aforementîoned Order-in-Council.

The USA authorities were informcd in discussions in Ottawa on
Octobcr 14, 1977 that the Government of Canada is of the view that
reccnt developments in international !aw and, in particular, the Anglo­
French Continental Shelf De/imitation Arbitration Award, have clarifîed
the scope and application of the principle of "special cîrcumstances" and
its relation to the princîple of equîdistance under Article 6 of the 1958

Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. as wetl as the scope and
application of "equitable princip!es" and their relation to the principle of ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 453

equidistance in customary international law on continental shelf delimita­
tion. The Award has also clarified the scope and nature of the principle of
"natural prolongation" as it relates to the problem of delimitation
between opposite and adjacent states and, in particular, to "special cir­
cumstances" and "equitable principles."

The Government of Canada is of the view that the application of
the principles of law enunciated and elucidated in the Anglo-French
Award to the factual situation in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank area

lead to the conclusion that the further projection sea.ward of the
cxceptionally long promontory of Cape Cod and of the islands of Nan­
tucket and Martha's Vineyard, when superadded to the marked protru­
sion of the USA coastline southeast of Boston, constitute an element of
inequity or distort ion material enough to justify the delimitation of a
boundary other than the strict cquidistance line. ln other words, thesc
coastal projections constitutc "special circumstances" under Article 6 of

the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, the disproportion­
ate and inequitablc cffects of which should be abated by an appropriate
adjustmcnt or modification of the strict equidistancc linc. lt is the view of
the Government of Canada that a linc drawn without reference to these
coastal projections constitutcs an equitable equidistance line and, there­
fore, the lateral limits of Canada 's continental shelf and fisheries jurisdic­
tion in the Atlantic area seaward of the Gulf of Maine. The geographical
coordinates defining, on this basis, the revised limits of Canada's mari­
time jurisdiction in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank area are listed in

the Annex to this Note.
Nevertheless, in order not to prejudice in any way the conduct of
the current negotiations referred to above, the Government of Canada

has decided to forego the public assertion of the claim defined by the
annexed coordinates and the exercise of its jurisdietion in areas beyond
the published equidistance line, pending the outcome of these negotia­
tions.

1twill be noted tha t the contents of the present Note refer only to
the Gulf of Mainc/ Georges Bank arc a in respect of which representatives
of the Canadian and U.S. Governments have rcccntly hcld discussions on
the implications of the Anglo-French Continemal Shelf De/imitation
Arbitra/ion Award. The Government of Canada looks forward to further
exchanges of vicws bctween Canadian and USA officiais on the implica­
tions of recent developmcnts and, in particular, of the aforementioned
Arbitration Award, for the respeclivc lgal positions of the two cou ntries

in the othcr maritime boundary areas.
The Government of Canada wishes to emphasize once again its
commitment to making every effort to achieve a comprehensive settle­

ment in the context of the current negotiations.
The Department of Externat Affairs avails itself of this opportu­

nity to renew to the Embassy of the United States the assurances of its
highest consideration.
Ottawa, November 3, 1977 454 GULF OF MAINE

AREA 2. GULF OF MAINE REGION
Column I Column Il
Column III
Latitude Longitude CHS Chart

1. 44° 46' 35".346" N. 66° 54' 11".253" W. 4003
2. 44° 45' 44" N. 66° 55'05"11W. 4003
3. 44° 45' 30" N. 66° 55' 23 W. 4003
4. 44° 45' 11" N. 66° 55'51" W. 4003
5. 44° 45'·04" N. 66° 56'02" W. 4003
6. 44° 44' 35" N. 66° 56'32" W. 4003
7. 44° 44' 31" N. 66° 56'36" w. 4003
8. 44° 44'03" N. 66° 56' 58" w. 4003
9. 44° 43'49" N. 66° 57'07" w. 4003
10. 44° 42' 58" N. 66° 57' 48" W. 4003
11. 44° 42'41" N. 66° 58'00" W. 4003
12. 44° 42' 20" N. 66° 58' 23" W. 4003
13. 44° 42' 18" N. 66° 58' 25" W. 4003
14. 44° 41' 44" N. 66° 59 17" W. 4003
15. 44° 40' 58" N. 66° 59 54" W. 4003
16. 44° 40' 33"N. 67° 00 17" W. 4003
17. 44° 40' 14" N. 67° 00 26" W. 4003
18. 44° 39'43" N. 67° 00 42 W. 4003
19. 44° 39' 11" N. 67° 01'09" W. 4003
20. 44° 39'05" N. 67° 01' 13" W. 4003
21. 44° 38' 30" N. 67°01 41" W. 4003
22. 44° 37'46" N. 67° 02' 13" W. 4003
23. 44° 37' 29" N. .67° 02' 20" W.• 4003
24. 44° 37' 28"N. 67° 02' 2011W. 4003

25. 44° 36' 24" N. 67° 06' 26" W. 4003
26. 44° 35'50" N. 67° 07' 36" W. 4003
27. 44° 34'57" N. 67° 09' 27" W. 4003
28. 44° 33'09" N. 67° 11'22" W. 4003
29. 44° 32'57" N. 67° li' 31" W. 4003
30. 44° 32' 35"N. 67°l\'46"W. 4003
31. 44° 30'09" N. 67° 14'45" W. 4003
32. 44° 29'49" N. 67° 15'09" W. 4003
33. 44° 29'47" N. 67° 15' 11" W. 4003
34. 44° 28' 10"N. 67° 16'01" W. 4003
35. 44° 27' 29"N. 67° 16'21" W. 4003
36. 44° 26' 22"N. 67° 16'54" W. 4003
37. 44° 23' 37"N. 67° 18' 17" W. 4003
38. 44° 22' 37"N. 67° 18'16" W. 4003
39. 44° 12'05" N. 67° 16'55" W. 4003
40. 43° 59 04" N. 67° 14'29" W. 4003
41. 43° 49' 55" N. 67° 12'25" W. 4003
42. 43° 49' 29" N. 67° 12'42" W. 4003
43. 43° 37'36" N. 67° 12'24" W. 4003
44. 43° 03'09" N. 67° 24' 19" W. 4003
45. 42° 20' 32" N. 67° 45' 34" W. 4003
46. 41° 56 39" N. 67° 51' 23" W. 4003
47. 41°37'13"N. 67° 38'45" W. 4003
48. 40° 05'49" N. 66° 41'49" W. 4003 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 455

Annex60

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC NOTE OF 2 DECEMBER 1977

{See II, Annex 69}456 GULF OF MAINE

Annex61

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC Nom No.FLP-110 OF 251ANUARY 1978

No. FLP-1 lO

The Department of Externat Affairs presents its compliments to
the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to refer
to North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale No.
42 of January 31, 1978 as announced in the U.S. Federal Register on
December 30, 1977.

In its Note GNT-067 of November 3, 1977, the Department
informed the Embassy that the equitable equidistance line therein
described constitutes in law the lateral limits of Canada's continental
shelf and fisheries jurisdiction in the area seaward of the Gulf of Maine.

The Government of Canada notes with concern that some of the tracts to
be offered for lease sale oJa nuary 31, 1978 fall on the Canadia n side of
the equitable equidistance line and are, therefore, in an area in which
Canada claims jurisdiction. The Government of Canada formally
requests that the tracts falling on the Canadian side of the equitable equi­
distance line be withdrawn from [the] lease sale of January 31 and that,
pending a final determination of the maritime boundary in that area, no
action be taken by either country which could prejudice a settlement.

The Government of Canada has previously reserved its rights and

those of its nationals in the area in question. Until the exact location of
the Canada/USA maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine/Georges
Bank area is settled, Canada can neither accept nor recognize as valid
any United States Government authorization of exploration or exploita­
tion of the natural resources of the continental shelf in the area in ques­
tion.

The Government of Canada is of the view that the sale at this time
of o~l.and gas leas~s in an a.re~ in ".ontent.ion in the curre~t Canada/USA
maritime boundanes negotlatwns 1snot m accordance w1th the obJect or
spirit of these negotiations. In its Note GNT-067 of November 3, 1977,
the Department stated that, in order not to prejudice in any way the con­

duct of the current negotiations, the Government of Canada had decided
to forego the public assertion of the claim defined by the coordinates
annexed thereto and the exercise of Canadian jurisdiction in areas
beyond the published equidistance line, pending the outcome of these
negotiations. However, the Government of Canada can only maintain the
confidentiality of its claim and forbearance in the exercise of its jurisdic­
tion if the Government of the United States exercises similar restraint in
the area in question. Ifthe United States authorities intend to proceed
wîth the sale of oil and gas Jeases on tracts in the area formally claimed

by Canada on November 3, 1977, the Government of Canada will be
_obligedto publish a Notice in the Canada Gazette, prior to the date of ANNEXESTO MEMORIALOFCANADA 457
the proposed sale, announcing Canada's equitable equidistance line claim
in respect of continental shelf and fisheries jurisdiction in the Gulf of
Maine/Georges Bank area and reservîng Canada's position with regard
to any oil and gas leases which may be issued by the United States
authoritîes in the area in question. The Government of Canada believes
that it must make its position a matter of public record prior to any such
sale so that corporations and individuals concerned with exploration and

any bids for leases on tracts in the area in question.n before submitting

The Government of Canada wishes to emphasize once again its
commitment to making every effort to achieve a settlement of the out­
standing maritime boundaries and related resource issues in the context
of the current negotiations and hopes that neither country will take any
action which might prejudice the conduct or outcome of these negotia­
tions or any other ptocedures for settlement which may be agreed to by
the two Governments.

The Department of External Affairs avails itself of this opportu­
nity to renew to the Embassy of"the United States the assurances of its
highest consideration.
Ottawa, January 25, 1978458 GULF OF MAINE

Annex62

UNITED STATES ÜIPLOMATJC NOTE OF 3 fEBRUARY 1978

[See Il, Annex 70} ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 459

Annex 63

CANADIAN D1PLOMAT1c Nom No. 193 oF 26APRIL 1978

CanadianEmbassy AmbassadeduCanada

No. 193

The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Depart­
ment of State and has the honour to refer to the Exchange of Notes com­
pleted April 11, 1978 constituting an lnterim Reciprocal Fisheries Agree­
ment between Canada and the United States. The Canadian authorities
have been keeping under review the provisional implementation of the
Agreement. While the regional consultative committees have not yet been
established, continuing consultations have taken place between officiais

of the two governments regarding this matter. As a result of these consul­
tations, the Canadian authoritîes view with concern certain developments
which could adversely affect the fair and balanced implementation of the
Agreement.

In particular, the Canadian authorities note with concern certain
recommendations which are reported to have been recently adopted by
the New England Regional Council respecting increased allowable cat­
ches of cod and haddock in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank area, the
absence of any contrai of United States fishermen in the scallop and pol­

lock fisheries in the same area, and uncertaintics regarding access by
Canadian fishermen to the United States zone to take agreed allocations
of mackerel.

With regard to the Pacifie coast, the Canadian authorities con­
tinue to view the situation which obtains in the Swiftsure Bank area of
British Columbia Statistical Area 21 as not giving rise to a conservation
problem within the meaning of Paragraph 1(c) of the Annex to the
Canadian Note under reference.

ln view of the difficulties noted in connection with implementing
the lnterim Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement, the Canadian authorities
propose an immediate meeting of officiais of the two governments to
review the situation in order to attempt to resolve oustanding differences.
The Canadian authorities would be pleased to arrange for such a meeting

in Ottawa Friday, April 28, 1978.
The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew

to the Department of State the assurances of its highest cohsideration.
Washington, D.C.

April 26,1978460 GULF OF MAINE

Annex64

CANADIAN D1PLOMATIC Nom No. FLM-0058 OF 3 MAY 1978

FLM-0058
The Department of External Affairs presents its compliments to
the Embassy of the United States, and has the honour to refer to the

Exchange of Notes completed April 11 constitutîng an lnterim Reeipro­
ca\ Fisheries Agreement between Canada and the U.S.A., to the Embassy
of Canada 's Note to the Department of Sta te of April 26, 1978 and to
discussions between officiais of the two Governments on April 28 in
Washington.

The Government of Canada views with deep disappointment the
action of the Government of the U.S.A. in invoking paragraph 1(c) of the
Annex to the lnterim Rcciprocal Fisheries Agreement with respect to the

limited Canadian troll fishery on Swiftsure Bank, April 15-28. As
expressed in the Embassy of Canada's Note and at the April 28 meeting,
the Canadian authorities were prepared to announce the closure of the
Swiftsure Bank fishery on April 27, even though they did not consider
that a conservation problem exists, as the immature salmon ("shakers")
problem in the fishery up to that time had resulted in spawning escape­
ment losses of only a few hundred fish. In view of the U.S. action in
invoking paragra ph l(c), the Ca nadian authorities have decided not to

close the fishery on Swiftsure Bank. The Government of Canada contin­
ues toview the situation on Swiftsure Bank as not giving rise to a conser­
vation problem, and in the absence of any communications from the U.S.
authorities supplying evidence to the contrary, formally requests theov­
ernment of the United States to restore the provisions of the agreement
suspended by the United States authorities on May 1.

