1946-08-28

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein is arriving for his visit to Ottawa at three o'clock this afternoon and proceeding immediately from the central station to parliament hill to meet the veterans. Several hon. members have told me that they felt it might be difficult to retain a quorum in the chamber while that ceremony was proceeding on parliament hill. I have no personal feeling in the matter, but if it is the desire of the house to. extend the recess beyond the normal hour of three o'clock I shall be prepared to submit a motion to that effect.
Mr. MacNICOL:: To four o'clock?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To four o'clock instead of three, unless hon. members feel that it will not inconvenience them to make sure that there is a quorum in the house from three to four o'clock.

Questions


Mr. COLDWELL:: Would it be'possible to extend this morning's sitting to two o'clock and reassemble at four? I do not think we should lose an hour at this stage of the session.


Mr. FRASER:: Unless parliament intends to sit next week.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it appears to be the general desire of hon. members, I would move that the recess for the lunch hour be from, two to four p.m. instead of from one to three p.m.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Would it be better to have the afternoon session go from four to seven?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: A dinner has been arranged for the field marshal at a time when it was felt that this house would not be sitting, and the arrangement has to be carried out. This means that those attending the dinner will have to leave town not later than seven o'clock. I think it would be very inconvenient if the house were to sit until seven. It is perhaps difficult to meet the wish of every hon. member, but it seems to me that it would meet the views of a large majority if we were to extend this morning's sitting until two o'clock and then not resume until four. 1 move accordingly.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I shall be glad to second the
motion moved by the leader of the house, but on the distinct understanding that there will be enough government members here so that the government will not be defeated again to-day.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. leader of the opposition gave such an undertaking to the Prime Minister before he left that there is no possibility of anything like that happening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
2.	What was the total amount paid out during this period in each department of War Assets Corporation including salaries and wages for guard duty?
3.	How many men and women are employed m each department of War Assets Corporation including those on guard duty?
Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	85,785,855.80.
2.	No breakdown by departments was recorded for the first three months of this period. The total salaries and wages paid out was 82,531,562.24. Total salaries by departments for April, May and June, 1946 are as
follows:
Executive and Secretary's
department	 $ 47,430 51
Comptroller	
98,381	11Merchandising	
586,791	76
Supply (excluding corps of
commissionaires)	
2,027,130	65Corps of commissionaires	
328,891	22Lands and buildings	
33,370	14Organization and personnel_____	121,441	53Publicity	
7,710	01Overseas operations	
3,144;	63Total	
83,254,293 563.	Men	Women	TotalExecutive 	7	11	18Secretary	16	16	32Comptroller 	176	165	341Merchandising ....	507	565	1.072Supply 	3,998	740	4,738Supply corps of com-	missionaires 	1,383	Nil	1,383Lands and buildings	26	25	51Organization and	personnel 	119	238	357Publicity 	7	5	12Overseas operations	2	1	3Total 	6,241	1,766	8,007



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)

Mr. NICHOLSON:: What is the total value of construction permits which have been issued to breweries and distilleries in Canada since V-E day?


Mr. McILRAITH:: $2,779,759 (construction).


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-SALARIES, WAGES, ETC.
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was the total amount paid out for salaries and wages by the War Assets Corporation during the first six months of 1946 of all departments of this corporation?


APPLES-SUBSIDIES TO N.S. AND B.C. GROWERS' AND PROCESSORS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	(a) How much money was paid out to the Nova Scotia apple growers as assistance to market their crop in the year 1945; (b) how-much money was paid out to the processors of apples in Nova Scotia as assistance in the vear 1945?
2.	(a) How much money was paid out to the British Columbia apple growers as assistance to market their crop in the year 1945; (b) how much money was paid out to the processors of apples in British Columbia as assistance in the year 1945?


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	$58,544.14. Nothing was paid direct fo growers or processors but the above amounts were paid to the Nova Scotia apple marketing
Questions

board limited for distribution to growers under a pooling arrangement in accordance with the agreement. Payments were made during the fiscal year 1945-46 on apples of the 1945 crop.
2. (a) Nil; (b) nil.


WHEAT BOARD-PAYMENTS TO BROKERS AND COMMISSION MERCHANTS
Mr. FAIR:: During each of the crop years 1939-40 to 194546. what amount was paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to brokers and commission merchants on the sale of wheat?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Brokerage and commission-
1939-	40	
$369,485	441940-	41	
380,256	001941-	42	
399,533	911942-	43	
415,183	201943-	44	
241,838	791944- 45	
Nil1945- 46	
Nil
During the time that the Winnipeg wheat futures market was in operation, the Canadian wheat board paid brokerage and commissions in the normal course of their operations in that market. Following the closure of the wheat futures market, brokerage and commissions weire no longer involved in futures transactions which were terminated, and the Canadian wheat board also ceased paying brokerage on sales of cash wheat, the brokerage thereafter, if any, being paid by the buyer.


INDUSTRIAL, DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. WINKLER:: By provinces, how much has been advanced by loan by the Industrial Development Bank since its inception?


Mr. MAYHEW:: The Industrial Development bank is not a branch of the dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada.
Section 29 (1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "The bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the preceding month". This statement as at July 31, 1946, appeared in the Canada Gazette of August 24, 1946, and showed loans and investments (excluding dominion government securities) at $4,234,023.46.
In addition, section 29 (2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance at least once in its fiscal year or more frequently if so directed by the minister, in such form as he may prescribe,

a classification of loans and investments and of the loans guaranteed by it". This return, tabled in the House of Commons on December 6, 1945, showed that on September 30, 1945, there were SO authorized credits on the books of the bank totalling $3,198,050, of which $871,752 was outstanding as shown by the balance sheet.
The classification of loans and investments by provinces at September 30, 1945, was shown by this return as follows:
Authorized Outstanding
Prince Edward Island	$ -	$ -Nova Scotia	115,000	-New Brunswick. . .	200,000	66,064Quebec	1,052,500	459.912Ontario	1,192,550	212.189Manitoba	335,000	105.000Saskatchewan	30,000	17,100Alberta	135.500	-B. C. and Territories.	137,500	11,487$3,198,050	$871,752


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many fish hatcheries are there in the maritime provinces?
2.	Where is each of them located?
3.	What did it cost to maintain and operate each of them last year?
4.	How much is it estimated will be spent to maintain and operate each of them this fiscal year?


Mr. BRIDGES:: Return tabled.


AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES FOR COMING WINTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction. I regret that I have not been able to send him notice. Has there been any favourable change in the coal situation? I am swamped with wires from Toronto asking when people will be able to get coal for the coming winter.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The coal situation is no better. I shall be glad to make a statement to the house to-morrow. I think the public have been lulled into a sense of false security on the question of domestic coal, since supplies of Alberta coal are not being sold as rapidly as they should, considering the acute

Wheat
shortages of domestic coal. However, I will make a statement to-morrow. I thank my hon. friend for calling the attention of the house to the matter.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not been able to give the Acting Minister of Finance notice of the question I am about to ask, but perhaps he can take this as notice and answer later. I am appealed to by a multitude of people in my own riding who now occupy apartments. For some reason or other present tenants of apartments may be put out if some relative of the owner wishes to get into the apartment. The situation is shocking. Is there any possible relief in such cases?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance):: I have forgotten what the regulation is in that respect, but I will take the question as notice and give an answer to-morrow.


EMERGENCY SHELTER COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: I promised, when my estimates were under discussion, to lay on the table a breakdown of emergency shelter commitments and disbursements as at August 27. There are no disbursements or commitments for municipalities in Manitoba and British Columbia. We are now in negotiation with the city of Winnipeg, but we have not advanced to the stage where we can give a figure for Manitoba. The same remarks apply to the province of British Columbia. I would however point out that the figures I am tabling do not include emergency shelter provided by the old hotel Vancouver, for which a separate vote was included in the estimates. In the matter of universities, conversations are taking place with the province of Saskatchewan and it is likely that we shall have a commitment in that province before long. The real problem is to get the municipalities to promote a sufficient quantity of emergency shelter to meet anticipated needs. So far as we are concerned we are trying to build a backlog against anticipated needs of this fall.
With the consent of the house I would ask that the table be printed in Hansard.
(The table follows:)
Emergency Shelter Administration as of August 27, 1946
Disbursed or Committed _	Munici- Universi-
Province	palities ties	Total
Prince Edward	,
Island	
$ 20,000 $	__ $	20,000 'Nova Scotia ...	30,000	52,000	82,000New Brunswick	20,000	68,550	88,550Quebec	
34,000	100,000	134,000Ontario	
339,000	62,000	401,000Manitoba	
72,000	72,000Saskatchewan .	91,000	__ 91,000Alberta	
32,000	.135,000	167,000Brit. Columbia	....	58,400	58,400Total	
$566,000 $547,950 $1,113,950Disbursed or committed	
$1,113,950
Estimated requirements including administrative expenses.. 1,183,050

1946-47 Estimates	 $1,547,000
Supplementary Estimate	 750,000


$2,297,000 WHEAT MEETING OF PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have not given notice of it and therefore do not expect him to answer it this morning. It has to do with the possibility of an international wheat agreement. Recent press reports indicate that the preparatory committee of the international wheat council is meeting in Washington at the present time. My questions are:	(1) What is the object of
the meeting? (2) How many nations are represented on the preparatory committee? (3) Who is Canada's representative at this meeting, if any, and (4) has the U.S.S.R. been invited to attend? I do not expect the minister to answer these questions to-day, but he can take this as notice, give the matter his consideration, and furnish the house with such information as he has at an early date.


James Angus MacKinnon: I ean answer the first three questions to-day, but it would be better to accept this as notice and give the answer to-morrow or as soon as possible.
5500	COMMONS
The Ministry-Business of Parliament_____


CANADIAN ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the Minister of National Defence ' whether the space at Somerset bridge belongs to the defence department, or is it War Assets? That is where the army staff cars are parked.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to look into the question and give an answer later.