As stated in the Embassy of Canada's Note of April 26, the Gov­
ernment of Canada has been kceping under rcview the implementation of

the Agreement, and in addition to the Swîftsure Bank problems, has
noted several other difficulties.

ln particular, the Government of Canada is seriously concerned
about actions taken by the United States with respect to the regulation of
fisheries for certain stocks in .the Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine area. ln
regard to haddock in Subarca 5 and cod in Subdivision SZE, the
Canadian authorities wish. to reiterate concerns expressed to U.S. offi­
ciais during 1977 tha t fisheries management pla,is devcloped by U.S.
authorities for both 1977 and 1978 permît fishing by United States fish­

crmen which results in total catches by fishermen of both countries
exceeding levels whîch are judged by Canadian scientists to be consistent
with sound conservation. The Government of Canada is of the vîew that
QOth United States and Canadian authorities should regulate their
respective fisheries in the Georges Bank area so that their aggregate cat· ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 461

ches, including the recrea tional catch, in 1978 are minimized for haddock
in Subarea 5 and do not cxceed 30,000 metric tons for cod in Subdivision
5ZE, in accordance with the conclusions reported by Canadian and
United States scientists at a meeting in Ha! ifax on November 1-4, 1977.
ln this connection, the Government of Canada has exerted its bèst efforts

to contrai the catch of these two species to that agreed ad referendum
within ICNAF for 1977, and has already taken action in 1978 to close
the directed haddock fishery to mcct conservation requirements.

The Government of Canada is especially concerncd with the
increase in United States fishîng effort and catches of scallops in the
Georges Bank area at a time when Canada is limiting bath the number of
fishing vessels permitted to operate in the fishery and the catches each

vesse! may make. In consultations between regional officiais of the two
Governmen ts in Halifax on April 21, the Canadian authorities were pro­
vided with information indicating that the U.S. scallop fishing effort
more than doubled from 1976 to 1977 and that there is a further increase
in 1978. Moreover, an increasing part of that effort is being deployed in
the north-eastern portion of the Bank. Canada views this deviation from
existing patterns as inconsistent with the terms, as well as with the abject
and purpose, of the interim agreement. Thus ît is becoming increasingly
difficult forCa nada to restrain its fishermen when United States fisher­

men operate without restriction. Attention of the United States authori­
ties is drawn to the report of the scientists of the two countries on their
November J-4 meeting indicating that the scallop stocks were in danger
of being overfished and suggesting levels of effort be reduced to protect
the stock. The Canadian Government is concerned that, if it îs found
necessary to remove limits on its Canadian fishery, the increased
Canadian and U.S. fisheries will inevitably lead to a serions depletion of
the stock. The Canadian Government therefore requests the Government
of the United States to consider immediately adopting measures in its
scallop fïsht:ry to paral!cl those adopted by Canada, consistent with pre­

existing fishing patterns and the urgent conservation needs of the stock.

The Government of Canada îs also concerned about the Jack of
regulations respecling the U.S. fishermen's catch of pollock in Subarea 5
in 1978. The Canadia n authorî lies note tha t U.S. catches in 1977
resulted in the aggregate catches by bath countries exceeding the 30,000
metric ton limît agreed upon by scientists of the two countries as being
the maxill)Uffi sustaînable yield. The Canadian authorities take note that
at their meeting of November 1-4, 1977, Canadian and U.S. scientists

concluded that the status of the pollock stock has deteriorated and that in
the interests of conservation the catch in l978 should be lower than
30,000 metric tons. The Canadian Government is therefore of the view
that the United States should urgcntly adopt measures to ensure that its
pollock catch is not in excess of 9,000 metric tons. For its part, the Gov­
ernment of Canada would be prepared to limit the Canadian catch to
20,975 metric tons, in order to provide an aggregate catch of not J1?.0re
than 30,000 metric tons. Canada would also be prepared to consider tak­
ing even more stringent measures if the United States were prepared to
do likewise.462 GULF OF MAINE

The Canadian authorities note that U.S. fisheries for groundfish,
particularly rockfish, in that part of PMFC statistical area 3C off the
coast of Washington State, are also operating without restrictions, and
are concerned about the conservation implications of such activities.

Given the urgency of the situation, as outlined in this Note, the

Government of Canada proposes that, in view of their role in împlement­
ing the lnterim Agreement, the Special Negotiators convene a meeting
during the week of May 8 to review difficulties affecting the agreement
and, in partîcular, to consider mutually acceptable domestic regulations.

The Department of External Affairs avai!s itself of this opportu­
nity to renew to the Embassy of the United States the assurances of its
highest considera tion.

Ottawa, May 3, 1978 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 463

Annex 65

CANADIAN DIPLOMA TIC NOTE No. FLM-0092 OF 2JUNE 1978

N". FLM-0092

The Department of ExternaI Affairs prcsents its compliments to
the Embassy of the United States and has the honour to refer to the
Exchange of Notes completcd April 11 constituting an lnterim Rccipro­
cal Fisheries Agreement for 1978, and to recent discussions between the
Special Negotiators for Maritime Boundaries and Related Resource

Issues with regard to the implemcntation of the Agreement.
Due to difficu!tîes which have arisen with regard to the implemen­

tation of the 1978 Interim Reciprocal Fisherîes Agreement, and which
have not been resolved in the course of the discussions between the Spe­
cia! Negotiators, the Government of Canada îs not at this time prepared
to continue implementation on a provisional basis of the Agreement.
Therefore, United States fishing vessels will not be pcrmittcd to continue

fishing operations in Canadian fisheries waters after noon, local time,
June 4, 1978 except those vessels fishing pursuant to the Convention for
the Prcservation of the Halibut Fishery in the Northern Pacifie Ocean
and Bering Sea of March 2, 1953.

The Government of Canada is prepared to undertakc, on a recip­
rocal basis, efforts to avoid confrontation in the boundary regîons by
adopting nag-state enforcement procedures along the lines of the 1977
Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement. The Government of Canada is also pre­

pared to convene a meeting of officiais to discuss such arrangements at
the earlîest possible date.

The Government of Canada reaffirms its commitment to pursue
ncgotiations on maritime boundaries and related resource arrangements,
as we\l as a longterm salmon interception agreement, in an effort to con­
clude mutually acceptable agreements as soon as possible. ln addition,
the Government of Canada is willing to discuss further the question of
interim fisheries arrangements for the balance of 1978.

Ottawa, June 2, 1978464 GULF OF MAINE

Annex66

UNITED STATES ÜIPLOMATIC NOTENo. ]25 OF 2 JUNE 1978

{See II, Annex 72, "Notefrom the Embassy of the United States to the
. Department of Extemal Ajfairs, dated 2 June 1978'1 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA
465

Aonex 67

LEITER OF 2JUNE 1978FROM THE CANADIAN SPECIAL NEGOTIATOR
TO THE UNITED STATES SPECIAL NEGOTIATOR

Ottawa, Ontario

KIA 002
June 2, 1978
My dear colleague,
The Department of External Affairs has just informed the United
States Embassy that the Canadian Government will no longer continue to
give provisional effect to the 1978 Interim Reciproca\ Fisheries Agree­
ment. The purpose of this letter is not to rehearse the history of our dif­

ferences over the Interim Agreement, but rather to reaffirm my commit­
ment to pursue the negotiations towards a long term agreement which
will provide a framework for resolving such differences as may occur in
the future.
I continue to believc and l know you share this view that an agree­
ment which encompasses, in an inter-related framework, the full range of
trans-boundary maritime issues of common concern to our two countries

is the most promising means of assuring that the important maritime
resources along our common borders can be effectively managed in our
mutual interests.
We both agree that negotiations towards a long term maritime
boundary / resources agreement should be pursued vigorously and that the
problems we have encountered with respect to the Interim Reciprocal
Fisheries Agreement need not and should not be allowed to impede this

process. In order to promote an atmosphere which will facilitate our
negotiations, I propose that the two governments should enter into an
undertaking that the actions of the two countrics relating to jurisdictional
matters in the boundary areas for the duration of our negotiations shoulù
be considered as not prejudicing the position of either country in the
negotiations-or in any third party procedures to which these jurisdictional
disputes may be submittcd.
In the course of the past eight months, I have found that we have

workedeffectively together and I believe your future avai\ability augurs
well for the success of our endeavours.
I look forward to resuming our negotiations on a long term agree­
ment in the very near future and to submitting a final joint report to our
governments shortly thereafter.
Yours sincerely,

(Signed) M. CADIEUX
M. Cadieux
Negotiator for Maritime
Boundaries (Canada/USA)
Special Negotiator Lloyd N. Cutler,

U.S.A. Departmcnt of State,
Washington, D.C.466 GULF OF MAINE

Anoex68

LETTER OF 2JUNE 1978FROM THE UNITED STATES SPECIAL NEOOTIATOR
TO THE CANAOIAN SPECIAL NEGOTIATOR

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520

June 2, 1978
My dear Marcel:
I deeply regretthat the Government of Canada has found it neces­
sary not to give provisional effect to the 1978 Reciprocallnterim Fisher­
ies Agreement any longer. Throughout the negotiation of the 1978
Interim Agreement, and throughout our consultations regarding îts
implementation, I have continued to hope that our dîfferences might be

resolved in a manner which would permit reciprocal fishing to continue
pendîng completion of the negotiation of a long-term agreement. Those
differences, unfortunately, still remain unresolved.
As is evident, interim agreements based upon generalized refer­
ences to the status quo are clearly insufficient to meet the maritime con­
cerns of importance to us both. I fullyagree that we must now urgently
and forcefully pursue the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement on
maritime boundary and resource issues. I share your view that the prob­

lems we have encountered in the effort to establîsh a regime for con­
tinued reciprocal fishing in 1978 themselves demonstra te the pressing
need for an agreement that encompasses the full range of maritime issues
in an interrelated framework and that includes mechanisms for the settle­
ment of differences.
I also fully agreethat the actions of the two countrîes relating to
jurisdictionalmatters in the boundary regions for the duration of our
negotiations should be considered as not prejudîcing the position of either
country in the negotîation of a long-term agreement or in any third party
procedures to which jurisdictional disputes might be submitted. I hope
that mutual restraint by both sides will prevent the exacerbation of our

differences in those regîons.
I believe, as you, that our common effort over the past months
provides a firm basis for future progress. The dedication and statesman­
ship you have brought to these negotiations give me confidence that we
can resolve the issues before us in a comprehensive agreement that serves
the important maritime interests of both countries.
With warm regards,

(Signed) Lloyd N. ClJTLER
U.S. Representative
U.S.-Canadian Maritime Negotia­
tions
The Honorable Marcel Cadieux,
Canadian Representative,
Mission of Canada to the

European Communities,
Brussels, Belgium. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 467

Anne"69

CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 24 OF 26 JUNE 1978

The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Depart­
ment of State and has the honour to refer to the negotiations on maritime

boundaries and related resource issues, Canada's reservation of its rights
in areas beyond the limits published in Order-in-Council P.C. 1977-1 of
January 1, 1977, and Canada's daim to fisheries and continental shelf
jurisdiction up to the equitable equidistance line set out in the Depart­
ment .of External Affairs Note GNT-067 of November 3, 1977 and the
coordinates annexed thereto.

As the Department of State is aware, the decision of the Govern­
ment of Canada to forbear in the public assertion of its daim ·ta the equi­
table equidistance line and in the exercise of Canadian jurisdictîon in
areas beyond the published equidistance line in the area seaward of the

Gulf of Maine, pending the outcome of the current negotiations on mari­
time boundaries and related resource issues, was taken in order not to
prejudice in any way the conduct of these negotiations. The commitment
of the Governments of Canada and the U.S. to pursue these negotiations
has recently been reaffirmed in the Department of External Affairs Note
FLM-0092 of June 1 (sic) and the Embassy of the United States Note
125 of June 2, 1978.

In view of the position of the Government of the United States
that the public assertion by Canada of îts claim to the equitable equidis­
tance line in the area seaward of the Gulf of Maine, or of daims to any
jurisdictional limits beyond the limits published in Order-in-Council P.C.

1977-1 of January 1, 1977, would seriously prejudice the current negotia­
tions, the Government of Canada is prepared to continue to forbear,
pending further developments in the negotiatîons, in the public assertion
and exercise of its jurîsdictîon on the basis of a non-prejudicial under­
standing between our two Governments.

The Government of Canada therefore proposes that no acts or
activities or forbearance from acts or actîvities, including the publication
of daims, subsequent ta November 3, 1977, shall constitute a basis for
asserting, supporting or denying, nor be construed as affecting or prejud­
icing, any position or daim which has been or may subsequently be
adopted by either Government in the course of consultations, negotiations
or third party settlement procedures respecting the maritime jurisdiction,

including the limits thereof, of Canada or of the United States of
America. This understanding is subject to termination by either Govern­
ment on 15 days written notice ta the other, and in that case shall apply
only in respect of acts or activities or forbearance from acts or activities
occurring prior to the effective date of such termination.468 GULF OF MAINE

The Government of Canada would be grateful if the Government
of the United States would confirm its acceptance of the non-prejudicial
understanding set forth in this Note.

The Embassy of Canada avails îtse.Jfof this opportunity to renew
to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideratîon. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 469

Annex 70

UNITED STATES D1PLOMATlC Nom OF 25 JULY1978

CONFIDENTIAL

The Department of State refers to the note of the Embassy of
Canada No. 24 of June 26, 1978, to the Department of Externat Affairs'
note GNT.067 of November 3, 1977, and to the note of the Department
of State of December 2, 1977.

The United State Government confirms its view that assertion by
either Canada or the United States of a claim of jurisdiction in areas
beyond published lines could prejudice the possibility of amicable resolu·
tion of the maritime boundary and related resource issues currently under
negotiation between the two Governments. As the Embassy is aware, the
United States Government is deeply committed to pursuing such a resolu­

tion and is hopeful that the progress made to date will lead to the success­
ful conclusion of a long-term agreement in the near future.
The United States Government understands the position of the
Government of Canada set forth in note No. 24 of the Embassy of

Canada and agrees that acts of forbearance by either party, subsequent
to November 3, 1977, are without prejudice to any position which has
been or may subsequently be adopted by either government with respect
to the limits of maritime jurisdiction.
Department of State,
Washington, July 25, 1978.

CONFIDENTIAL470 GULF OF MAINE

Annex71

CANADIAN AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 15JANUARY 1979

Canadian. Embassy
Ambassade du Canada

The Canadian authorities view with regret and concern gco­
logica! surveys conducted in rcccnt years for the United States Geological
Survey and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on the Continental
Shelf of Canada on Georges Bank and the Laurentian Fan. These surveys
were conducted without advance notification to, or consent by, the
Canadian authorities. The areas affected are subject to the sovereîgn
authority of Canada pursuant to the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention

to which bolh countrics are parties. The specific surveys in question are
the fo!lowing:
(1) lt has corne to the attention of the Canadian authorities that the
United States Geological Survcy has contractcd for a comprehensive
grid of multichannel seismic surveys in the Atlantic shelf region dur­

ing the years 1974 to 1978. Somc of these survcys encompassed areas
of the continental shelf on Georges Bank subject to Canadian sover­
eign rights. There is no record of permission havîng been requcsted to
carry out lhesc surveys, nor was data resuhing from these survcys
provided toany Canadian regulatory or scientific agency.

(2) The Canadian authorities have furthcr learned that the United
States Geological Survey without prior notification to Canada has
considered a joint scismic survey with another country on the Atlan­
tic continental margin, including several lines on portions of the
Georges Bank, in the Northeast Channel, on neighbouring Browns
Bank, and the adjacent continental slope, ail subject to Canadian
sovereign rights.

(3) A United States Scîentist James Austin of Woods Hole Oceano­
graphic Institution, presented a paper at an international seminar in
Halifax in August, l978, entitled "The Geological History of The
Passive Margins Off New England and The Canadian Maritime
Provinces" in which it was revealed that Woods Hole has acquired
more than 10,000 line kilometres of single and multichannel seismic

profilt!s on .Georges Bank and the Laurentian Fan. The location of
thesc seismic profiles wcrc illustra ted in maps circula ted to seminar
participants.Much of this data relates to areas of the continental
margin subject to Canadian sovercignty. 1t would appear that these
surveys were carrîed oui in 1975 over Georges Bank and in 1977 on
the Laurentian Fan, using the research vesse] "Atlantis II". There is
no record of any permission be1ng qucsted (sic)of Canada to carry

out these seismic surveys, nor werc Canadian scientists invitcd to
participate or provided with the resultant basic data.
Pursuant to the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, "the con­
sent of the coastal state shall be obtained in respect of any research con- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 471

cerning the continental shelf and undertaken there". As indicated, there
is no record of advance permission having been requested from the
Canadian authorities pursuant to the Convention to carry out the above
mentioned surveys on areas of the continental shelf on Georges Bank and
the Laurentian Fan which are subject to Canadian sovereignty.

The Canadian authorities,by drawing this matter to the
attention of the United States authoritîes, assume that in future the
United States will seek prior permission to conduct surveys on the
Canadian continental shelf. The Canadian authorities would be grateful,
in due course, to receivc a detailed description of the results of the abovc
surveys.

Washington, D.C.
January 15, 1979472 GULF OF MAINE

Annex 72

LEITER OF 24 JAN UAR Y979 FROM THE CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STA TE FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DON JAMIESON TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
CYRUS VANCE

OTTAWA
KIA OG2

January 24, 1979.
Dear Cy,

1 have just received Ambassador Cadieux's report on the success­
ful conclusion of the negotiations on an Atlantic coast fîsheries agree­
ment at the meeting in Washington yesterday. This happy ending to a

long and complicated process is particularly welcome as our respective
East Coast fishermen look forward to the 1979 fishing season.

Ambassador Cadieux also conveyed to me the message you sent
through Deputy Secretary Christopher concemi ng the Administration 's

support for the agreement and the commitment to secure speedy Senate
ratification of both the fisherics agreement and the agreement on third
party reference of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank maritime boundary.
I have noted your view that if we can complete the drafting of the two
agreements by the beginning of March, there will be a much better pros­
pect of having the treaties considered by the appropriate Senate Commit­

tees, and ratified by the full Senate, reasonably quickly. This rather com­
pressed timetablc is much tighter than we had anticipated; however, I
wish to assure you that we wîll do everything possible on our side to try to
accommodate your wishes in thîs regard,

Now that the Special Negotiators have rcached agreement on the

East Coast fisheries issues, theanadian Government is taking the neces­
sary action to promulgate the Order-in-Council formally extending
Canadian jurisdiction in the Gulf of Maine. As you are aware from our
discussions here in Ottawa last November, thîs is an action which must
be tak.en in order to protect Canada's legal position in anticipation of the
third party reference. Nevertheless, as I indicated to you, we are very
conscious of the necd to try to avoid difficultics in the Georges Bank area

and so, taking into account the formally expressed U.S. position that
enforcement action will be taken against Canadian vessels fishing in the
area of our revised claim, my coUeague, Mr. LeBlanc, the Minîster of
Fisherîes, has agreed to have Canadian vessels forebear from fishing in
the relevant arca. This, 1 believe, should assist in preventing confronta­
tion while,at the same time, preserving Canadian legal rights. We would

hope that in the event a Canadian vesse! did stray înto the expanded area,
U.S. enforcement authorities would also exercise corresponding restraint.
You may also wish to note that, although the Order-in-Council wil! be
dated January 25, itwill not be published in The Canada Gazette before ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 473

the next regular edition, which is scheduled for February 14. Also, we do
not intend to issue any press release or make any public announccment
concerning the Order.

Vou will be interested to note that l will be asking my Cabinet
colleagues tomorrow, January 25,to approve formally Canadian concur­
rence in the third party reference so that ncgotiations can begin immcdi­
ately on the terms of thecompromis or "special agreement" to adjudicate
or arbitra.te the boundary.Iwould therefore hope that you would be able
to agree to each of us making a simultaneous announcement approving
the recommendations of our Specîal Negotiators, either at the end of this
week or the beginning of next week. l believe this would be usefu! since a

number of reports are already appearing in the media and any delay in an
announcement by the two Governments will risk loss of favourable
impact which might otherwise be achieved. My officiais are getting in
touch with the State Department immediately concerning the preparation
of an agreed text for such an announcement.

Yours sincerely,

(Signecl) Don JAMIESON

The Honourable Cyrus R. Vance,
Secretary of State,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520
U.S.A. 474 GULF OF MAINE

Aooex73

LETIER OF 26 JANUARY J979 FROM THE ÜNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
CYRUS VANCE TO THE CANADIAN SECRETARY Of STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
DoN )AMIESON (AsTRANSMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN ÜlTAWA)

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OTTAWA

CONFIDENTIAL January 26, 1979
Copy of Secretary Vance's letter to Mini~ter Don Jamieson on the Fish­
eries and Maritime Boundarîes,

"Dear Don:
"I share the pleasure expressed in your letter of January 24, 1979,
that our special negotiators have agreed on joint recommendations on
terms of an Atlantic Coast Fisheries Agreement. I also welcome your
expectation of obtaining the concurrence of your Cabinet in the closely
related agreement to submit to binding third party settlement the issue of

the boundary delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area. I am delighted by
your willingness to attempt to conclude bath of these agreements by the
beginning of March so that the two documents can be submitted simul­
taneously for prompt ratification with a view to their entry into force as
soon as possible this year.
"With respect to the timing of our joint announcement, we will
require a few days to review the recommendations within our Govern­

ment. With respect to the substance of the joint announcement, we need
to have a clear understanding at least on the basic principles of the agree­
ment to arbitrate the boundary before we can fairly announce that we
have reached fullagreement. Iwould hope we could complete that phase
of our work in short order so that we would soon be able to make a joint
announcement. We will promptly submit to you our proposed revisions of
your draft joint announcement and our understanding of the basic princi­
p.les which would govern the settlement of the boundary delimitation
issue.

· "J was disappointed that your Government found it necessary to
p~omulgate the Order-in-Council extending Canada's daim of jurisdic­
tion in the Gulf of Maine, given my understanding of our conversation in
Ottawa on this point and given the interrelatîonship of the fisheries and
boundary delimitation settlement agreements. We will be providing our
lega!. position on the claim through our Embassy in Ottawa. I hope you
·wiHagree that the best way to avoid any complications arising from your
·aovernment's promulgation is to resolve the basic principles of the

boundary delimitation settlement in order to enable us to issue a joint
announcement as soon aspossible.
"With warm regards,
Sincerely,

/s/
Cy" ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 475

Annex 74

UNITED STATES AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 15 fEBRUAR Y 1979

The Aide-Mémoireof the Embassy of Canada of January 15 (sic),
1979, expressed Canada's regret and concem regarding certain geological

surveys conducted by the United States Geological Survey and the
Woods Hale Oceanographic Institution.
The geological surveys referred to are ail seismic surveys not
involving physical contact with the continental shelf. It is the position of
the Government of the United States that such seismic surveys do not

constitute research concerning the continental shelf and undertaken there
requiring the consent of the coastal state under the Continental Shelf
Convention. Accordingly, the consent of Canada was not sought by the
Government of the United States in any instance where these seismic sur­
veys may have been conducted in waters above the continental shelf of
Canada. ln this connection, in light of the inference contained in the
. Aide-Mémoire that portions of the continental shelf of Georges Bank
appertain to Canada, the Govemment of the United States must restate
its position that no portion of the continental shelf of Georges Bank
appertains to Canada.

Department of State,
Washington, Fébruary 15, 1979.476 GULF OF MAINE

Annex75

UNITED STATES DIPLOMA TIC NOTE OF ] 5 fEBR UAR Y 1979

{See Il,Annex 74} ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 477

Annex 76

CANADIAN D1PLOMATIC Nom No. 160 OF 29 MARCH 1979

Note No. 160

The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Depart­
mcnt of State and has the honour to refer to the Department of State's
Note of Febrùary 15, 1979 concernîng the Canadian daim in the Gulf of
Maine area. '

The Government of Canada reaffirms the position set out in the
Department of External Affairs Note No. GNT-067 of November 3,
1977 that an equidistance Iine drawn without reference to Cape Cod,
Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard constitutes an cquitable delimitation
and, therefore, the lateral limitsf Canada's continental shelf and fisher­

ies jurisdiction in the Atlanticarea seaward of the Gulf of Maine. The
Government of Canada further reaffirms the position set out in the
Embassy of Canada's Note No. 626 of December 22, 1976 to the Depart­
ment of State that it does not accept nor recognize the validity, under
applicable principlesand rules of international law, of the USA daim to
continental shelf and fisheries jurisdiction ine Gulf of Maine area.

The Govei-nment of Canada îs pleased that agreement has now
been reached between the two Governments to submit the issue of mari­
time delimitation in theGulf of Maine area to binding dispute settlement

procedures on the basis of applicable international law. In these circum­
stances the Government of Canada is of the view that further exchanges
of diplomatie correspondence concerning the legal merits of the respec­
tivedaims will not be necessary.