STATEMENT OF MR. POULIOT-THE MINISTRY- BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Before the motion is carried, I have to deal with a most important matter. I read in one of the morning contemporaries that parliament should await Mr. King, and the editorial, after referring to reports that parliament may prorogue this week-end, goes on, "We don't think parliament should do anything of the sort", et cetera. It is an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of to-day. I notice that the Prime Minister has given an interview to the effect that all his ministers should be here upon his arrival. When I look at the treasury benches and see many vacant seats, I realize that our cabinet ministers have become ambassadors of good will at large in various countries of the world. The Postmaster General is going to South America; another minister is away from Ottawa; the Minister of Agriculture is in Copenhagen, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has fled to Scotland to count the numbers of men who have not returned home, and the Prime Minister is at sea, as we are, while the Minister of Finance-


Mr. KNOWLES:: Speak for the Liberal party.


Jean-François Pouliot: I speak for the whole house at the present time in saying that. The Minister of Finance enjoys the scenery of Switzerland and looks at the paintings of Mr. Churchill over there.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Why don't you go
away?


Jean-François Pouliot: Because it is my duty to be here. The Minister of Health is at the Paris conference and expects the translator to make him understand what is said there.

The ministers who are here deserve our sympathy to the utmost.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We all deserve something right now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend that if he interrupts me-[DOT]


George Alexander Cruickshank: He will not be elected.


Jean-François Pouliot: -he will no longer be called the Jean-Frangois Pouliot of British Columbia and will run to defeat. By the way, it is always easy to heckle, but I have to speak of the sad position in which the House of Commons finds itself. It is not a matter for jokes. The other day when the members of the C.C.F. group were making their cases about labour matters I regretted very deeply that they were interrupted, because they are hard workers. I believe in freedom of speech, and when they have something to say they should be listened to. Those who do not want to listen to them have only to take the door or smoke outside the curtain. I say that in regard to all hecklers, because I certainly believe in freedom of speech, which is one of the guarantees of democracy in the country.
Now, sir, I wonder if this is what we call world government, to have the cabinet shelves empty and to have seats filled at UNO, UNRRA and all the other organizations of the world. For fifteen years I have suffered mental cruelty in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: In this sense, that there is not one measure which has been sponsored by the government which has entirely satisfied my mind. Even when the purpose was good, the legislation was half-baked. This year we have enlarged bureaucratic control immensely by piling Ossa upon Pelion, meaning that we have piled reams of paper on top of reams of paper, legislation on legislation. It does not mean any replacement of bureaucracy; it means more bureaucracy than ever, and more bureaucracy means more taxation. I wonder whether there is one member of parliament who is satisfied with this session. Everybody wants to go home. I feel the same way as my colleagues, but I want to go home with some accomplishment of which the House of Commons will be proud. If we .go home and tell our constituents merely that the session has lasted from March until September, it will not satisfy them. If we tell them that we have passed legislation, such a quantity of legislation as was never passed before, they will say: What is the use? What the Canadian people want

The Ministry-Business oj Parliament
is order and good government. That is all they want. We cannot expect order in the country unless we have order within the government. To have order within the government we must have leadership. I say that with fervour and sincerity. I want ta be just as proud of the government of my country as I was from the first time I was elected until 1930. Since then there has been a great change. No longer do we have democratic rule in the country. We have irresponsible rule from outside. I wonder whether there will be any change in the method of government. if a change of government should occur some time in the future.
The last election took place in June of last year. Is there one member of parliament who is satisfied with the work that he has accomplished during the session? I do not say that to depreciate ray colleagues, whom I respect even when I disagree with them, and for whom I have admiration and sympathy; because the result which they achieve is far from the task which is imposed on them and from the sacrifices which they have to make to be true to the national duty of representing the people of Canada in the house.
It is unfortunate that so many ministers are away. It is most unfortunate because it puts a heavier burden on the shoulders of their colleagues who are acting ministers. In my view all the cabinet ministers, even those who are away, are able men. But I will tell you, sir, that in my view the House of Commons is a dense forest of cabinet timber-and not only within the ranks of the Liberal party, but also within the ranks of the official opposition and the other groups opposite. Members are not given the opportunity to show what they can do, because they are kept at work which keeps them very busy, which does not leave them the time or give them the opportunity to accomplish reforms which they desire to make in the public interest.
We have heard something about world government, world government for Canada. Are we for it? Is Canada to become a second Newfoundland to be looked after financially by those whom we have helped so much during the war? Sir, there was a pathetic moment in this house; when the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) left for overseas, that old gentleman, who has been in office longer than any other prime minister, was about to sail for Paris, who wished him godspeed? It was the leader of the official opposition; it was the leader of the C.C.F. group; it was the leader of the Social Credit group, but no one rose from this side of the house to extend greetings and good wishes to
him. I w'ent before the whole house to shake hands with him, to give him my personal good washes. It w'as not for me to rise after the leaders, to speak in the same vein and to the same effect, although my wishes were sincere.
I will tell you more than that, Mr. Speaker. At a gathering of the Liberal party after the Prime Minister had said he had made up his mind to leave, that it was definite and that he would not reconsider it, I waited for a few moments, and then as I saw that nobody rose to say a word of appreciation to him, I did so, as an old member of the house, an old supporter. of the party who had kept his independence intact and held it as a treasure. Those are facts. I find it pathetic that a man who has been the Santa Claus of so many people did not get a word of thanks from those who had been eating from his hand in the expectation of the fulfilment of some untold wish and desire; but, sir, that is human nature. There is a fact which is of the utmost importance. Nobody wished Mr. King to go; nobody dared to say that. We have too much respect and reverence for him. But Mr. King, as old man Simeon in his Nunc Dimittis, has said, "My task is completed. I desire to leave the leadership of the party to enjoy the last years of my life." A fair wish; a wish that is reasonable, because he has done his duty for so many years. His reward is obvious. He wants to enjoy the last years of his life in comfort and peace in his home, so as to meditate and write for the benefit of future generations.
Some people say Mr. King will have to stay in office, that we must await his return, and that parliament shall remain idle until he comes back. They say, "We must wait for him." I do not think Mr. King would agree with the editorial to which I referred just a moment ago. He is too big n man to think that he is more than parliament. How many times shall I have to repeat that parliament has power that reaches far above the government; because in my view, after having read authorities on constitutional law, the" government is not at all more than parliament. It is just a committee of parliament. Therefore, sir, it belongs to us, members of the House of Commons, to make suggestions in these difficult times so that the ship of state will get out of the fog, and so that we may have clear vision of what we have to do for the benefit of the Canadian people.
It is impossible to make any decision, because decisions are not made by some of those who adorn the treasury benches. Most of the
5502	COMMONS
The Ministry-Business oj Parliament
time decisions are made outside, by outsiders. Those decisions by outsiders are often to sabotage what has been done by those of us who are supposed to hold in our hands the destiny of this country.
Well, sir, I read a Canadian dispatch which appeared yesterday in all the papers.. It was a dispatch respecting an interview given by the Prime Minister before leaving for Canada, on his way home. Everybody has read it. I could easily refer to it, but hon. members will know what it is about. But is there anyone who will suggest that Mr. Mackenzie King's glory would not have shone more if he had resigned three months ago, before leaving for Europe? If he had done so, anybody could have gone to Paris. They would not have achieved, more success than Mr. King has achieved!. But everybody would have said, "Oh, if Mr. King had been there he would have had a branch of the olive tree in his hand to settle all difficulties and all differences. It is most unfortunate that Mr. King resigned so early. He should have been there."
As a supporter of Mr. King I want his glory to remain intact. That is precisely the reason I regret so much the pressure that has been put upon, him to prevent his doing what apparently he wanted to do, what the National Liberal Federation wanted to do immediately after the last election, in the summer of 1945, according to the statement made not long ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he said that the leadership of the Liberal party had been offered to him by someone of importance outside the house.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Who was that man?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know; I never heard about it. I never am consulted, any more than the hon. member is.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Nobody made any offer to, the leader of the C.C.F. party.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would take the word of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar just as much as I would the word of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). I respect them both.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a question of privilege, there has been mention inside and outside the house with respect to a man prominent in Liberal circles approaching the leader of the
C.C.F. party. No name has been given, and I should like to know what the name is. I believe the house is entitled to know that name, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: I remember that a former president of the National Liberal Federation

had said in Windsor a long time ago, before the election in 1935, that there was no difference between the C.C.F. and the Liberal party. And that is precisely why I was called by the party to Windsor to support the nomination of the late Hon. Norman McLarty, who later became secretary of state. I do not know whether it was the same gentleman who spoke to the leader of the C.C.F. group, because he was away when the conversation took place. But it could have been said by the National Liberal Federation, and it could have been said by Mr. Gordon Fogo, whom I object to as president of the liberal federation, because of his dealings with the Tories during the war. And, by the way, sir, I know my onions. When I state something I can give the evidence for what I am contending.
Well now, is it true that in this house-it is not necessary to go outside the house-there is no one who could slip into the shoes of the Prime Minister, when the duty of remaining leader of the house and Prime Minister against his own will is being imposed upon the present Prime Minister? I do not think so. I do not think it is fair to make a suggestion to the effect that Mr. King is the only man who can foe prime minister of Canada, after he has been prime minister for twenty years.
I repeat it is not a matter of disrespect, but rather one of urgency and of national importance. And if I had not spoken on this motion, sir, I am sure the house would have given its consent to debate the matter on a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, as this one is.
As I am proud of my colleagues, as I appreciate all of them, and as I appreciate the ungrateful task they are performing in the house, I want them to leave Ottawa not with a sour mouth but with content in their hearts and satisfaction in their minds. I would want them to go home with the conviction that we are contributing together to put the country on its feet for a better future for all Canadians.
The other day I listened to a moving speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in which he said that party considerations did not affect him much. That is my position. I have been fighting for the Liberal party for a number of years because I expected reform. I have tried many ways to obtain reform, first by suggesting a union opposition composed of men of good will, before the three war ministers were out. Then I appealed to patriotism and to love of Canada, but without success. I appealed to liberal minded members of all parties of the house, leaving aside political