While the Government of Canada will, of course, exercise fisheries
jurisdictîonin the maritime arca within the limits set out in Order-in­
Council P.C. 1979-184 of January 25, 1979 in accordance with appli­
cable Canadian and international law, the Government proposes to con­
tinue to exercise, on a reciprocal basis, flag state enforcement procedures,
in order to avoid confrontationin ail boundary areas.

Washington, D.C.
March 29, 1979.478 GULF OFMAINE

Annex77

UNITED STATES ÜJPLOMATIC NOTE OF 2 APRIL 1979

[See II, Annex 75} ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 479

ADDENDUM

Annex32a

CANAOIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE No. 226OF 28 MA Y1976

CanadianEmbassy AmbassadeduCanada

No. 226

The Canadian Embassy presents its compliments to the Depart­
ment of State and has the honour to refer to a proposai by the United
States National Science Foundation concerning an inter-disciplinary
study of the cultural impact of the changing environment in the Gulf of

Maine area.
The Canadian authorities understand that the study will involve

the taking of samp\cs of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area.
ln this connection, thcy wish to bring to the attention of the Department
of State that if sampling is to occur on the Canadian side of the line of
equidistance in the Gulf of Maine area, prior consent of the Canadian
authorities should be sought for such rescarch activities as provided in

Article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.
The Canadian Embassy avails itself of this opportunity to renew

to theDepartment of State the assurances of its highest consideration.

Washington, D.C.
May 28, 1976.480 GULF OF MAINE

CERTIFICATION

1,the undcrsigned, L. H. Legault, Q.C., Agent for Canada, hereby
certify that the copy of each document attachas a Documentary
Annex in Volume Ill of the Annexes to the Memorial Submitteby
Canada is an accurate copy, whether prepared by photographie means or
by transcription. Where copies have been prepared by transcription owing
to the condition of the document copîed, telegraphic abbreviations have
been replaced by full words or expressions.

(Signed) L. HLEGAULT, Q.C. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 481

Volume IV

$UPPLEMENTARY ECONOMIC DATA AND STATISTICAL DOCUMENTS

Section I

Supplementary Economie Data482 GULF OF MAJNE

1. This Section provides supplementary background information
to Part I, Chapter III,Section I of the Memorial, "The Human Dimen·
sion".

A. EcoNOMIC lNDICATORS: ATLANTIC CANADA, NOVA SCOTIA AND
SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA

2. Two of the conventional indicators of relative economic
performance are per capita output (based on gross domestic product or

GDP - the value of ail goods and services produced in the economy),
and labour force activity. In 1970, GDP per capita was about 50 percent
greater in Canada as a whole than in the Atlantic Provinces. This gap
widened by 5 percentage points by 1980. The relative positions of
Canada, the Atlantic Provinces and Nova Scotia are shown in Table A·l.

TABLE A-1

Gross Domestic Product: Canada, the Atlantic Provinces
and Nova Scotia, 1970 and 1980 ($ 1971)

1970 1980

GDP GDP/Capita GDP GDP/Capita
(millions) (tbousands) (millions) (thousaods)

Canada 78,542 3,688 116,459 4,870
Atlantic Provinces 4,952 2,432 7,058 3,119
Nova Scotia 2,073 2,651 2,959 3,473

Source: See this Volume, Section I11,Annex 18.

3. The main aspects of labour force act1V1ty- employment
growth, unemployment and the participation rate - are shown in Table
A-2 for Canada, the Atlantic Provinces and Nova Scotia. The Atlantic

Provinces economy exhibits a slower rate of employment growth, a sig·
nificantly higher unemployment rate, and a much lower rate of participa·
tion of persans of workîng age in the labour force. The lower participa·
tion rate is attributed to two main factors: the predominantly rural
structure of the economy of the region and the high level of unemploy·
ment.

4. The rural and one-dimensional nature of the southwest Nova
Scotia economy has been described in the Memorial. Owing to the
region's extreme reliance on the fishery, employment tends to be seasonal
and is subject to cyclical fluctuations. There has been little diversification

in the regîon's economic base apart from the Michelin Tire plant estab­
lished at Brîdgewater in Lunenburg county in 1971.

5. As indicated in the Memorial, GDP data are not available at
the regional level, but labour force statistics are. The rate of unemploy·
ment in southwest Nova Scotia is slightly lower than in the province as a
whole. Table A·3 shows unemployment and labour force participation
rates in the province and in the five countîes of southwest Nova Scotia in
I971 and 1976, based on census data. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 483

6. The rate of labour force participation in southwest Nova
Scotia is very low - lower than the provincial average by some 5 per­
centage points. This results from the rural structure of the ec0nomy and

the general absence of job opportunities for women in activities other
than fish processing.

TABLEA-2
Labour Force Activity: Canada, the Atlantic

Provinces and Nova Scotia, 1970 and 1980

Unem• Partici-
Labour Unem• ployment pation
Force Employed ployed rate Rate

('000) ('000) ('000) (%) (%}

Canada
1970 8,395 7,919 476 5.7 57.8
1980 11,522 10,655 867 7.5 64.0
AAGR*(%) 3.2 3.0 6.2 - 1.0

Atlantic Prov.
1970 652 612 40 6.2 49.3
1980 919 817 102 11.2 56.2
AAGR*(%) 3.5 2.9 9.8 - 1.3

Nova Scotia
1970 271 256 14 5.3 52.3

1980 363 328 36 9.8 57.9
AAGR*(%) 3.0 2.5 9.9 - 1.0

•Average Annual Growth Rate.
Source: See this Volume, Section li 1,Annell 19.

TABLEA-3
Labour Force Activity: Nova Scotia and Southwest

Nova Scotia, 1971 and 1976

Unem- Partici-
Labour Unem· ployment pation
Force Employed ployed rate Rate

('000) {'000) {'000) {%) (%)

Nova Scotîa
1971 292.1 268.3 23.8 8.l 53.5
1976 326.9 296.7 31.0 9.2 54.0

Southwest
Nova Scotîa
1971
39.9 37.2 2.7 6.8 46.1
1976 43.9 40.2 3.6 8.3 45.7

Source: See this Volume, Section 111,Annex 20.484 GULF Of MAINE

7. The economic structure of the regional economy strongly

influences both the form in which income is earned and relative income
·1evels.ln 1976, (the latest year for which data are available), 13 percent
of total money income in southwest Nova Scotia came from self­
employed earnings. The comparable figure for Canada was 0.5 percent.
This great difference is explained by the predominance of the fishery in
the regîon, an activity in which self-employment is frequent. ln 1976, per
capita money income in southwest Nova Scotîa was $4, 140, less than 70
percent of the Canadian average and about 88 percent of the average for

Nova Scotîa (/ncome estimates for subprovincial areas, 1976, Statistics
Canada. See thîs Volurne, Section III, Annex 21).

8. CATEGORIES OF f1SHING EMPLOYMENT AND VESSELS
8. ln Atlantic Canada, fishermen are classified as "full-time",
"part-time" and "occasional" depending on the proportion of total

income derived from fishing. In Nova Scotia, full-time fishermen are
those who earn over 75 percent of income from fishing; part-time, those
who earn between 25 and 75 percent; and occasional, those earning !ess
than 25 percent from the fishery.

9. For purposes of reporting landings under Canadîan regula-
tions, vessels of more tha n 25.5 gross tons or {since August, 198l) 14
metres in length are required to maintain a fishing log book; vessels of
Jess than 25.5 gross tons or 14 metres in length are exempt from this
requirement. These two categories in Canadian practice correspond
respectively to "offshore" and "inshore" vessels."Nova Scotia, as noted in
the Memorial, bas large fleets of offshore scallop and groundfish vessels
that provide year-round full-time employmem.

10. The inshore/offshore distinction is a traditional one in the
fishing industry. Virtually all fishermen who are active in inshore opera­
tions are classified as either part-time or occasional in the official
employment statistics. The main distinguishing features of the offshore
fishery are its year-round operatîons, the dominance of large vesse\s and
mobile gear (e.g., trawls and dredges), and its relative capital intensity.
ln contrast with the inshore sector, offshore vessels are more specialized
in design. Most fishermen active in offshore operations on large vessels in

Nova Scotia are classified as full-time in the official statistics.

11. The traditional distinction between inshore and offshore fish­
eries is not as sharp as it once was. With technotogical advances in design
and construction, small vessels are capable of operating in offshore

waters. Today, the inshore/offshore distinction is maintained primarily
for purposes of fisheries management. From a management perspective,
the major distinction between the inshore and offshore sectors, apart
from the reporting system described above, is that offshore\vessels over
20 metres in length are prohibited from fishing in inshore waters, i.e.,
within _12miles of the coastline. ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL Of CANADA 485

C. THE MEASUREMENT OF PRIMARY SECTOR EMPLOYMENT

12. Employment levels by sector or industry are generally
reported in terms of numbers of persons. Annual figures represent the
average number of persons employed during the year.

13. Direct comparisons of cmployment levels among primary sec­
tor activities are difficult to make using this unit of account. This is so for
two reasons. First, persans occupied in agriculture and fishing are not
generally considered employees in the strict legal sense of the ter1n. They

are either independent contractors or sole proprietors. Secondly, fishing
and farming differ from most other economic activities in that operating
hours are highly irregular and the number of persans active varies consid­
erably from season to season.

14. For these reasons a common denominator other than number
of persans is requireç for sector comparisons of employment. A measure
common to al! sectors is the amount of time spent at the occupation in
question. The conventional unit of account is the "man-year", i.e., the
equivalent of one persan working a full year. In ail sectors but agriculture

and fishing the number of man-years of employment generally corre­
sponds to the annual average number of persans reported as employed in
the official statistics.

15. Estimates of man-years of employment in fisheries are based
on occupation and incarne data collected by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and Statistîcs Canada. The number of man-years spent in
fishing is dcrived from estimates of the number of full-time, part-time
and occasional fishermen. The time spcnt in fishing by each full-lime

fisherman is considered equal to one man-year; each part-time fisherman
is equal to one-half man-year; and the time spent by each occasional fish­
erman is considered equal to one-eighth of a man-year. The estimate of
total man-years effort in fishing in Nova Scotia for 1978 is as follows:

TABLEA-4

Estima teorMan- Years Fishiog Effort in
Prima_ryFishiog in Nova Scotia, 1978

Numberof Conversion Mao-years
Classification Fishermeu Factor in Fishing

Full-timc 5,021 1.000 5,021
Part-time 1,854 0.500 927
Occasional 3,436 0.125 429
Total !0,311 6,377

Source: See this Volume, Section III, Annex 22.

16. The number of man-years spent in agriculture is derived by
dividing total wages paid to labour by the annual equivalent of the Nova
Scotia minimum wage. To this figure is added the number of operators of
incorporated farms (estimated on the basis of information from Agricul­
ture Canada at about 730), each of whom is estimated to spend one man-486
GULF OF MAINE

year in agriculture. The estimate of total man-years effort in agriculture
in Nova Scotia in 1978 is as follows:

Wages (Minimum Total Farm Man-Years
__,__ X +
Paid · Wage Hours) Opera tors
17,987,000 (2.90 X 2,200) + 730 = 3,550 (àpprox.)
Source: See tliis Volume, Section III, Annex 8.

D. THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISHING ACTIVITY IN NOVA
ScoTIA

17. The concentration of fishing activity in southwest Nova
Scotia can be illustrated by two sets of data: the share of fishing employ­
ment and the relative number of offshore fishing vessels. In 1978, the

region accounted for 62 percent of total man-years employment in pri­
mary fishing in Nova Scotia.
TABLEA-5

Employment in Fishing:
Nova Scotia and Southwest Nova Scotia

Southwest
Total Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia
No. No. % oftolal

Fishermcn 10,311 5,419 53
full-time 5,021 3,455 69
part-time 1,854 679 37
occasional 3,436 1,285 37

Fishingemployment 6,377 3,955 62
(man-years)

Source: Sec this Volume, Section III, Annex 22.

18. The 62 percent share of total màn-years in primary fishing is
accounted for largely by the substantia\ number of full-time fishermen
(69 percent of the provincial total). This reflects the strong offshore
orientation of the fishery in southwest Nova Scotia. The fleet of large off­
shore groundfish trawlers over 30 metres in length and of offshore scallop
and lobster vessels in Nova Scotia numbers 148. Close to 80 percent of

this neet (116 vessels), and the whole fleet of offshore scallop and lobster
vessels, opera te from ports in the southwestern part of the province.

E. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SCALLOPS TO THE NOVA SCOTIA

F1SHERY
19. The following Table gives 1978 data on the relative impor-

tance of the .".'.a.rjspecies landed by Nova Scotia fishermen (for the
province as a whole). The scallop was by far- thé-most important species ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA
487

lànded by Nova Scotia fishermen in terms of value, although it ranked
eighth overall in terms of meat weight (i.e., with the shells removed). If
scallop landings are measured in round weight (i.e., as caught, as ail
other species of fish are measured) the scallop volume by wcight is over
eight times higher at 106,400 metric tons. On this basis, itis the leading
Nova Scotia specics in terms of bath value and weight.

TABLEA-6

Rank Order of Fish Landings by Value and Volume
inNon Scotia, 1978 '

Value Volume
Species ($'000) Species m. tons

1.Scallop 61,856 1.Herring 86,445
2. Lobster 30,532 2. Cod 80,520
3.Cod 25,829 3. Haddock 40,499
4. Haddock 17,866 4. Pollock 27,031
5. Herring 15,810 5. Rcdfish 21,640
6. Squld 7,359 6. Squid 17,722
?.Pollock 5,065 7. Flatfishes 16,332
8. Flatfishcs 4,453 8. Scallop 12,773
9. Redfish 4,235 9. Mackerel 8,704
10. HaHbut 2,550 10. Hake 6,275
11. Mackcrel 1,641 1 !.Lobster 6,161
12. Other Pelagics 7,874 12. Other Groundfish 12,839
13. Other Shellfish 4,342 13. Other Pelagics 8,325
14.Other Groundfish 3,846 14. Other Shellfish 5,976

Source: See this Volume, Section Ill, Annex 23.

At least 80 percent, and in many years over 90 percent, of Nova Scotia
scallop landings are caught on Georges Bank.

F. PROCESSING EMPLOYMENT BY SPECIES

20. The first stage of the processing of offshore scallops occurs at
sca where the scallop is "shucked" and the shells discarded. The meat
itself is then ta ken ashore for processing. This involves washing and either
quick-freezing for immediate marketing or addîtîonal preparation (e.g.,
cooking in batter) for marketing in a more highly processcd form. On
average, it is estimatcd that roughly one man-year is required to proccss
75 metric tons of scallops. Itis similarly estimated that lobster processing

requires in the order of one man-year per 60 metric tons.

21. The processi ng of grou ndfish is a more labour-intensive oper-
ation. This includes filleting (most of which is donc manually) and prepa­
ration of such products as fish sticks and fish portions which are pre­
cooked and frozen for marketing and, in the smaller plants especially, the

salt-curing of cod. The vertically-integrated companies most active {in488 GULF OF MAINE

terms of volume of landings) on Georges Bank genera\ly produce the

most highly processed fish products. In these operations, it is estimated
that roughly one man-year is required to process approximately 40 metric
tons (landed weight) of fish.

22. The estimates given in paragraphs 20 and 21 above are

approximations based on information received from processing company
officiais.

G. fISH PROCESSING IN THE CONTEXT OF TOTAL MANUFACTURJNG
ACTIVITY IN SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA

23. A sector or industry's share of national or regîonal GDP is

one indicator of relative economic importance. Estimates of GDP, how­
ever, are not available at the county level in Canada. ln order to assess
the relative importance of fish processing in southwest Nova Scotia, two
alternative indicators may be used: wages and salaries and value of ship­
ments data. In 1976, the latest year for which detailed information is

available, the fish processing industry in the region accounted for over 30
percent of wages and salaries paid in the manufacturing sector and over
40 percent of total value of shipments:

TABLEA-7
Wages and Value of Shipments in Fish Processing

Value of Shlpments
($'000) % ($'000) %

Fish Processîng 21,132 31 l29,740 43
Other Manufacturing 47,781 _§2 169,609 ..J1
Total 68,913 100 299,349 100

Source: See this Volume, Sec111Annex 24.

H. flSHING INDUSTRY SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AT THE

CoUNTY LEVEL

24. The pervasiveness of the fishing îndustry and its relative eco­
nomic importance to the region are co-extensive. In the absence of GDP
information, employment data provide the only comprehensive basis for
assessing the relative importance of the industry as a whole (i.e., the pri­
mary fishing and fish processing sectors). The comparison below is based

on 1976 data, the latest year for which total employment information
(based on census data) is available at the county level.

25. Itshould be noted that the 15 percent figure in Table A-8
represents a conscrvative estimate. Fîrst, the conversion factors set out in

Table A-4 have been used to convert part-time and occasional fishing to
man-years. However, the basis of the "full-tîme'', "part-lime"and "occa- ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 489

sional" classification in 1976 was the length of time spent in fishing dur­

îng the year rather than the current Nova Scotia system based on the
percentage of income earned in fishing as explained in paragraph 8.
Under the time-based system of classification, fishermen engaged in fish­
ing for over 10 months of the year were classified as full-time; those fish­
ing from 5 to lO months were classified as part-time; and those fishing

for Jess than 5 months were classified as occasional. The conversion fac­
tors in Table A-4 may be excessive for ·this system of classification,
mainly because a significant proportion of fishermen engaged in the fish­
cry from 5 to 10 months (converted to man-years at a 50 percent reduc­

tion) are in fact dependent on fishing for ail or virtually ail of their
earned incarne. A second reason why the l S percent lïgure may be eon­
sidered a eonservative estimate is that the "total county emp!oyment"
data (drawn from census results) has not been converted to man-years,
whereas fishing employment has been so converted.

TABLEA-8

Fisheries Employment in the Context of Total
County Employment, 1976

Employment
Fish
Primary Fish Total as%
Fishing Processing County of
(man-years) Employment total

Lunenburg 1,033 1,080 15,530 14
Shelburne 795 578 5,530 25
Queens 242 269 4,265 12
Digby 831 347 6,590 18
Yarmouth 734 288 8,330 12

Five county total 3,635 2,562 40,245 15

Source: See this Volume, SectionArmex 24.

26. The emp!oyment figures for the fishing industry rcpresent
direct employment only, i.e., persans on vessels and in processing plants.
As might be expected in an area wherc the fishery is the dominant goods­
producing activity, there are also a large number of specialized manufac­

turing, service and supply companies whose viability depends either
exclusively or substantially on the fishing industry. It is through thcse
enterprises that the fishing industry generates a considerable amount of
indirect employment. In the manufacturing sector alone, there are some
100 companies in the region whose production is related to and dependent

on the fishing industry. These manufacturing companies emp!oy about
2,000 persans. With total regional employment of about 40,000 in the
late 1970s, this represents 5 percent of the total. (See this Volume, Sec­
tion III, Annex 25.) No quantitative estimate is available of the indirect
employmcnt accounted for by the service and supply businesses that serve

the regional fishing industry.490 GULF OF MAINE

Section Il

Principal Unpublished Statistical Data Sources Referred to in the
MemorialSubmitted by Canada

Annexl

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO SECTION Il

[Not reproduced}

Annex2

COMPUTER REPRESENTATIONS OF BIOM>\SS DISTRIBUTION ACROSS ÛEORGES BANK,
1969-1978

{Not reproduced} ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 491

Annex3

CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES CATCH STATISTICS1969-1978

The following Tables give Canadian and United States recorded

catches in metric tons for the six statistical unit areas covering Georges
Bank and the Nantucket Shoals-Great South Channel area to the west or
Georges Bank for the years 1969 through 1978.·These six statistical unit
areas comprise ail significant fishing grounds within the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) subdjvision 5Ze. See Memorial,
@) Figure 23 and paragraphs 125 and 126.

As noted in paragraph 126 of the Memorial, statistical unit areas
5Zej, 5Zem, 5Zen and 5Zeh combined correspond, in fisheries terms, to
Georges Bank. Similarly, statistical unit areas 5Zeg and 5Zeo correspond
to Nantucket Shoals and the Great South Channel; statistical unît areas
5Zej and 5Zem correspond to the disputed portion or Georges Bank. The
totals for al\ six statistical unit areas are given in the last column or each
Table. These statistics have been pro-rated to the statistics maint;iined by

the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization {NAFO).492 GULF OF MAINE

AMERICAN PLA!CE (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 2 43 1 14 0 6 67
1970 0 78 0 9 0 0 87
1971 0 29 0 7 0 0 36
1972 0 20 0 2 0
0 22
1973 0 38 0 0 0 0 38
1974 0 27 0 0 0 0 27
1975 0 24 0 1 0 0 .25
1976 0 23 0 1 0 0 24
1977 0 34 0 1 0 0 35

1978 0 73 0 4 0 0 77

ATLANTIC HALIHUT (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh
Total

1969 0 85 0 10 0 1 96
1970 0 55 0 12 0 0 67
1971 0 36 0 1 0 0 37
1972 0 37 0 0 0 0 37

1973 0 34 0 4 0 0 38
1974 0 28 0 1 0 0 29
1975 0 24 0 7 0 0 31
1976 0 31 0 2 0 0 33
1977 0 28 0 3 0 0 31
1978 0 46 0 4 0 0 50

Coo (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 21 8
4283 l 599 0 86 5 997
1970 4 2303 0 276 0 0 2 583
1971 33 2 747 0 199 0 0 2979
1972 0 2 501 0 27 0 12 2 540
1973 0 3 140 0 80 0 0 3 220
1974 0 1294 0 78 0 4 1374
1975 0 1772
0 63 0 12 1 847
1976 0 2 197 0 116 0 7 2 320
1977 3 5 832 7 323 0 7 6173
1978 . 0 7 886 0 1018 0 0 8 904 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 493

CusK (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 712 0 12 0 1 725
1970 0 793 0 19 0 0 812
1971 0 1006 0 26 0 0 1032
1972 0 754 0 3 0 4 761
1973 0 444 0 136 0 0 580
1974 0 474 0 39 0 0 513
1975 0 420 0 20 0 0 440
1976 0 232 0 16 0 4 252
1977 0 193 0 13 0 0 206
1978 0 378 0 38 0 0 416

HADDOCK (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 li 2977 6 964 0 32 3990
1970 8 1606 0 364 0 0 1978
1971 24 1502 0 104 0 0 1630
1972 0 595 0 14 0 0 609
1973 0 1507 0 56 0 0 1563
1974 0 454 0 8 0 0 462
1975 0 1339 0 19 0 0 1358
1976 0 1317 0 35 1 1 1354
1977 0 2767 40 102 0 0 2909
1978 0 9375 0 804 0 0 10179

HERRING (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 945 0 0 0 0 945
1970 0 7 0 0 0 0 7
1971 0 12863 0 0 0 0 12863
1972 0 0 0 0 0 53 53
1973 0 5083 0 0 0 0 5083
1974 104 7 0 0 72 34 217
1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1977 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0494 GULF OF MAJNE

LûBSTER (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1971 0 0 101 0 0 0 101
1972 0 0 0 204 0 0 204
1973 0 9 0 219 0 0 228
1974 0 146 0 178
32 0 0
1975 0 96 0 124 0 0 220
1976 0 13 0 120 0 0 133
1977 0 6 8 228 0 0 242
1978 0 11 58 216 0 0 285

MACKEREL (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1972 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0
1973 0 53 0 0 0 53
1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1975 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1977 0 130 0 0 217 0 347
1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

POLLOCK (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 1 1978 1 418 0 5 2403
1970 1 763 0 61 0 0 825
1971 3 1311 0 243 0 0 1 556
1972 0 1 198 0 1 0 0 1199
1973 0 1465 0 1 0 0 1466
1974 0 2 859 0 0 0 0 2 859
1975 0 4313 0 16 0 4329
0
1976 0 2 047 0 9 0 0 2 056
1977 0 3 110 4 45 0 16 3 176
1978 0 4215 0 198 0 0 4413 495
ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA

R.EDFISH (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 183 0 50 0 2 235
1970 247 0 4 0 0 251
0
1971 0 145 0 4 0 0 149
1972 0 110 0 0 0 0 110
1973 0 26 0 0 0 0 26
1974 5 15 0 0 0 0 20
1975 0 49 0 0 0 0 49
1976 0 83 0 100 0 1 184

1977 0- 185 0 18 1 0 204
1978 0 74 0 8 0 0 82

SCALWPS (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 3 556 0 762 0 0 4318
1970 0 4097 __o _-- 0 0 0 4097
1971 0 3 908 0 0 0 0 3 908
1972 104 3712 0 0 0 345 4 161
1973 283 3 062 0 0 679 200 4223

1974 0 6137 0 0 0 0 6 137
1975 0 7 414 0 0 0 0 7 414
1976 997 5669 0 2401 694 0 9 761
1977 0 11199 0 1775 115 0 13 089
1978 0 9 457 0 2 732 0 0 12 189

SKATE (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 7 0 0 0 0 7
1970 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
1971 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
1972 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

1973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1976 0 44 0 0 0 0 44
1977 0 16 0 0 0 0 16
1978 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 496 GULF OF MAINE