The Ministry-Business of Parliament
labels, ignoring them; I appealed to their sense of duty, which is another form of patriotism; now I make a special appeal to all true reformers.
The question is to obtain reform in the government; the question is to go back to the old democratic rule of responsible government; the question is not to use abstractions, to curse and denounce abstractions. We will get nowhere with that. It has been an honour for a long time to be the Prime Minister of this country; it was an honour when life was easier, when taxation was less, when there were no labour difficulties, when people earned less money but when money had more purchasing power. The people were contented and satisfied with their lot.
I remember having seen prime ministers of Canada in coaches driven by fine horses parading through our cities, which were all decorated, and making fine speeches that got great applause. Now conditions are different. Social life is of no importance for those who govern this country. We have evidence of that in the fact that prior to the war there were receptions that we do not have any longer. I do not complain about it; I understand very well that cabinet ministers do not have the time to entertain members of parliament as they did before the war. What is important is not to listen to fine, moving speeches made to large crowds on special occasions by the right hon. Prime Minister of this country and the hon. gentlemen who are his cabinet ministers, et cetera, et cetera; what we have to do is to roll up our sleeves and work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear hear; let us get
at it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. This is all the more so because last week in the senate committee I heard the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Towers, declare that Canada can pay the tremendous debt we have-be seemed absorbed in his thoughts when he spoke those words-only with the sweat of our brow, with lots of luck and with plenty of time. Lots of luck provided that we come back to reality, provided that we put aside all dreamers, provided we give our confidence to men who have accomplished things, provided we give our confidence to realists and reformers.
I have never understood why in the world the Prime Minister holds so many portfolios. He is the Prime Minister of Canada, the first minister, which is the same thing. He is the President of the Privy Council. He is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is the leader of this house. It is an unusual
situation that the minister whom he appointed to replace him as leader of the house should have gone away while the house is still sitting. He is the President of the Privy Council, and the President of the Privy Council is far away from the east block at the present time.
In my humble view, and in the view of my constituents and of several English and French speaking Canadians, in these crucial times through which we are passing the Prime Minister should be only the Prime Minister. He would not .have enough time to head the Department of External Affairs. The foremost duty of the first minister of the land should be to supervise the departments and give them leadership and inspiration to rebuild and reconstruct this country. Is it impossible to find in this house a man who can fill that position in order to give the Prime Minister of Canada, whom I respect and whom I have defended, at times even against himself, a real rest when he has expressed so definitely his desire to get it?
It is the. privilege of a Prime Minister to choose his colleagues in his cabinet. I know that, and I knew it when I was rebuked by the Prime Minister after I had said that Tom Moore should not be minister of labour. I expressed that pious wish, and I was at once rebuked by the Prime Minister, who told me to mind my own business. In fact Tom Moore was not appointed minister of labour, and although I had received the rebuke I had the satisfaction of winning my point,
I admit it is the privilege of the Prime Minister to choose those with whom he wants to surround himself in the council room. That is his business, but it is the duty of the house to make suggestions so that the best choice is made of his successor, not by the Prime Minister but by the party as far as the leader of the party is concerned, and by the house in order to find a leader of the house. Government exists only as long as it has the support of this house.
After major consideration and thought I have come to a conclusion which I offer through you, Mr. Speaker, to the House of Commons. We are starting a new era. The war has been left behind and we are starting a real post-war and peace era. There are many ungrateful tasks, and I sympathize with the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who has had to do things that were most unpleasant to him. But he did them from a sense of duty, he did them to be true to the dicta of his conscience and I admire him greatly for that. He enjoys the respect of all of us. When I think of all his colleagues I also have great admiration for them. Some of them are personal friends, and others
5501	COMMONS
The Ministry-Business of Parliament
deserve the consideration that they enjoy from all of us. I am sorry when I disagree with them on some matters. However, this is a free country and I appreciate the fact that I have never been canvassed in my office by any whip, by any minister or by any other Liberal member to change my views. The Liberal party is a party where freedom of thought is respected.
The war effort of: Canada was referred to by Mr. Churchill in New York during the war as being a massive effort. He said that in the presence of the Prime Minister. I cannot forget that the main artisan of the Canadian war effort, the man who organized war production in the country, was a man who worked day and night for his country. I know of no man in this house, and I say this with due respect to my colleagues whom I respect and admire, who could have achieved the miracle accomplished during the war by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). I have disagreed with him at times, especially in the early part of the war, but he and the able men whom he gathered around him deserved and got my admiration for the splendid task that they performed in those difficult times. In proportion to her population Canada has done more than any other country in the world for the war effort, and no one will say that the Minister of Reconstruction was not the main artisan of that magnificent and massive production.
The conclusion is obvious. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to go. It is absurd to force a gentleman who will reach his seventy-second birthday in a few months to stay at the helm of the ship of state any longer when he himself wants to go. I regret it, but that is his decision. But there is somebody to replace him, and I say this without deprecating the fine work done by all the colleagues of the Prime Minister. I think the man who should be in charge of reconstruction for peace should be the man w'ho was in charge of our war production. He is a realist; he has the finest possible background to accomplish that task. I suggest that he should be prime minister, but only prime minister to supervise the work of his colleagues whom he will be free to choose.
It is easy for any hon. member to "slate" a cabinet. All one has to do is to take a sheet of paper and put names on it. But it would be unjust. It pertains to the Prime Minister to make his own choice and come before the house and have the support of the house for his government. When I look around, I would not be surprised if some of the ablest men-and they are many-in the other groups would be invited to join in fMr. Pouliot.]
the formation of such a cabinet, which would be a real peace cabinet. How can anyone go to other countries and lecture them on what they should do when there is disorder in this country? The first duty of the Prime Minister is to stay here. The first duty of the Prime Minister is to his country. Mr. King has realized it, and now he is on his way back to Canada; and are we waiting for word from him to decide what we have to do? Therefore, sir, my suggestion is that the house should comply with the wishes expressed so often by the Prime Minister of Canada,-and this is for his own glory-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: According to the rules of the house the hon. gentleman is not limited to forty minutes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have we got to stand for this all day?


Jean-François Pouliot: I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he learn the rules of the house. Besides that, we could make a motion so that he be appointed to the senate after the formation of the new cabinet.


James Horace King: Order. I refer hon. gentlemen to Beauchesne, page 93, rule 219:
A member speaking immediately after the minister has moved that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply or ways and means, may speak for more than forty minutes. He has that right whether he moves an amendment or not.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; and through you I will say to the house: Stop, look,, and listen.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have a heart.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I am saying now is for the prompt expedition of the business of parliament. I have no other intention. We are all in the fog; we do not know where we are, and it is time to decide something. It is time to lose that inferiority complex which is the characteristic of fascist states, and we should come back to the democracy which is so often preached in this house when in fact it does not exist. As a Liberal, sir, I regret that when I defend the rights of democracy in this house, everyone who speaks his own mind, everyone who says aloud all that is said behind doors, is interrupted by those who have not the courage to speak out what they say in catimini.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have a heart.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely I have a heart, and if I had not been interrupted I would have finished my speech a long time ago. That is the reason I am still standing here, sir. I congratulate you, sir, because you do your

Supply-Immigration
duty, and I admire the way in which you perform it. But I will tell you, sir, that I hope those who have interrupted me, who call themselves Liberals but who are no more Liberals than they are Chinese, will be put out of the party in power and will be replaced by men of good will, by liberal-minded men coming from all other parties of the house; and the gain would be to the government' of the day. As a Liberal I am convinced, when I hear shouts and screams and howls and groans every time a member has the courage to stand up and express his convictions, that if we are in a democratic country, if the right of free speech exists, it is the duty of a man who has the faculty of saying what he thinks, to speak here what he believes is for the good of this country. And now, sir, I am nearly through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will speak longer. Those
who have just interrupted me are those who make no contribution to the debate except by groans, by howls, by shouts and by screams. They are like those musical instruments which are called drums; they are very noisy, but they are empty. And, sir, having said what I think-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Loud laughs.


Jean-François Pouliot: It reminds me of what Mr. Lapointe told me one day when I denounced some of the parasites we had on this side of the house and who, thank God, have gone away. He told me that the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) had said to him across the floor, "Don't laugh; you encourage him." I do not need to be encouraged.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You're telling us!