SWORDFISH (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 1 368 0 70 0 0 1438
1970 0 1080 0 0 0 0 1080
1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1973 0 3 0 li 0 0 14
1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1975 0 0 0 7 0 0 7
1976 0 li 0 0 0 0 11
1977 0 0 0 16 0 0 16
1978 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0

SQUIO (COMBINED) (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1971 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. 1973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1974 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1976 0 54 0 0 0 0 54
1977 0 9 0 0 5 0 14
1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WHITE HAKE (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 1 25 0 1 0 3 30
1970 0 28 0 6 0 0 34
1971 0 70 0 12 0 0 82
1972 0 32 0 0 0 0 32
1973 0 94 0 6 0 0 100
1974 0 73 0 123 0 0 196
1975 0 126 0 3 0 0 129
1976 0 194 0 1 0 0 195
1977 0 160 0 9 0 169
0 0
1978 120 0 15 0 0 135 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 497

WINTER FLOUNDER (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 2 63 l 44 0 0 110
1970 1 41 0 19 0 0 61
1971 4 50 0 9 0 0 62
1972 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
1973 0 14 0 0 0 0 14
1974 0 11 0 0 0 1 12
1975 0 12 0 1 0 0 l3
1976 0 11 0 0 0 0 11
1977 0 15 0 0 0 0 15
1978 0 57 0 0 0 65
8

WITCH (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 2 23 0 3 0 4 32
1970 0 9 0 0 0 0 9
1971 0 15 0 0 0 0 15
1972 0 12 0 0 0 0 12
1973 0 9 0 0 0 0 9
1974 0 6 0 0 0 0 6
1975 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
1976 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
1977 2 9 0 0 0 0 li
1978 0 13 0 1 0 0 14

YELLOWTAIL (CANADA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zern 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 198 0 130 0 1 329
1970 0 57 0 14 0 0 71
1971 4 76 0 25 0 0 105
1972 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
1973 0 12 0 0 0 0 12
1974 0 4 .0 0 0 0 4
1975 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
1976 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
1977 0 37 0 1 0 0 38
1978 0 48 0 9 0 0 57498 GULF OF MAINE

AMERICAN PLA[CE (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 399 64 75 235 48 917 1738
1970 205 44 104 240 88 923 1603
1971 149 50 179 254 88 790 1 511
1972 256 49 73 159 24 659 1220
1973 141 29 108 148 22 461 910
1974 161 37 86 163 15 577 1039
1975 240 29 80 138 13 414 913
1976 326 46 52 I05 15 405 948
1977 403 57 34 140 14 760 1408
1978 564 151 57 230 16 1174 2 193

ANGLER (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 9 0 0 0 0 0 9
1970 19 0 0 0 0 0 19
1971 27 0 0 0 0 0 27
1972 27 0 0 0 0 0 27
1973 17 0 0 0 2 0 19
1974 54 0 0 l 2 4 60
1975 I08 2 8 4 14 19 155
1976 135 2 43 26 19 48 274
1977 218 14 45 72 60 125 534
1978 323 23 39 60 68 135 648

Coo(USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total
14954
1969 7414 1354 694 21857 1202 2578 13353
1971 6409 1074 744 3315 1024 2434 14999
1972 5628 1159 845 1549 923 2372 12478
1973 7655 1512 651 1550 1281 2 188 14838
1974 7697 1772 848 2019 1773 2 534 16642
1975 8 150 1632 864 1477 838 1635 14595
1976 8439 965 504 1073 979 1981 13941
1977 9 829 2177 789 2079 1443 3 259 19576
1978 11953 2 738 1311 2765 1790 3 230 23787

;
_J ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 499

CusK(USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 129 42 1 18 0 50 240
1970 104 33 0 5 0 46 189
1971 134 22 3 8 1 82 251
1972 125 24 2 14 1 65 230
1973 180 Il 2 3 3 51 249
1974 186 7 0 5 1 40 239
1975 233 7 1 4 1 50 297
1976 185 6 1 5 3 52 252
1977 122 23 4 6 0 99 254
1978 157 61 1 16 0 156 392

HADDOCK (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 5009 2 542 840 4076 408 3 568 16443
1970 1967 1298 767 1855 179 2334 8400
1971 1349 1076 609 2457 157 1653 7301
1972 873 610 282 933 122 1036 3 855
1973 666 791 193 600 122 404 2776
1974 727 335 184 616 67 466 2 396
1975 1309 724 249 981 61 645 3969
1976 1206 457 120 518 108 487 2895
1977 2672 891 484 1538 329 1990 7904
1978 3 186 2 268 709 2458 219 3263 12102

HAUBUT (USA)
Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 28 4 0 2 0 7 42
1970 23 2 0 1 0 6 32
1971 30 3 1 3 0 3 41
1972 21 2 0 1 0 3 29
1973 15 1 0 1 0 1 18
1974 15 1 0 0 0 1 18
1975 29 0 0 1 0 1 31
1976 16 1 0 0 0 2 20
1977 12 1 0 0 0 3 16
1978 23 3 0 1 0 7 35500 GULF Of MAINE

HERRING (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 832 0 0 0 0 0 832
1970 272 0 0 0 0 0 272
1971 1194 0 0 0 0 0 1194
1972 li 0 0 0 0 0 Il
1973 161 0 0 0 0 0 161
1974 2 0 0 0 170 0 172
1975 2 0 0 0 0 1 3
1976 507 0 0 0 0 0 507
1977 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1978 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

LoBSTER (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 2 0 332 137 602 3 1076
1970 3 14 182 137 919 12 1267
1971 8 25 338 152 479 60 1062
1972 3 22 344 97 565 15 1046
1973 0 33 98 64 459 17 672
1974 1 35 242 428 435 24 1166
1975 3 60 319 342 676 32 1432
1976 17 30 416 293 '600 31 1388
1977 22 23 461 148 517 52 1224
1978 78 60 776 171 485 121 1691

MACKEREL (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total
1969 4 0 0 0 2 0 6
1970 254 0 0 0 83 14 351
1971 1 0 0 0 l 0 2
1972 0 0 0 0 5 0 5
1973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1974 0 0 0 0 li 0 Il
1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1976 l 0 0 0 0 0 2
1977 4 0 0 0 2 0 6
1978 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 501

POLLOCK(USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total
1969 1146 471 10 93 9 490 2 219
1970 1334 271 10 37 5 565 2221
1971 1 555 593 86 126 11 667 3037
1972 864 597 27 92 16 470 2067
1973 l354 521 13 27 25 221 2 161
1974 1478 568 58 78 40 399 2620
1975 1734 477 69 111 20 565 2976
1976 2301 481 66 121 113 770 3 842
1977 2694 315 ll4 212 139 1155 4 628
1978 2 557 436 100 308 94 2035 5530

REDFISH(USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 2030 34 0 6 9 322 2 401
1970 1402 79 1 10 4 488 1983
1971 2291 47 4 30 1 1353 3726
1972 3588 32 14 28 26 2 317 6007
1973 3708 21 30 19 22 l 150 4950
1974 2203 57 8 18 li 923 3 220
1975 2006 28 13 49 7 l011 3 114
1976 1036 22 17 43 15 1008 2142
1977 1501 72. 32 35 0 1518 3 158
1978 1068 220 2 68 13 1262 2632

RED HAKE (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 31 0 0 0 20 0 51
1970 87 0 0 1 2 10 100
1971 108 0 1 1 0 l 111
1972 156 2 0 0 0 2 160
1973 70 0 0 0 0 3 74
1974 72 1 0 0 1 3 77
1975 64 1 0 0 0 0 55
1976 34 1 0 1 0 1 37
1977 75 0 4 2 2 13 95
1978 109 2 0 1 0 39 151502 GULF OF MAINE

SCALWPS (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 112 39 227 485 197 269 l 329
1970 355 15 160 173 395 323 1420
1971 367 0 215 24 423 305 1334
1972 249 3 64 131 194 182 824
1973 277 4 174 13 469 148 1084
1975 197 271 176 20 312 170 929
1976 l069 142 46 126 1777
1977 2944 196 282 219 767 415 4823
1978 1933 758 367 531 1 584 416 5 589

SILVER HAKE (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 1408 1 23 1 209 12 1654
1970 217 306 7 0 374 3 333 4 238
1971 613 583 4 147 17 t 705 3069
1972 475 48 3 2 4 346 879
1973 2 891 0 0 0 47 2669 5 698
1974 457 44 1 0 12 1771 2283
1975 1198 25 1 5 58 3302 4 588
1976 2475 2 l 1 68 1246 3793
1977 519 3 0 0 32 3 195 3749
1978 588 267 0 4 1 5532 6393

SKAn (USA)

Year 5Zeg SZej 5Zen SZem SZeo 5Zeh Total

1969 7 3 0 1 1 9 21
1970 8 0 0 2 0 11 22
1971 Il 0 0 0 1 1 13
1972 6 1 0 0 0 1 8
1973 3 0 0 0 0 1 4
1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1975 13 1 0 0 0 0 14
1976 12 0 0 0 0 1 13
1977 15 0 0 0 0 2 17
1978 53 0 0 0 18 5 77 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 503

SQUID (USA)
Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 1 0 0 0 4 0 5
1970 1 0 1 0 3 0 4
1971 7 0 0 0 5 1 13
1972 1 0 1 0 5 0 7
•1973 7 0 0 0 9 1 17
1974 5 0 0 0 22 0 27
1975 2 0 0 0 8 17 28
1976 41 0 2 0 7 34 83
1977 45 0 0 0 13 81 139
1978 18 1 0 0 3 122 144

SUMMER FLOUNDER (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 1 0 0 1 22 0 24
1970 1 0 1 0 10 0 12
1971 0 0 1 8 12 6 28
1972 1 0 1 1 5 1 9
1973 1 0 1 1 35 2 40
1974 15 1 19 10 235 6 285
1975 14 0 28 10 210 17 279
1976 24 2 35 15 558 15 648
1977--------------12 0 14 12 769 8 816
1-978 24 1 167 9 494 16 710

SwoRDF1SH(USA)

Year 5Zeg, 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 0 0 0 0 24 0 24
1970 2 0 0 0 53 0 55
1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1972 0 61 0 6 0 0 67
1973 0 44 26 29 7 0 105
1974 4 120 66 262 0 11 464
1975 0 256 224 617 21 13 1131
1976 0 226 136 390 8 55 815
1977 0 89 4 145 5 0 243
1978 66 931 654 273 37 0 1961504 GULF OF MAINE

WHITE HAKE (USA)
Year
5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total
1969 278 43 9
1970 273 46 7 6 22 179 542
1971 487 45 9 12 23 277 853
1972 382 49 21 43 17 217 728
1973 439 20 5 li 23 160 658
1974 514 18 3 20 13 175 743
1975 276 16 3 13 4 92 405
1976 302 7 4 li 4 72 399
1977 260 26 8 15 4 226 539
1978 272 52 3 10 3 268 608

WINTER FLoUNDER (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 1592 152 151 1452 2622 410 6 380
1970 1438 215 483 979 2962 944 7020
1971 l 970 186 427 1368 1942 1I08 7 000
1972 1051 210 443 1121 1284 1024 5 133
1973 1027 300 229 1020 1101 709 4387
1974 1448 170 256 1042 942 651 4 508
1975 1689 385 320 972 733 734 4833
1976 1475 314 185 678 381 698 3732
1977 1436 467 420 1507 949 1176 5 954
1978 2 139 706 321 l 245 1050 917 6378

W!TCH (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 426 26 81 74 153 504 1263
1970 431 49 147 50 267 653 1598
1971 540 56 329 81 314 634 1955
1972 383 50 442 130 189 564 1758
1973 264 20 190 73 268 408 1223
1974 332 17 145 104 191 291 1079
1975 371 10 282 159 105 239 1 167
1976 278 24 144 82 50 209 787
1977 256 19 70 62 30 250 688
1978 365 85 38 86 45 307 926 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOf CANADA 505

WoLFFISH (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 37 li 2 12 0 23 85
1970 45 11 0 9 1 19 84
1971 42 15 l 11 2 27 99
1972 71 19 5 8 9 39 150
1973 73 28 3 4 3 19 129
1974 124 8 4 5 7 43 192
1975 105 12 2 4 2 30 154
1976 130 17 4 3 10 56 219
1977 162 9 2 2 3 25 203
1978 206 12 2 5 3 54 283

YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER (USA)

Year 5Zeg 5Zej 5Zen 5Zem 5Zeo 5Zeh Total

1969 558 551 2 888 11977 5 976 542 22492
1970 497 754 4120 9 445 8 043 1199 24058
1971 761 480 3291 6013 5 348 2 089 17981
1972 501 296 5682 5 767 4177 2 405 18827
1973 634 919 6 191 6952 4849 1829 21 373
1974 877 651 4096 7 300 3 962 2 569 19454
1975 653 448 4507 6 846 2 166 1644 16264
1976 l 575 377 4 047 5 391 1 173 1 596 14 158
1977 1 279 398 2034 5 522 1358 1499 12 089
1978 1845 263 820 2 837 1282 610 7 658506 GlJLF OFMAJNE

Aonex4

l'RICE TABLESFOR CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES, \969-1978,
AND TABLE OF EXCHANGE RATES

Ali prices in the following Tables (expressed in dollars per metric
ton) were calculated by dividing the total value of the relevant landings
by the volume landed (in round weight except for scallops) on a species
by species basis.

The Canadian fish prices in the following Tables are derived ifiainly
from landings data (from offshore vessels) for district 26 in Nova Scotia

- the Lunenburg and Rîverport area. District 26 data have been used
because of the importance of Lunenburg as a Nova Scotia fishing port,
and because a large quantity of fish caught on Georges Bank is landed in
ports in this district. It should be noted that landed values of groundfish
in district 26 are strongly influenced by negotiated prîces contained in
collective agreements with unîonized fishcrmcn. This leads to a conserva­

tive estimate of the market value of landings because negotiated prices
tend to be lower than prevailing market prices.

In certain instances, offshore landings data for district 2<5were not
suitable because no landings or negligible landings were reported. In
some of these cases (identified by single asterisks in the Tables), prices
were derived from offshore vesse! landings for districts 28 to 34 (ail in
southwest Nova Scotia). In other cases (identified by double asterisks in
the Tables) prices were derived from landings from offshore vessels for
Nova Scotia as a whole. In other cases (identified by three asterisks in

the Tables) prices were derived from total Nova Scotia landings, from
both inshore and offshore vessels. For the following species (un\ess
asterisked as above) the following data were used:
(a) Herring: landings from offshore vessels in district 34 (in Yarmouth
county);

(b) Mackerel: Jandings from inshore vessels in district 26;
(c) White Hake: landings from offshore vessels of common hake in
district 26.

The United States fish prices in the following Tables were derived
from landings data for the state of Massachusetts, reproduced in Section
III, Annex 26 of this Volume. Ail prices (expressed in dollars per metric
ton) were calculated by dividing the total value of landings by the volume
landed (in round weight except for scallops). Pounds were converted to
metric tons by dividing by 2204.6.

Also included in this Anrn:x is a Table setting out the average value
of the United States dollar in terms of the Canadian dollar for the years
1969 through 1978. These exchange rates have been used to convert

Canadian prices to United States dollars for the purposes of the compari­
son in Figure 26 of the Memorial (where the average value of the catches ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 507

by Canada and the United States is compared in terms of Canadian and
United States prices respectively). They have also been used to convert
United States prices to Canadian dollars for the purposes of the compari­
son set out in Figure 25 of the Memorial, in those few cases where no
Canadian price is available for the species in question. (Figure 25 com­
pares the average value of catches by Canada and the United States in

terms of Canadian prices.)508 GULF OF MAINE

Canadian/USLaodedValuesperMetricTou
1969-1978

SPECIESCoo

Canadian us
Year landed value/mt landed value/mt
($ Can.) ($ US)
1969 191
1970 195 247
1971 I02 271
1972 116 390
1973 139 408
1974 185 432
1975 189 534
1976 194 582
1977 227 498
1978 278 560

SPECIES: HADDOCK

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)

1969 152 375
1970 186 500
1971 190 577
1972 214 810
1973 288 841
1974 340 814
1975 344 723
1976 355 948
1977 367 703
1978 405 703

SPECIES: POLLOCK

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($Can.) ($US)

1969 53 130
1970 57 178
1971 70 171
1972 81 203
1973 91 237
1974 123 242
1975 127 287
1976 125 319
1977 130 328
1978 153 389 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 509

SPECIES: REDFISH

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/ml
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)
1969 64 93
1970 71 116
1971 79 116
1972 91 140
1973 111 195
1974 112 207
1975 119 277
1976 124 348
1977 148 343
1978 199 394

SPECIES: CUSK

Canadian landedvalue/mt
landed value/mt ($ US)
Year ($Can.)
39 137
1970 46 167
1971 53 201
1972 68 217
1973 93 261
1974 104 301
1975 112 315
1976 108 388
1977 102 376
1978 120 422

SPECIES: AMERICAN PLAICE

Canadian us
landed value/ml landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($US)

1969 98 264
1970 114 315
1971 115 328
1972 116 447
1973 144 452
1974 170 429
1975 169 542
1976 185 670
1977 208 701
1978 241 891510 GULF OF MAINE

SPECIES: YELLOWTAIL

Canadian us
fanded value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ VS)
297
1970 95 332
1971 104 362
1972 98 444
1973 106 502
1974 123 580
1975 120 794
1976 135 927
1977 157 1047
1978 201 1364

SPECIES: WITCH

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)
1969 118 306
1970 132 355
1971 132 373
1972 134 555
1973 164 667
1974 191 800
1975 192 975
1976 199 1143
1977 228 1081
1978 258 1200

SPECJES: W!NTER fLOUNDER

Canadian us
/anded value/me landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($US)

1969 95 323
1970 110 354
1971 116 392
1972 119 538
1973 145 545
1974 129 585
1975 153 785
1976 173 834
1977 172 842
1978 229 1045 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 511

SPECIES: SUMMER FLOU ND ER

landed value/mt us
Year ($Can.) land($ US)ue/ml

1969 989
1970 807
1971 941
1972 1090
1973 876
1974 574
1975 1055
1976 1053
1977 1250
1978 1664

SPECJES: HALIBUT
us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
($Can.) ($ US)
Year
1969 528 1214
1970 651 1424
1971 612 1597
1972 665 1993
1973 1088 2 255
1974 695 2504
1975 859 2819
1976 1018 2774
1977 998 2787
1978 1123 3 120

SPECIES: SKATE

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($Can.) ($US)

1969 148 116
1970 202 116
1971 116 145
1972 104 152
1973 24*** 173
1974 47** 194
1975 40** 200
1976 37 227
1977 56 272
1978 33 264512 GULF OF MAINE

SPECIES: RED HAKE

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)
1969 89
1970 96
1971 112
1972 130
1973 151
1974 115
1975 153
1976 206
1977 196
1978 249

SPECIES: WHITE HAKE

Canadian us
Yea, land($Can.)e/m~ landed value/mt
($ US)
1969 43 130
1970 46 147
1971 50 141
1972 76 209
1973 109 304
1974 103 239
1975 156 284
1976 165 383
1977 101 333
1978 124 424

SPECIES: S!LVER HAKE

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Yea, ($ Can.) ($ US)

1969 136
1970 191
1971 130
1972 208
1973 146
1974 11 179
1975 9*** 185
1976 178
1977 187
1978 305 ANNEXES TO MEMORIALOF CANADA 513

SPECIES: WOLFFISH
Canadîan
landed value/ml landed value/ml
Year ($Can.) ($ US)

1969 104
1970 126
1971 151
1972 144
1973 141
1974 159
1975 180
1976 204
1977 195
1978 245

SPECIES: ANGLER
Canadîan
landed value/ml landed Mlue/mt
Year ($Can.) ($ US)

1969 129
1970 117
1971 123
1972 128
1973 249
1974 299
1975 438
1976 725
1977 802
1978 771

SPECIES: HERRING

Canadîan us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($Can.) ($ US}

1969 22 33
1970 25 37
1971 32 37
1972 37 44
1973 44 68
1974 71 73
1975 39* 65
1976 63* 71
1977 110 80
1978 189* 146514 GULF OF MAINE

SPECIES: MACKEREL

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)

1969 ll2* 104

1970 134* 109
1971 141* 104
1972 133 179
1973 181 358
1974 178* 471
1975 134 200

1976 191* 271
1977 135 469
1978 233* 635

SPECJES: SWORDFISH

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)

1969 1 271** l 145
1970 1012** 1382
1971 2144
1972 3 193
1973 194** 3 121
2040
1974
1975 414** 2 712
1976 1611** 2 931
1977 1846** 2 794
1978 1969* 2 829

SPECIES: SCALLOPS (meat weight)

Canadian us
landed value/mt landed value/mt
Year ($ Can.) ($ US)

1969 1957 2 438
1970 2 404 2 989
1971 2 580_ 3 260
1972 3 530 4 418
1973 3 281 3 926

1974 2 930 3414
1975 3 175 4 165
1976 3 465 4068
1977 3 150 3 637
1978 4 798 5590 ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 515

SPECIES: LoBSTER

Canadian us
landed value/ml landed value/mt
Year ($Can.) ($ US)

1969 1728* 0 2105
1970 1997*** 2 270
1971 1761** 2473
1972 2 383*"' 2 821
1973 2 582** 3 343
1974 2 603** 3 630
1975 2 844** 3 962
1976 3 199** 3890
1977 3 185**
4366
1978 3 358** 4632

SPECIES: SQUID

Canadian us
/anded value/ml landed value/ml
Year ($Can.) ($ US)

1969 242
1970 184* 214
1971 203* 171
1972 272
1973 341
1974
371
1975 323
1976 191*** 308
1977 213*** 322
1978 333* 422

Table of E,cchange Rates
AVERAGE VALUE OF ÛNE UNITED STATES DOLLAR
IN CANADIAN FUNDS FOR THE YEARS 1969 THROllGH 1978

Year
Canadian funds

1969 1.0768
1970 1.0440
1971 1.0098
1972 0.9905
1973 1.0001
1974 0.9780
1975 1.0173
1976 0.9861
1977 1.0635
1978 1.1402

Source:Bank of Canada mid-market rates.516 GULF OF MAINE

Anoex5

STATISTICS RESPECTING THE ÛFFSHORE FlSHERY OF THE SMALL VESSEL FLEET OF
SourHWEST NovA ScoTIA

[Not reproduced}

Aonex6

5ZE (GEORGES BANK) LANDED VALUE ASAPERCENTAGEOFTOTAL LANDED VALUE
ATTHE FivE LEADING GEORGES BANK FISHING PoRTS IN NOVA SCOTIA, 1974-1978

SectionIll

Extracts from Published Statistical Data Sources Referred to in the
Memorial Submitted by Canada and in Section Iof This Volume

Aonex7

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO SECTION Ill

{Not reproduced]

Anoex8

STATISTICS USED TO DETERMINE EMPLOYMENT LEVELS INNOVA SCOTIA
(PRIMARY SECTOR AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT), 1978

(Sources: (A) Agricultural Statistic1980,_Vol. 16, Province of Nova Scotia,
Department of Agriculture and Marketing, R.P.-81-900,Agdex No. 850 03,
p. 12. (B) Estimates of Employees by Province and lndustry, December 1980,
Statistics Canada, Catalogue 72-008, Mar. 1981,p. 16.)

[Not reproduced} ANNEXES TO MEMORJALOF CANADA 517

Aooex 9

NOVA SCOTIA GROSS DoMESTIC PRoouCT DATA FOR PRIMARY SECTOR ACTIVITIES
(Source: Provincial Gross Domestic Producby lndustry, 1979Statistics Canada,
System of National Accounts, Catalogue 61-202, Apr. 1982,p. 23.)

[Not reproduced)

Annex 10

STATISTICS RESPECT!NO PRIMARY SECTOR ÜCCUPATIONS
IN SüUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA
(Source: Occupations: Occupation Groups by Sex.for Canada, Provinces and Cen­

sus Divisions, /971,Census of Canada, Statistics Canada, Catalogue 94-718,
Vol. IIJ, Part 2 (Bulletin 3.2-4), Feb. 1975,pp. 38-25 and 38-26.)

[Not reproduced]

Anoex Il

PROVINCIAL F!SH CATCHES AND VALUES

(Source: Canadîan Fîsheries: Annual Statistical Review, 1979Vol. 12, Depart­
ment of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Branch, PUB-81/020E and
Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1981, Catalogue Number
Fs 1-9/1980, ISBN 0-662-51508-0,p. 41.)

[Not reproduced]518 GULF OF MAINE

Annex12

STATISTICAL DATA RESPECTJNG RUBBER PRoouCTS EMPLOYMENT
IN NOVA SCOTIA
(Source: Nova Scotîa Directory of Manufacturers, 1977-1978, Halifax, Nova

Scotia Department of Development, Statistical Services Branch, introductory
pages and Statistîcal Industrial Commodity Classification Section, p. 1O.)

[Not reproduced]

Annex13

STATISTICS ON NOVA SCOTIA EXPORTS
(Source: Tabular Review of Nova Scotia's Export Trade, 1976-1980, Halifax,
Nova Scotia Department of Development, Statistîcal Seryices Branch, June
1981.) ·

[Not reproduced]

Annex14

STATISTICS USED TO DETERMINE FISHING AND FISH PROCESSING INDUSTRY SHAREl
OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IN THE Gooos-PRODUCING SECTOR FOR Nov A
ScorrA
---
(Sources: (A) Provincial Gross Domestic Product by lndustry, 1979, Statistics
Canada, System of National Accounts, Catalogue 61-202,Apr. 1982,pp. 24and
29. (B) Manufacturing Industries of Canada: National and Provincial Areas,
1978,Statistics Canada, Catalogue 31-203, Dec. 1980,pp. 52-59.)