Jean-François Pouliot: It is no pleasure to me to leave my part of the country to come here to-day and to take advantage of the last day on which I am afforded the opportunity to speak as I do now to say all I have to say to members of parliament, to complete what I have already said so often during the session, to inspire in them self-assurance so that they will be confident of themselves and can go back with pride to their constituents and say, "We have accomplished our duty; we have done our best to put the country in order."
The reason I mentioned the name of Mr. Howe is that his work has been sabotaged on housing and on aviation, and he has not been given full freedom of action to do what he wanted to do. Every time he has been prevented from doing what he wanted to do by those who think we can pay the tremendous
debt of this country by the sweat of our brow in lots of time and with lots of luck. Let us help ourselves now. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is in good health; he is not an old man; but I do not think that he will stay very long; it is a sacrifice which the country asks of him to require him to finish his job in order that he can organize peace. It is a great sacrifice and it will be a burden for him. I show that I have no narrowness of mind and no prejudice when I mention for such a high post one from whom I have differed at times but whose merit I recognize.
In all friendliness, sir, I thank very sincerely the house for the kind, reception they have given me. I hope some things will be done to comply with the wishes expressed by the Prime Minister, and that, without discrimination as regards any one of his colleagues, the house will choose a leader who is a realist, and who has accomplished so many important things in the past.
There will be young men who have legitimate ambitions, and after the country is again on its feet there will be opportunity for the party or for any organization to select a new leader. In the meantime we will have no elections, except under special circumstances, for a few years. The task of reconstruction must start now. It must not start in a month, in a year, in two years; it must start now, and be given a new impulse by a man who will have the supervision of all departments and who will have the authority to tell his cabinet colleagues what they shall do, each one as the head of his department, so as to perform the best possible task and enable us to achieve reform, not by speeches, but by example. I thank the house, sir, and I thank you.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
LEGISLATION The Senate The Speaker of the Senate-
Salary and motor car allowance. $7,000.
120. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.	#
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES Immigration branch-
186. Administration of the Immigration Act and the Chinese Immigration Act, $218,866.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the minister give some information about the preparations being made, in addition to those he mentioned last night, to receive refugees, of whom quite a number have applied for admittance into the
Supply-Immigration

country? In my riding there are two or three thousand Ukrainians, six or seven thousand Jewish people, four or five thousand Italians, perhaps two thousand Poles, and people of other European nationalities, as well as of course a large number of people of British origin. I have received from many of them, particularly from those originally from the continent, requests that last remaining relatives be allowed to come to Canada. In most cases, after inquiry I have sent the application on to the department. Some of these people who *would like last remaining relatives on the continent to come to Canada are comfortably off and able to take care of them, and they are ready to give any bonds required by the government so that the immigrants will not become a public charge.
I wish to support what the member for Spadina said last night. In my opinion, too, the time has come when we should follow the United States programme in preparing for an over-all immigration policy to see to it that folks of the best type are admitted, irrespective of race, ensuring of course that the predominant number will be from the British isles. To my own knowledge representatives of all the races I have mentioned, so far as my own riding is concerned, have done wonderfully well in helping to build up the country. I refer first to the Jews, the Ukrainians and the Poles. We have two Ukrainian members of parliament, one in the C.C.F. representing the constituency of Dauphin, and the hon. member for Vegreville; and we have one hon. member of Jewish race representing the constituency of Spadina. There may be others whose names I have overlooked. But certainly these three gentlemen, representing their races, have all demonstrated what this country owes to the people of their nationalities. The Italians, Poles, Russians and Scandinavians are also well represented in my riding. I concur in what the hon. member for Spadina said about the proposal to organize an over-all immigration plan, not forgetting that the predominant stock be British origin. I am in contact with organizations representing thousands of people of the nationalities to which I have referred, and I think that every effort should be made to allow the applicants to come in if they are fit and if and when they can be absorbed.


Mr. MICHAUD:: In view of the remarks that have been made urging a greater degree of immigration, I think I should say a few words lest the impression be left that the house unanimously favours more immigration. I for one cannot subscribe to the policy, and

I wish to place on record my opposition to any opening of the doors until such time as we have set our own house in order.
In the first place, Canada has for years been the stepping stone for immigrants wishing to go to the United States. I have not had time to look up the figures, but I have seen them, and my recollection is that over a period of forty years. the national increase in population has been almost as large as if not larger than the number of immigrants who have left the country for the United States. This establishes clearly that a good many of these immigrants went to the United States or else drove some of our own Canadians to the United States. Just as phony money drives good money out of circulation, immigrants have been driving out the natives of this country. Statistics show that the proportion of Canadians of British descent is decreasing steadily and that of French extraction remains stationary. Is this situation healthy, or is it one that should be encouraged further?
While the majority of the people from continental Europe have proved to be fine citizens, particularly Ukrainians and Scandinavians, the fact remains that other groups have been a source of trouble at times. Before talking about bringing more people into the country we should look into our own labour situation. As the minister pointed out, we have yet to reestablish in civilian life a number of our servicemen, those actually in service and those taking vocational courses. Moreover, according to the report of the Minister of Labour, even at this favourable time of the year our unemployment is still quite high. Until this number is further reduced it would not be in the interests of labour to bring more labourers into Canada.
After all, the great majority of immigrants who have come to this country, including farm help and farmers, were manual labourers. All those in this house who champion the cause of labour must realize that labour is better served where unemployment is at the lowest ebb. For that reason immigration of labourers, except under special circumstances, cannot serve the cause of labour. Abundant labour always means a lower standard of living. In my humble opinion the only immigrants we might be able to absorb without too much danger at this time are farmers and would-be farmers.
Everyone realizes the importance of having this country thickly settled. There is only one way of doing that, and that is by occupying the greatest area of land and farming it. Merely increasing the population of the cities and towns would not in my opinion better

Supply-Immigration
our situation as a nation. If we wish to be a great nation we must occupy and cultivate more of our arable land. We shall not do this by bringing in industrial workers.
This may sound rather arbitrary, but I believe that in the best interest of Canada all unskilled immigrants should be admitted to the country on the understanding that they remain on the farm for at least one generation. The best way to develop love and devotion to a country and its institutions is to develop love and devotion to the land and the soil, and practically the only way to develop love and devotion to the land of the country is to clear that land and cultivate it.
I venture to say that all new Canadians who have spent the early years of their lives in this country in the pursuit of agriculture ,are far better citizens than those who have had to depend for their livelihood on other types of manual labour. Therefore our immigration policy should be directed towards bringing in people who are willing and anxious to till the soil. When this situation arises, to prove to the house that I am not opposed to immigrants of all types, I claim that we in the maritimes, and New Brunswick particularly, should have our proper share of immigrants. In my own riding there are hundreds of acres of good arable land, quite as arable and as valuable as the land in the western provinces. Let us have our share of farmer immigrants. We could settle thousands of them in my own riding, but I warn the government that what we need is farmers and not industrial workers, not pick and shovel immigrants.
Another reason why I consider immigration inadvisable is the housing situation, which is so serious. Where will you house the immigrants when you are unable to take care of your own people, your own veterans? I cannot understand the position of those who are clamouring for further immigration under present housing conditions. If deserving and desirable immigrants are anxious to come and ask us to receive them, then I think charity and justice bid us to receive them and treat them with the greatest degree of Christian kindness; but I see no reason for our making any special effort to bring people to this country unless they are anxious to come. If we do so we give them an implied undertaking that they will be pleased and well taken care of here. If they should be disappointed, they are apt to blame us for it.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I do not propose to discuss the question of the whole immigration policy, because I believe the minister intimated yesterday that in a short time from now
it would be his mission to give to the house and to the country his view and the view of the government on the question of immigration as a whole. Therefore I shall confine my remarks to the question of the admitting of refugees and displaced persons.
Before I do that may I express my deep gratitude to the hon. member for Davenport for what he has said in his broad-minded way about the people of Ukrainian origin. I also express my gratitude to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. I do that because anything that I would say about the question of Ukrainian refugees or displaced persons can better be said by hon,. members who are not of Ukrainian origin. For that reason I want to place on record part of the report of the immigration and labour committee of the senate, which makes reference to the Ukrainian question. For obvious reasons I would rather have their opinion on record than my own views. May I say that this committee did a fine job in taking evidence both for and against the admission of immigrants into Canada. Therefore their report is based upon evidence taken on all sides of the question. First they make reference to other persons who are in displaced persons' camps, and then they have this to say about Ukrainians:
Ukrainians Available
There would appear to be at least an equal number of refugees and displaced persons of Ukrainian origin in the camps of Germany or drifting about Europe. Some millions of men and women were driven by the Germans from the territories they occupied to be used as slave labour. The home country of these people has been devastated, and it is thought that many would welcome an opportunity to recommence life in Canada. How suitable they are for settlement could be learned by careful investigations where they are, and by no other means. Our agents should be in Europe now engaged in this work, for if they are such people as the Ukrainian settlers who came to Canada in the years preceding the last war they will possess characteristics of _ intelligence and industry which may well contribute to Canada's development.
I place that on record because I would rather have the views of a body of men who took evidence from all sides, pro and con, and came to that conclusion, than place my own interpretation on it.
I should also like to make reference to another organization which appeared before the immigration and labour committee of the senate. I refer to the Canadian national committee on refugees, which was organized in 1938, the chairman of which is the Hon. Cairine Wilson, and the honorary chairman, Mr. B. K. Sandwell, two persons both well-known in Canadian life. After discussing the question of displaced persons and refugees
Supply-Immigration

before the committee they made, among other recommendations, this one which I consider to be most valuable in the immediate future. Their first recommendation was:
That Canada should state her policy on displaced persons immediately without waiting for decisions of the united nations.
They go on to say:
Australia has already made known her intention to take 70,000 immigrants annually. Great Britain, having accepted 150,000 to 200,000 oefore the end of the war, announced in the latter part of 1945 that relatives and concentration camp survivors would be admitted. The United States having taken about 250,000, has reopened quotas to provide for displaced persons of several nationalities and will admit a total of 39,000 a year.
They advocate that in proportion Canada do her share in admitting whatever number of refugees and displaced persons it is possible to admit in the immediate future. Another recommendation they make is as fallows:
That the important distinction be recognized between immigration policy and policy concerning refugees and displaced persons.
May I say that I found much with which I could agree when I listened to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, particularly when he said that at the present time it was not a question of opening the door wide to immigration until Canada's house is in order.
May I also refer to the attitude which organized labour may take? I wish to put on record what the Canadian Congress of Labour had to pay on this question on July 25, 1946. They recognized the distinction between imigration as a policy and the immediate policy of bringing displaced persons and refugees here to find a sanctuary. This is their fifth recommendation:
The admission of refugees, though it has, of course, economic aspects, is primarily a humanitarian question. Canada is under an obligation to humanity to admit her due share of refugees even if it costs her something. It may actually bring her important economic benefits. But even if it does not, she must do her part.
That is the view of organized labour, speaking as recently as July 25 of this year. It is a fair and humanitarian stand to take. Organized labour realizes that there is a danger in a period of mass unemployment, and in the housing crisis we are now experiencing overcrowding may work to the detriment of labour; but even in the face of that, from the point of view of helping people less fortunate than ourselves, organized labour is prepared to allow that class of people to come to Canada.

May I also refer to the recent convention of the National Council of Women, in which Mrs. R. T. Tanner, Toronto, who was the convener of the united nations committee of the National Council of Women, had this to say on June 6 of this year:
Approximately 750,000 persons in Europe cannot return home and must find new homes abroad. We must be willing to take a number of these unfortunate people and let the government know Canadian people are anxious to help solve this problem.
May I come back to another recommendation of the Canadian national committee on refugees. In their fifth point they recommend :
That immigration officers be sent immediately to the distress areas, particularly into the displaced persons camps.
The reason for that is obvious. In addition* to the shipping question, as the minister pointed out yesterday, there is the question of the inspection and selection right on the continent. I quite realize that the minister and the government want to be as careful as possible, and they should be, to see that the right type of person is admitted to Canada; that anyone who may bring jn some malignant disease, whether it be physical or mental, should not be permitted to come to Canada. I agree that great care should be taken. On the other hand there is definitely a question of urgency. We must remember that this problem of displaced persons and refugees arose even before the war ended. The war has now been over for a considerable period of time. Thees who are in the displaced persons camps have had the feeling that since the war is over, since conditions are more favourable, the allies will come to their rescue. The people are suffering, not only physically but mentally, because they are in a state of uncertainty; they do not know what is going to happen. They have looked to the United States and Canada as a sort of paradise to which they will be admitted when conditions permit. I feel strongly on this question. Perhaps because I am of Ukrainian origin I get more letters from people on this question than the average member would. But I know other members have received letters telling them of the desperate urgency of the situation. In fact I have received letters directly from overseas, from the displaced persons camps. I have taken pains to ascertain the truth of the allegations made in the letters, and I am satisfied that in respect of many of these people there is a degree of urgency which almost reaches desperation.
Let me make it clear that I am in favour of the government being very careful in

Supply-Immigration
checking anyone who applies for passage to this country, in that only those who will make good Canadians shall be admitted; but beyond that I doubt whether we should be too strict or too technical. Certainly we can no longer be dilatory. We should take as many of these people as it is possible for the country to absorb at this time, in order that they may get away from the conditions which surround them.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I had not intended to say anything on this subject, but after listening with interest last night to the minister's statement I think something should be said now, because it may be too late when we meet next session.
One hon. member suggested giving a preference to European peasants rather than to English slum dwellers as immigrants. It just so happens there are thousands of city dwellers in England who would like to come to Canada.
Before proceeding further I should like to remind the house of what the English slum dweller has contributed to the welfare of democracy. It vTas slum dwellers in England who formed the first trade union in Great Britain. I refer to the Tolpuddle martyrs, who were slum dwellers and who were the originators of the trade union movement in Great Britain, a movement which has been supported loyally throughout the years by large numbers of people who would be termed slum dwellers. Those people have strong democratic instincts. I would say, too, that the foundation of the cooperative movement in Great Britain rests on the activities and support of the slum dwellers, as it was originated in the village of Rochdale. And that movement wras begun by what would be described as slum dwellers in what would be called now a slum. The cooperative movement in Great Britain has been built to a great extent by the activities and support and loyalty of the so-called slum dwellers of that country. It was built on the poverty and the pluck for which the slum dwellers in Great Britain are known.
Who first sensed the dangers of the fascist creed in Great Britain when some in high positions failed to realize it, and laughed Mosley's black-shirts into the backwaters of impotence? It was the slum dwellers of that country who did it. Who gave the world a greater example of heroism among a civilian population than the slum dwellers in the cities of England did during the last war? What civil population in the world's history has stood so fast and so firm, and under such difficult circumstances, and has defied tyranny, as the slum dwellers of England?
We owe them a debt of gratitude. If they had faltered at that time, if their morale had collapsed, history would be written in different terms to-day.
How many thousands of the troops on the beaches at Dunkirk came from the Slums of Great Britain? How many men in the eighth army came from the slums of Great Britain? How many men who came from those slums served in the British navy, air force and merchant marine?


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And in world war I, too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Some people may question the advisability of bringing the so-called slum dwellers of Great Britain to Canada as immigrants. Anyone who knows Canadian history must know that thousands of them came to this country and have made an excellent contribution to its development. Hundreds of men in the public life of this country to-day, in different communities across the country, came from the slums of England. I mention these few facts because I want people fully to realize what contribution these humble people, who had so very little, have made to the development of democracy in Great Britain.	.
I am disturbed by the lack of immigration policy on the part of the government, and by statements which have been made. I was particularly disturbed when I read one of the reports of the senate committee on immigration, where a certain Lieutenant-Colonel Hicks, of Montreal, who until recently was a member of the Canadian portion of the military government in Germany, and who had under his control some twenty-two or twenty-three Canadian officers, suggested that we should admit four million Germans to this country as immigrants. Anyone who reads the record will see that. At the same time there are thousands in Great Britain who wish to come to Canada, but who are not getting any encouragement. I should like to tell the committee about an experience I had in the winter of 1938, just before the war. A young chap knocked at my door and asked lodging for the night. He was a young seaman from Glasgow who could not get employment in Great Britain. He had been on the dole for some years, and had heard that he could get employment on our great lakes as a seaman. He came to Canada, and after working two or three weeks on the great lakes on a pulpwood barge, the job was completed. Following that he hitchhiked across Canada, having been told that he could get a job on a ship in Vancouver. He travelled from Winnipeg to my home in the
Supply-Immigration

Kootenays, when, as I have said, that dark winter's night he knocked on my door, asking if I could put him up. I did so, keeping him for a week or so and in the meantime making arrangements for his transportation to Vancouver, where he thought a shipping job was available. The Canadian government deported that young man back to Glasgow. Throughout the years I corresponded with him because I was interested in what he was doing. The day war was declared he joined the merchant marine because a call had gone out for men to serve on the ships. He served throughout the war and was torpedoed several times.
Quite by accident, just before coming to Ottawa in March to attend the sitting of the house, I had the opportunity of speaking to him for ten or fifteen minutes in Vancouver. I said, "What do you intend to do when you get out of the merchant marine?" He said, "There is nothing I would like better than to come to British Columbia and stay on a piece of land." I might add that he was a hard-working chap, and capable. I said, "What have you done about it?" He said. "When we were in London I went to the office in that city, but I was given no encduragement whatsoever. I was practically told that they did not want any immigrants from Great Britain in Canada at the present time."


John Horne Blackmore: Imagine that!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When we are discussing the matter of immigration I believe we must remember that, on the whole, Europe is short of man-power. Man-power is required throughout the devastated sections; but in Great Britain, with the exception of immediate reconstruction requirements, there will be a surplus of man-power.
I should like to read from a publication which quotes what a Mr. Wickman has to say. This man is a progressive British industrialist who was in Toronto some months ago. He said this:
"Canada is one of the millionaires of the new era. We in Britain, who were the pioneers of industrial development, are now one of the new poor. Britain's population is far above the ability of her domestic raw materials to supply."
Mr. Wickman advocated the transplanting of British industries to Canada with the transplanting geared to immigration. He left no doubt that if adequate labour were available, he would move his own vast enterprises to this country.
The hon. member who has just spoken said, I believe, that life on the land developed the greatest degree of loyalty and devotion to the country. I do not think any group of workers

could excel the industrial workers of Great Britain in the loyalty and devotion to democratic ideals they have shown in past years.
I realize that the question of displaced persons is a difficult one. I should like to pay tribute to all those of European stock who came to this country, and who assisted in its development and in our war effort. Many fine people have come to Canada from Europe; I have known many of them. But this is a question which causes many Canadians serious concern. There are some displaced persons in Europe who have suffered nazi tyranny and nazi oppression. Some of them want to come to this country, and we should admit them at the first possible opportunity. At the same time there are hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who helped Hitler until the day of allied victory. In this connection I should like to read from a letter written by a Canadian soldier and published in the Oshawa Times-Gazette, as follows:
Dear Sir:
I was very much surprised that there should be circles in Oshawa who would champion the right of Ukrainian quislings to receive asylum in this country. I refer to the item in your paper of November 27 which deals with a resolution adopted at the Ukrainian National Hall in regard to the so-called Ukrainian displaced persons now in Germany in the British and American zone.
I have first hand knowledge of these traitors since I met them in Upper Silesia while I was a prisoner of war. That is why I am not impressed about the claim that these people "are unable to return to their native land without endangering their lives on account of a system of terror practised by the Soviet government."
I ask you, Mr. Editor, what we Canadians would say about a number of our people joining the German army, fighting us and our allies and then seeking asylum in Russia on the grounds that we may want to try them for treason and therefore they should be protected from our justice?
These traitors should not be given asylum in Canada. I for one believe they should be returned to the Soviet authorities for trial.
I first came into contact with these Ukrainian quislings when I was shipped from Stalag No. 344, Lamsdorf to Bankau, Upper Silesia, in June, 1944.
I was in a working party of 24 Canadian prisoners of war who were engaged in forestry and sawmill work. This is how we came to know of the Ukrainian settlement nearby. The women used to work in the woods and their men would come to visit them on their leave. Our German guards told us they were Ukrainian volunteers in the German army. They wore the green-grey uniform of the Wehrmacht and acted like regular Germans. We often saw them when they came on leave.
There were other Ukrainians in Bankau. as well as Poles. Russians and other European nationalities. But these wore the tag of forced labourers and were treated as such.
You can well imagine how we Canadians felt about these Ukrainian volunteers in the German army. If we had an opportunity we would

Supply-Immigration
551.
have shot them there and then ourselves. We had more respect, if it could be called such, for our German guards as at least they were of the enemy.
Perhaps someone may ask: how come these people are now in the British and American zone? It's simple. They were afraid of the Red army and fled west into our lines figuring they can fool the allies with their anti-Soviet stories and claims that they were merely refugees from the terrible bolsheviki.
On January 18, 1945, our German guards began evacuating us westward into Germany because the red army was pressing the wehr-macht further and further west. The first to flee were these Ukrainian quislings. While we were forced to march hundreds of miles on foot they grabbed every vehicle in sight to get out of the way of the red army. We met hundreds of them, a disorderly mob, scared for their skins. Their objective was the American and British lines.
Now these same people have -got in touch with their friends in Canada and want to be brought here to continue their dirty work. As an ex-prisoner of war I thought I would give the citizens of Oshawa an. idea just who are these alleged displaced Ukrainians. They do not deserve our sympathy. They are traitors to the Ukraine, our ally and should be shunned as such. Certainly we should not put a premium on treachery.
The honest, patriotic Ukrainians, Russians and Poles and others who were forced labourers or prisoners of war are back home in their own countries. It is only the quislings who are afraid to face their own people, who are left in the American and British zones. I say, return them to their country to face the music there. They deserve no better.
Yours truly,
George Metcalfe.
I am not suggesting that all displaced persons are of that type, but it should put us on our guard in the selection of immigrants. If we want to have a satisfactory immigration policy we should first do more to retain in Canada those Canadians who have been trained at Canadian expense. We are losing hundreds of our choicest men to the United States because of a lack of opportunity in this country for their particular type of trained minds and brains.
We should welcome all those British people who fought the battle of Britain, those who fought in the army, the air force and the navy of Great Britain, or of any country in the commonwealth, and their relatives; those who defended our freedom and our opportunities should be welcomed. At the present time we are providing transportation for 4.000 Poles, and I understand we are to provide transportation for 6,000 displaced persons. It is hardly enough to say that British people can come to Canada provided that they get transportation. The fact is they are not in a preferred position. I have had numbers of [DOT]letters from people in the old country who are
anxious to come to Canada. There is no doubt that our offices in England are not giving encouragement to these people.
First, we should make arrangements for the transportation of people of British stock who want to come to this country. Second, we should give every consideration to the refugees of Europe-and by these I mean those people who were proved to be opposed to nazism and fascism, people who have suffered because of their loyalty to democracy. No group in Europe has been proven to be more completely anti-nazi than the Jewish race. These people have suffered terrific trials throughout the years and they should be given every consideration.
This is a problem that should receive the serious consideration of the government. We need immigrants in Canada, but we should have selective immigration. We must not forget that we have displaced veterans and displaced industrial workers in Canada, and we should have a policy which will permit us to absorb those people as fast as we can without disturbing our national economy. By adopting a policy which will make certain that only people of democratic faith shall be permitted to come to this country we shall be basing our future on sound foundations.


Mr. HANSELL:: May I ask the member one simple question: Would he say that the people whom he refers to as being anti-nazi were also anti-communist ?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not a communist, and in fact with my views I think I would be considered a poor candidate for membership in the communist party. We must remember that these people fought against Hitler; they fought against fascism and nazism. Those were the terrors to mankind, and they still threaten mankind to-day, but they will not wish to come.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think there are two things we should seek to avoid in discussing this matter of immigration. First, we should avoid dealing with it on an emotional basis. Second, we should avoid any effort to bring immigrants into this country on the basis that prevailed for so many years in this country when people were brought here only for the purpose of being exploited. I think it was a predecessor of the Minister of Mines and Resources, who held office when the department was known as the Department of the Interior, who said that the kind of immigrant we wanted in Canada was a sturdy peasant in a sheepskin coat with a stout wife and half a dozen children. He said we wanted people who were accustomed to working on
Supply-Immigration

the land, who all their lives had worked from dawn until dark, who did not know anything else and who did not expect anything else. We do not want immigration based on that kind of philosophy. We want the people who come to Canada to have ideas as well as the ability to work and produce.
It was stated this morning that we should not bring anyone here until we had provided for our own people, until we had made our own people secure. That would be a good position to take if we had worked out a policy to take care of our people. Ouir people will remain in insecurity, poverty and misery whether or not other people are brought in, unless we have some planned policy for developing our resources. In my opinion that is not a very strong position to take. It was said that the standard of living of workers is always at its lowest when we have large numbers of people looking for work. True, but that applies not only to thickly populated countries but to countries with sparse populations, as we learned to our sorrow during the depression years. It will always apply as long as labour is regarded as a commodity, as long as working people are mere packets of labour power looking for a purchaser. We are not going to overcome that difficulty simply by keeping people out of the country and to that extent preventing its development.
Then the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska said that we should bring into this country only those who could be put on the land. But our farmers will continue to have difficulties in disposing of their produce if we do not organize our production and marketing. The only essential difference between the economic position of the farmer and the industrial worker is that the industrial worker sells his labour direct to an employer for a price, wages, while the farmer turns his labour into certain commodities, depending upon the particular type of agricultural production he is engaged in, after which he is in the same position as the industrial worker, that is, he must find a buyer for his commodity. As long as that condition prevails both the farmer and the industrial worker will be insecure, not because there is a scarcity of the things they need but because there is an over-abundance. What we have to do first is to organize our economy on a basis whereby the people will be prosperous when we have an abundance and not quite so prosperous when we have shortages. It is with that understanding that we should approach these questions.
It was said that an immigrant coming into this country should be compelled to remain

on the land for a generation in order that he might learn to love the land. That is a fallacious argument, and we will realize that if we will only observe that our land is being denuded to-day by people who have owned it and tilled it for several generations. They are leaving the land, not because they do not love the land but because the organization of our economy is such that they are not able to make a living on the land. These problems all have to be solved, and they are not going to be made any easier or any harder of solution because a few immigrants are allowed to come into the country from parts of the world where their circumstances are worse than ours.
The hon. member for Dauphin in opening his remarks said that he was a Canadian of Ukrainian extraction. I am not particular what his national origin is; the sentiments he expressed to-day are those of a Canadian, and as such they are good enough for me, who because of aqcident happen to be Canadian born. I am sorry I was not in the house last night when the minister spoke, but I would impress upon him, though perhaps it is unnecessary, that we in Canada have an obligation to people in other parts of the world where conditions are hard. We should be careful and selective in choosing those who are to come, because it is a high honour to be accorded the privilege of Canadian citizenship. But we should not be so careful that we keep out worthy people in order to exclude those who are unworthy, is has already been said by a number of speaktrs, there are people who because of their necessity are not in a position to wait, and special provision should be made in cases of that kind.
We should have an immigration policy which would enable people to come to this country-and in this I agree with the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska-who are anxious to come here, and we should do everything possible to see that they are properly settled and are not brought here for exploitation, as has been so often the case in the past, and that in the process of settling them here we may also put our own domestic affairs in order.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. member for Kootenay West and1 his support of the industrial workers of Great Britain. It should not be forgotten by any of us who hail from the prairie provinces that perhaps the greatest contribution to agriculture which was ever made in the prairie provinces was made by a man who spent the first forty years of his life in the city of London. He migrated to Canada to become a farmer, and made such a success of it that he is regarded as a dis-

Supply-Immigration
tinguished agriculturist. Though he had no academic training, he is one of the greatest authorities on agriculture in western Canada: I refer to Doctor Seager Wheeler. I learned also just the other day in my constituency that one of our most substantial farmers was born and raised in the city of London and is a nephew of a former lord mayor of London. I just mention these things to indicate what I believe to be the resourcefulness of the British industrial worker: he acquits himself admirably in any situation which he may be called upon to face in this country.
But my purpose in rising was to support particularly the stand of the hon. member for Dauphin, who was championing the cause of the displaced persons or refugees who find themselves in. a very serious position, in western Europe particularly. They are located in Germany, for the most part, in some areas in France, in Belgium and in Holland. Most of them were forced out of their homes through fear of persecution, religious or otherwise, and found themselves in these locations at the end of hostilities. They have made the best of their very difficult situation by living in barracks which they constructed out of any makeshift materials. Those of us who were fortunate enough to visit Great Britain last December and were able to go to the continent, including the hon. member for Peel, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and myself, had the opportunity of visiting some of these displaced persons' camps in the vicinity of Oldenburg, in Germany, and our opinion was that they are just about the very best of immigrant material that Canada could want to have. We did not see them all, of course. They are scattered pretty well all over allied-occupied' Germany. How many there are is a question; I doubt if there are any accurate statistics regarding the number; but the Christian Science Monitor, which has good sources of information, has placed the number at approximately one and two-thirds million. Most of these people come from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and many of them, from south of there, who are known as Ukrainians. They are of course unable to come to Canada at the present time, and they expressed themselves to us as being desirous of coming here rather than to any other country. I should like to place on the record the opinion of a very important body of people in this country. I quote from United, Nations News, June number, a publication printed in Ottawa by the United Nations Society in Canada: one short resolution is as follows:
U.N. Society supports . . . more liberal immigration policy . . .
"Whereas there are many people throughout the world, particularly in Europe, whose lives have been disrupted by the war and who wish to make a new life for themselves, and whereas many of these people could make a valuable contribution to the life of Canada: t Therefore, be it resolved that the United Nations Society in Canada urges the government to initiate a programme of selective immigration which will permit immigrants to come to Canada in greater numbers and under more liberal conditions than was possible before the war."
I emphasize the last part of that sentence. I should also like to refer to a publication called the International Journal, which is published by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. The spring number of 1946 contains an article entitled "Parallels in Soviet and Canadian Settlement." I do not intend to quote from this article, which is quite long. It describes the two countries and points out that, whereas Russia has at least twice as large an area as Canada, her population, at least as regards the rehabilitation of Siberia, has been going up by leaps and bounds as compared with ours. A synopsis of this article has been made by the financial editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail, May 9, 1946. I quote from it in part as follows:
The dominion covers 3*7 million square miles, the Soviets control over 8 million. There are 170 millions in the Soviet and only .12 million Canadians. The Soviets speak with assurance of a population of 340 million people and some Canadians talk as though 12 million is a good place to stop.
Although this article does not directly assert this conclusion, the inference is that it would be dangerous for any country in the world to-day to tolerate a vacuum, and also an inference which I, at any rate, read into it, that if we do not fill the vacuum by our own volition, somebody else may fill it for us some day to suit themselves and not to suit us. Therefore I am very glad to support the argument of the hon. member for Dauphin; for I believe that in Europe we now have the last potential reservoir of good citizens, or the making of good citizens, who should be brought to Canada in large numbers. I am not arguing that we could take them all, because a great many of them will be unfit for colonists anywhere. Possibly through health or age or infirmity, many of them will never be taken out except in a spirit of tolerance or more or less for humanitarian reasons.
The minister said last night there would be a division of these among the various countries who would be obliged to relieve the congestion; nevertheless that would be a very small part of our obligation and it would be far outweighed by the good results we would
Supply-Immigration


COMMA'S
[Stage Direction]
receive by obtaining this very fine type of immigrants. There are very few Ukrainian settlers in my part of the province, but the population of Manitoba is over ten per cent Ukrainian in origin, and we have no better citizens. I am not saying this to gain any personal support because there would be none coming to me in my own area; but I know many, among them school inspectors, from our district, who have been working among the Ukrainians and they will vouch for it that there are no better citizens to be found anywhere in western Canada than the Ukrainians. Therefore I urge the department to consider in every possible way bringing as many of these potential citizens as can be brought in at as early a time as we can.
John Horne Blackmore: Last night the minister made a remark regarding the four thousand Polish soldiers who are being considered as possible immigrants into Canada. I think the house would be remiss in its duty if it did not probe into the matter of the Poles with some care, because we may be getting ourselves into difficulties we might be sorry for if all should not be found as well as it might appear to be. At page 5495 of Hansard the minister said:
In addition to that, there are 4,000 Polish soldiers, the investigating officers for which are now on their way. I believe they are now in Italy making investigations with regard to these Polish soldiers to bring them to this country. They will be apportioned throughout the Dominion of Canada, according to the regula- * tions laid down by the Department of Labour.
I asked the minister this question:
Will the minister say why these Polish soldiers were admitted?
I have gathered since that they have not yet been admitted, and I hope they have not. The minister then replied:
The reason was that we were making an effort to take in soldiers who would go on the land, and into agricultural pursuits. We had many requests, and there was quite an agitation with regard to the Polish soldiers. They had expressed their intention most freely, that they were not going back to Poland, and that they intended to look elsewhere. Canada was one of the places to which they would go.
Our soldiers and their dependents were the first obligation we had.
I might have been a little over-suspicious, but something about the words the minister used troubled me at the time and it has been troubling me more ever since. Therefore I would like to find out more about the mean-ning of some of the expressions he used. I am going to ask him a series of questions to which I would like to get answers. If he can give them now, so much the better; if not he can give them later. I think the dominion [Mr. Wmkler.l
as a whole is entitled to have an answer to every one of these questions and to have it in the minutest and most sincere detail.
The minister spoke of the soldiers going on the land. Have we put on the land all our own soldiers who would go on the land? Have the soldiers from Holland, Denmark, Roumania and the Ukraine sought admittance to Canada, and has their request been considered as sympathetically as the request of the Polish soldiers?
May I make this comment at this point

the member for Vancouver East was, I thought, on that line of thought. Canada had a surplus of agricultural products before the war. What assurance have we that we shall not have a surplus of meat, grain, dairy products, fruits,, et cetera early in, the postwar years? Is it proposed to have these Poles displace Canadian farmers?
Let me pause here for a moment to comment. It has been my observation that many times people have been brought in from European countries and placed in good Canadian communities to help in various agricultural activities. They have remained there probably fifteen years and have then begun to buy out the original Canadians who had good British names, and in whole areas of the country you can hardly find a name like Smith or Brown or Jones or McNab. They are all some sort of un-British name now. I am not reflecting on any nationality, but I am not sure the tendency I refer to is in the best interests of Canada as a whole. I think that matter should be carefully assessed. Perhaps . the minister cannot reply to these comments, but I should think he would be able to answer some of the questions I am going to ask.
"Quite an agitation", he said, was being conducted in respect of the Poles. I believe the house is entitled to know who were the people who were agitating. Was it the Polish soldiers themselves? Was it the Polish government in exile? Were there any organized groups outside Canada or were there any organized groups inside Canada? I trust I can ask the questions I am going to ask without offending anyone. We have to face facts exactly as they are, and ask questions even if they do hurt. Was the agitation by any provincial government in Canada? Was it by any labour organization? Was it by any industrial organization? Was it by any political organization? Was it by any religious organization? Was it by any political leader or any religious leader? The facts are probably government secrets, but I believe

Supply-Immigration
every person in the dominion to-day is entitled to know exactly who the people were who were conducting the agitation, and I believe the members of the house have a solemn duty to find out before many more hours pass.
I have also this question to ask: What are the political affiliations or predilections of these Polish soldiers? That matter has already been referred to to some extent. Were they fascists when in Poland? I gather from some of the remarks I have heard that these people were not welcome in Russia. Why? And if they were not welcome there, what might be the reason why they should be particularly welcome in Canada? Were they fascist or communist or liberal? Were they monarchists or totalitarians or democrats? What is the record of each of these soldiers?
I know there are four thousand, but if it is expected to bring them all here, these questions should be asked with narrow scrutiny and the answers recorded. We have about all the troubles in Canada that we can take care of right now; let us see to it that we do not bring agents here who will aggravate those troubles. I want to see Canada a home for all honourable people and people of good will who will become worthy Canadians, but I am not at all in favour of bringing in people who will become agitators from the day they set foot on our shores-and we have too many of that type right now.
I want to know what are the religious affiliations of these Polish soldiers. Are they Protestant, atheistic, Roman Catholic or Judaistic? I do not want to do anything I ought not to do but I believe every member of the house realizes that any preponderance of any one of these among new immigrants would certainly be creating a handicap to large bodies of the Canadian people.
We have to face these facts realistically, and in particular with reference to these Poles-and may I just stop for a minute to refer to all the members that the hon. member for Lisgar was referring to. I sympathize with the fine ideals which were expressed in the quotations which the hon. member read. Nevertheless I tell the committee that we have all the internationalists that we want in the country right now; we have all the centralizers and general stargazers that we need. I do not want a whole lot of others in here. Of course, now it is popular to go clean crazy over internationalism, but by and by, unless we are careful, we shall wake up from the honeymoon phantasy we are in and begin to realize that in being too international we made a colossal mistake.
I should like to know what are the religious affiliations of these men. Are they evenly divided in the proportion that the major religions are divided in Canada? If it should be found that these men all belong to one religion, no matter what religion that is, I do not think that, taking them as a whole, it would be the will of the Canadian people that they be admitted.
In what provinces are the Polish soldiers to be settled? Has each province concerned been asked its consent? I do not wish to comment too much on that, but already we have groups in this country who were located by shortsighted governments in Ottawa and were placed on the lap of certain provinces. Those provinces are even yet not sure that they are going to be able to get rid of the problem so created. I see very serious complications. It is easy enough to get people in and plant them on the doorstep of the province and wash your hands of the problem. That simply is not good enough.
Is it proposed to settle these Polish soldiers in a block, or community? What are the "regulations laid down by the Department of Labour" under which these people will be settled? In my judgment every hon. member is responsible for speaking to the house in accordance with the experiences which he has had. That is how we make a contribution to each other. I have had unfortunate experiences with groups of people who settled in communities and cannot be changed into Canadians, who insist on keeping their own language and culture and going on from generation to generation. That is not good. If people are to be good Canadians they must be ready to assimilate in this country. The settling of groups in blocks is not conducive to that laudable objective. That ought to be definitely understood.
Where is it proposed to settle these soldiers? Are these proposed soldiers already in Canada? I gather from a rereading of the minister's words that they are not, and I am glad they are not, because we can still deal with the situation without being too severe. Where are they? Why all the haste about bringing them in? I understand that there was an order in council passed to admit
4,000	Polish soldiers. That seems to be an astounding thing. Why should there be such desperate haste that an order in council had to be passed to admit 4,000 Polish soldiers? Was it because the soldiers are suffering? Well, there are hundreds of thousands of other suffering people in Europe. Try to get one of these people into the country and see what happens. Every hon. member knows that you cannot get one of them in. You cannot even get a budge in the department of immi-
Supply-Immigration

gration; no, sir. I am not saying that is not as it should be, but what astonishes me is that we should pass an order in council, if that is what was done, to permit the entry of 4.000 soldiers because they are suffering! If that was not the reason for consenting to admit them, what was the reason? Why were they not going back to Poland? We can have whatever attitude towards Russia we wish, but when a body of people 4,000 strong are undesirable in their own homeland under Russian control and they seek admission to ours, we owe it to ourselves as a great duty to know something about the reasons why they were not going back to Poland.
The minister used these words: "Our soldiers and their dependents were the first obligation we had." That sounds innocent enough until you begin to think about it. "Our soldiers"; were these 4,000 Polish soldiers our soldiers? If they are classified as such what claim have they to be classified as our soldiers?


An hon. MEMBER:: They fought for us.


John Horne Blackmore: 
Mr. GLEN:: Information as to the officers was given some days ago by the Minister of Labour.


John Horne Blackmore: That is fine. I just want to make sure that everything is aboveboard. It is so easy to slip in something under a smoke screen and sow the seeds for bountiful trouble in the future.
By what standards will these officers judge of the fitness of these Polish soldiers for admission to Canada? I think I have said enough for the present time. Before I resume my seat however I will say that we must share responsibility as members of parliament to see that no organization, racial, religious or political, shall be permitted to play high politics behind a smoke screen of generous Canadian sentimental sympathy for refugees or displaced persons. I should be glad to have an answer to these questions when the minister is able to prepare them.


James Allison Glen: Dealing only with the question of the 4,000 Polish soldiers, the hon. gentleman expressed a good deal of suspicion of the word "agitation" which I used last night. He seemed to imply from the word that there was a good deal of lobbying going on regarding the admission of these soldiers. Let me hasten to assure the hon. member that there is no such thing as lobbying in connection with this matter at all. He knows as well as all of us know that there are 200,000 Polish soldiers who fought with our armies and who were fighting against nazism about which the hon. member spoke. He knows that the soldiers cannot return to their home for the very reason that they have fought against nazism, and in effect they are to-day stateless.
The hon. gentleman wants to know what religious denomination they are. I personally will say that I will not inquire as to the religious denomination of any immigrant who wants to come to Canada provided he is a citizen worthy to be received into the country. When these officers go that is one of the questions that will not be asked, whether they are of a certain religious persuasion. There is no discrimination against any immigrant coming into Canada on the basis of his religion, and there has not been from any time back. The agitation for their admission to Canada, if that word is to be used, came from all over the world.
In every editorial of every newspaper in Canada one read accounts of the hardships being endured by these Polish soldiers, and the need that something should be done in

Supply-/ mmigration
order if possible to rectify their condition. There were 200,000 of them; and the dominion government, without any special references I know of from any particular body, but following the general opinion of the country, decided that it would make that contribution to the relief of -these soldiers.
Our officers are going over there. I did not know, personally, any of those officers, but when I was informed as to the gentleman who was heading them I found he was a personal friend of mine. I did not know that, however, until he had been appointed. He was attached to the Department of Agriculture. Formerly he had been in the university of British Columbia, and had been identified with agriculture all his life. His present position is that of economic adviser to the Department of Labour. This man knows the agricultural conditions of Canada from coast to coast, as few men know them. I have entire confidence in his judgment, in the belief that he will accept those soldiers who will be of value and of benefit to this country, and who can be placed in Canada properly.
This matter is more in the hands of the Department of Labour than in the immigration branch. However, I would say that our branch will attend to the landing of these soldiers when they come. The department has given careful consideration to those very matters about which the hon. member has spoken. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that all those who come will be single persons, and that there is no question as to families coming.
Perhaps the Minister of Labour can deal with this matter in more detail than I can, but I believe the same process will be adopted as was adopted by the provinces with regard to the supply of labour for harvest. The provinces will be consulted. These people will be placed on individual farms, not with any intention of having them form a block, as was suggested by the hon. member-because that is not the intention at all. They will be placed on individual farms, and in that way will make their contribution. After a period of two years, if they prove to be acceptable as citizens they will be given their landings in Canada, with a view to becoming Canadian citizens under our new a'ct. There is nothing of a sinister nature behind it at all; there is only the desire of the government to make its contribution to what was a grievous situation so far as these soldiers were concerned. In respect of farm labour, let me say that I have heard it stated time and again in the house that there is not sufficient labour on the farms. These men are 63260-347
being chosen as farm labourers. The hon. member asked if they would be put into blocks in connection with the purchasing of farms. The government has no such intention. In the very nature of things, with 4,000 people spread over the Dominion of Canada, it must be clear that there is no purpose in putting them into blocks, because that would not be advantageous to individual farmers in Canada. They will be spread over the country, in the manner that the Department of Labour deals with the provinces and will be apportioned accordingly.


John Horne Blackmore: My questions were not implying anything. I was asking ordinary questions that the ordinary person using common sense is asking, on the street. I have had those questions asked me twenty times in my own constituency. I have asked the questions only to have the matter cleared up in an endeavour to do my duty as a member of parliament. There has been no implication on my part that religion should play any part in the admission or non-admission of people to Canada. But I believe all hon. members in the House of Commons will realize that probably the time may come when we would need to be a little careful. I am not saying what should be done.
I appreciate very much the answer the minister has given. I want to have these questions cleared up for my own satisfaction, and having done so I shall say no more.


James Allison Glen: I should like to deal with one other statement made by the hon. member, namely his reference to political affiliations. I do not know what their political affiliations may be. But I do know and it seems to me that those of the Polish army would certainly be opposed to nazism. The Department of Labour has taken certain precautions in this connection. Among the delegation are officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who will deal with the very matter the hon. member has mentioned. What their methods of inspection may be I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to say, or even the Minister of Labour. However the matter of the background of any immigrants will certainly be an important factor in any policy of immigration in Canada.
The discussion in the committee bears out what I said last night, namely that there are many opinions in Canada with regard to immigration and it is well that this matter should be discussed. I am not objecting to what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said. He strengthens my statement that this must be a matter of careful investigation before any definite policy of immigration is evolved by

Supply-Immigration

government, in order that the factors mentioned here by hon. members may be taken into consideration when such time arrives. Apparently there is need for investigation to clarify the facts; that must be evident from the discussion we have had to-day.
I am glad to have heard these expressions of opinion. It has been mentioned that in the house are hon. members of European descent. The hon. member for Dauphin made a first-class contribution to the debate this morning, and I would say that his race is most fortunate in having a spokesman like him in the House of Commons.
I can add nothing more. I have set out the policy of the department which feels that these estimates are necessary for the carrying out of the purposes of the immigration branch. I am hopeful that the committee will see fit to accept these estimates.


Mr. JAQUES:: Hon. members have stressed the importance of selecting immigrants for Canada. I am wondering what tests are to be applied to immigrants. It used to be simple. The immigrants were selected on their physical condition, with perhaps some regard for their financial position. If they had a little money it was all to the good. However, the physical condition was the chief consideration. That is not true to-day. Physical condition should be neither the only nor the chief test. It is the mental and moral condition of immigrants that should be examined. Why are so many people anxious to come to Canada to make their living and to spend their lives here? Why are they so anxious to leave countries which physically are just as desirable, and some of them more desirable as a place of residence, than is Canada? Is it for material reasons that these people desire to come to and live in Canada? No! They seek the individual freedom which the people of Canada still enjoy, but which has been destroyed in the greater part of Europe. It is that freedom which we enjoy in Canada that must be guarded at all costs.
The minister has said it was not the purpose of the department to inquire into a person's religion. That may. be so. But to-day if we are to safeguard the freedom of the Canadian people, it is necessary to inquire into the political affiliations of immigrants wishing to come to this country. There can be no doubt that those countries of which Canada is one, which have thus far preserved the freedom of individuals, have become the mecca of all peoples who now exist where freedom has been lost. The very reason for our freedom is this:	So far Canada has
resisted the disruptive poisons of Marxian

socialism which destroyed the freedom of the people of Europe and brought about the terrible calamities which have overtaken that continent. Perhaps the minister will be able to tell the committee by what means they will test the mental and moral fitness of those who want to come to Canada. Personally I do not know how it can be done especially in these days of turmoil when it is almost impossible to find out just what a person does stand for.
I should like to say one word on behalf of these Polish soldiers. It seems to me that they have qualified for entry. When I was in England I was told on all sides that no one had fought more gallantly against the nazis than these Poles. That rules out any possibility of their being fascists or nazis. Since they are not welcomed in any country controlled by Russia, that rules out the probability of their being communists. It would seem to me that being neither one nor the other they should become good supporters of the Canadian way of life, which is neither socialist, nor communistic nor fascist.
One magazine-I do not know how large a circulation it has-is opposing the entry of these Poles because they are Roman Catholics. I think I am right in saying that of necessity any Christian in Poland would be a Roman Catholic because that is the religion of the country. I have no religious prejudice at all. I am not a Roman Catholic, but just the same I believe that Catholicism is one of the safeguards against communism and nazism. I sincerely hope it is, anyway.
That is all I wanted to say. I do not know whether it is possible for the minister to tell us how the suitability of these immigrants is to be decided. Physically it is a simple thing, but when you come to philosophic reasons it would seem to be a most difficult thing to determine. I want to impress upon the government the necessity of taking every precaution against the entry of those imbued with ideas contrary to the Canadian spirit which has made Canada the mecca for the free. I refer to our personal freedom of the individual.
Item agreed to-.
Immigration branch-
187. Field and inspectional service, Canada, $1,693,694.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This item is $383,349 greater than it was last year. Is that because of the extra field service required?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Fisheries
Demobilization and reconversion-Immigration branch-
567. Repatriation of wives and dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces overseas, $2,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: How about the fiancees who are still in Holland and Belgium? Could not they be brought here before these Poles?


James Allison Glen: There is a different type of transportation required. As I said last night, some of these fiancees in Holland and Belgium are coming across by other means. They will have to have medical inspection. We have that in London, and some are coming there to be inspected and then continuing to Canada by air. First we must attend to wives and children.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know you must look after them first, but after these Poles have been inspected could not the inspectors go into Belgium and Holland?


James Allison Glen: They are working in Italy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At two o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at four o'clock.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I should like to rise to a very personal and friendly point of privilege. Hon. members of this house object occasionally to what is said in this house, and also to what is said in the press of this country. To-day I wish to make a correction, not of what has been said in this house, or of what has been said in the press of this country, but of what was said on parliament hill to-day by, I think, the greatest soldier this war has seen, the soldiers' soldier, Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. It was a