[Not reproduced} ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 519

Annex15

STATISTICS ON THE 1CELAND1C EcoNOMY

(Source: The JcelandicEconomy, Developments 1981-1982,Reykjavik, National
Economie Institute, Apr. 1982,pp. 170, 174and 175.)

[Not reproduced]

Annex16

STATISTICS ON THE NORWEG!AN ECONOMY

(Sources: (A) Statistical Yearbook of Norway 1981, 100th issue, Oslo, Central
Bureau of Statistics of Norway, 1981,pp. 7 and51. (B) Fishery Statistics 1979,
Oslo, Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway, 1981, pp. 19, 108 and 109.
(C) FactsAbout the Norwegian Fishing lndustry, 5th ed., Oslo, Norwegian Fish-
ermen'sAssociation (Norges Fiskarlag), 1980,p. 20.)

[Not reproduced]

Annex 17

NEW ENGLANü FISHER Y EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS,1976

(Sources: (A) Statistical Abslract of the United States 1980, 101sted., Washing­
ton, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Dec. 1980, p. 397.
(B) Fishery Sratistics of the United States, 1976, Statistical Digest No. 70,
Washington, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanîc and Atmos­

pheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Oct. 1980, pp. 92
and 97.)

[Not reproduced]520 GULFOFMAINE

Annex18

CANADIAN PoPULATIONSTATISTICDSYPROVINCE
(Source: Economie Review: ApriJ981, Department of Finance, Catalogue
No, Fl-21/1981E, ISBN 0-660-10885-2, p. 107.)

[Not reproduced]

Annex 19

LABOUR FORCESTATISTIC FORCANADA ANDTHEATLANTIC PROVINCES,

1966-1980
(Source: Historical Labourrce StatisticsActual Data, Seasonal Factors,
Seasonally Adjusted Data, 1980,Statistics, Catalogue 71-201, Jan. 1981,
pp. 24, 39,40, 48, 63, 66, 69, 72, !00, 115, 11140,148, 163 an164.)

[Not reproducedj

Annex20

STATTSTICRSESPECTINPOPULATION LA, BOUFORCEACTIVITY AND
UNEMPLOYMEF NTRCANADA ANDTHEATLANTIC PROVINCES 1,971AND1976
(Sources: (A) LabourorceActivity: Labour ForceActivity bVol.x5, 1976

Census of Canada, Statistics Canada, Catalogue 94-801 (Bulletin 5.2), Sep.
1978,pp. v and vi and Table 2, pp. 2-1 (B)Labour Forceand lndividual
lncome: Labour ForceActivity by Sex, Vol. III, Part 1,1971Census of Canada,
Statistics Canada, Catalogue 94-703 (Bulletin 3.1-3),Jan. 1975,Table 5, pp. 5-1
and 5-2.)

[Not reproducedj ANNEXETSOMEMORIA OLFCANADA 521

Annex 21

STATIST!CSHOWING INCOME ESTIMATE FORCANADA ANDTHEPROVINCES 1, 76
(Source: lncome Estimates for Subprovîncial Areas, 1976, Statistics Canada,
Catalogue13-576,July 1981,pp. 43 and 53.)

[Not reproducedj

Annex22

STAT!STJCUSsrn rnDETERMINE EMPLOYMEN ITF!SHINGINNov ASCOTJA1,978

(Source: Canadîan Fîsheries: Annua/ Statîstîcal ReviVol.12, Depart­
ment of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Branch, PUB-8I/020E and
Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1981, Catalogue Number
Fs 1-9/1980ISBN 0-662-51508-0,p. 120.)

[Not reproduced]522 GULF OF MAINE

Aooex 23

NOVASCOTIA LANDINGB SYSPECIES

(Source: Canadîan Fisherîes Annual Statîstîcal Revîew, 1979, Vol. 12, Depart­

ment of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Branch, PUB-81/020E
and Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1981, Catalogue
Number Fs 1-9/1980, ISBN 0-662-51508-0,p. 42.)

The following excerpt giving Nova Scotia fish landings by species (volume
and value) for 1978and 1979was used as the statistical source for the figures in

Table A-6 in Section 1-Eof this Volume ("The Relative Importance of Scallops
to the Nova Scotia Fishery").

TABLE 23 - SEAFISHERIE-S CATCHEA SNDLANDED VALUEB SYSPECIESN , OVA

SCOTIA1,978-1979
TABLEAU 23 - f'tCHES MARITIMES- CAPTURE ST VALEURA SUDÉBARQUEMENT

PARESPÈCESN , OUVELLE-ECOS1 S9E7,8-1979

Nominal catches (Q) in tonnes, live weight - Values (V) in thousand dollars
Captures nominales (Q) en tonnes, poids vif - Valeurs (V) en milliers de
dollars

1978 1979

Species- Espèces Q V Q V

Groundfish --; Poissons de fond

Cod-Morue ...................... . 80520 25829 106 411 38266
Haddock - Aiglefin ................. . 40499 17866 33 114 15480
Redfish - Sébaste................... . 21640 4 235 26 304 5770
Halibut - Flétan .................... . l 235 2 550 1406 3 707
Small flatfishes - Petitsissons pais .. 16 332 4 453 17 406 5861
Turbot - Turbot .................... . 1 !75 214 1686 330
Pollock - Goberge .......... , ..., .. . 27 031 5 065 29 280 6 593
Hake - Merlu ........... . 5 932 1498
6275 1 436
Cusk - Brosme . . . . ......... . 5 304 1424 4910 1743
Catfish - Poisson-chat ............... . 1430 258 1925 425
Tomcod- Poulamon ................ . 3 1
Ot.her - Autres ..................... . 3695 514 2 544 571

TOTAL . . . . • • • • . . . . . . . . 205 136 . . . .63 844 . 230 921 80 245

Pelagic and estuarial fish Poissons
pé1agiques et d'estuaire
Herring - Hareng .................. . 86 445 15 810 49 002 lO 724
8 704 I 641 9 1l1 2 052
Mackerel - Maquereau .............. .
Tuna - Thon ....................... . 231 365 81 276
Alewife - Gaspareau ................ . 4 286 688 4 147 571
Eel - Anguille ..................... . 64 65 32 51
Salmon - Saumon ..............•.... 73 383 25 136
Shad - Alose ...................... . 60 44 48 33
Skate - Raie ....................... . 238 9 315 16
Smelt - Eperlan .................... . 63 30 l03 48
Capelin - Capelan .................. .
Other - Autres ................. . 3310 6 290 3 077 8 438

TOTAL ........................ ' .. .!03 474 25 325 65 941 22 345 ANNEXElS TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 523

1978 /()7()

Species - Espèces Q V Q V

Molluscs and crustaceans - Mollusques et
crustacés
Clam - Coque . . - -... -..... 1634 787 l 286 708

Oyster - Huître .................... . 107 76 71 40
Scallop - Pétoncle .................. . 106 400 61 856 85 973 71 607
Squid - Encornet ................... . [7 722 7359 25 397 [0 549
Lobster - Homard .................. . 6 161 30 532 7 366 33 737
Crab - Crabe ...................... . 426 [22 14 6
Queen Crab - Crabe des neiges ...... . 3096 l 916 2 768 1 836
Shrimp - Crevette .................. . 673 l 426 1 411 2 462

Other - Autres ..................... . 40 15 6 3

TOTAL ........................... . !36 259 104 089 !24292 [20948

Other items - Autres items
Livers - Foies ................... : .. .
0 0
Marine plants - Plantes marines ... . 19 897 l 856 [4117 l 417
Other products - Autres items ........ . 274 572

TOTAL .........••...•....•••. 2 130 l 989

GRANO TOTAL 444869 195 388 421 154 225 527524 GULF OF MAINE

Annex 24

STATISTICS ON SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA EMPLOYMENT IN fISHING AND FlSH
PROCESSING, AND W AGES AND VALUE OF SHIPMENTS IN FISH PROCESSING, 1976
(Sources: (A) Manufacturing Industries of Canada: Subprovincial Areas, 1976,

Statistics Canada, Catalogue 31-209, ISSN 0382-4012, Jan. 1980, pp. 28-35.
(B) Manufacturing Industrie.; of Canada: Subprovincial Areas, 1977, Statistics
Canada, Catalogue 31-209, ISSN 0382-4012, Aug. 1980,pp. 32and 33.(C) Nova
Scotia Directoryof Manufacturers, 1975, Halifax, Department of Development,
1975, pp. 89 and 90.)

[Not reproducedj

Annex 25

EMPLOYMENT IN SOUTH WEST NOVA SCOTIA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
DEPENDENT ON THE FJSHERY

(Source: Nova Scotîa Directory of Manufacturers, 1977-1978, Halifax, Nova
Scotia Department of Development, Statistical Services Branch, introductory
pages and pp. 10-12, 25-28, 30, 3and 32-36.)

[Not reproducedj -------------------

ANNEXES TO MEMORIAL OF CANADA 525

Annex26

PuBUSHED SOURCES FOR UNITED STATES FISH PRlCES
(Sources: (A) Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1969, Statistical Digest

No. 63, Washington, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1972, pp. 95
and 96. (8) FisheryStatistics of the United States, 1970,Statistical Digest No. 64,
1973,pp. 100 and 101.(C) FisheryStatistics of the United States, 1971,Statistical
Digest No. 65, pp. 94 and 95. (D) Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1972,
Statistical Digest No. 66,pp. 95 and 96(E) FisheryStatistics of the UnitedStates,
1973,Statistical Digest No. 67, pp. 93and 94. (F) Fishery Statistics of the United

States, 1974,Statistical Digest No. 68, pp. 92 and 93. (G) Fishery Statist[cs of the
United States, 195,Statistical Digest No. 69, Dec. 1978pp. 91 and 92. (H) Fish­
ery Statistics of the United States, 1976, Statistical Digest No. 70, Oct. 1980,
pp. 93 and 94. (I) Massachusetts Landings, Annual Summary, 1978, Current
Fisheries Statistics No. 7810, Washington, Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
25 June 1980, p. 3.)

[Not reproducedj

Anuex27

CENS US ÜATA RESPECTING PoPULA TION DY AGE, 1961 AND 1976; AND, fARM AND
NoN-FARM RURAL POPULATION, 1951 AND 1971, FOR SOUTHWEST NovA SCOTIA
(Sources: (A) Population: Geographical Distributions, Vol. I (Part 1),1961 Cen­
sus of Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1962, p. 13-1. (B)-Population:

General Characterislics, Vol.1(Part 2), 1961Census of Canada, Dominion Bu­
reau of Statistics, 1962,pp. 22-1 and 22-3. (C) Population: Urban and Rural Dis­
tributions, Vol. I (Part I),1Census of Canada, Statistics Canada, Catalogue
92-709 (Bulletin 1.1-9), Feb. 1973, pp. 11-2 and 11-3. (D) Population: Demo­
graphic Characteristics, Five-yearAge Groups, 1976Census of Canada, Statistics
Canada, Catalogue 92-823 (Bulletin 2.4), Mar. 1978, p. 13-3. (E) Population:
GeographicDistributions, Urban and Rural Distribution, 1976Census of Canada,
Statistics Canada, Catalogue 92-807 (Bulletin 1.8), Feb. 1978, pp. 9-1 and 9-2.)

[Not reproducedj -------------- --- - ··----------

The publications of the 1NTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE may be ordered
from any bookseller. .For information regardîng the sale of the Court's publications
please write to the Distribution and Sales Section, Office of the United Nmions, 1211
Geneva JO (Swilierland). or the .Sales Section, United Nations, New York. NY 10017
(USA). "

. The publications of the PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
(1920-1946)are obtainable from Kra us Reprint Co., Kraus-Thomson Organization
Limited, Route 100, Millwood, NY 10546 (USA), to which ail requests should be
addressed.

On peut acquérirles publlcations de !a COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

auprès des librairies spécialiséesdu monde entier. Pour tous renseignements, prière
d.e fadresser à la Section de la distribution et des ventes, Office des Nations Unies,
1211 Genève JO (Suisse) ouà la Section des ventes. Nations Unies, New York, NY 10017
(Etats."Unis). · ·
. On peut acquérir les publications de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
1NTERN ATIONALE (1920-1946) auprès de Kraus Reprint Co., Kraus·Thomson

Organization Limited, Route 100, Millwood, NY 10546 (Etats.Unis). Pour tous
renseignements, prière de s'adresser àcette·société.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS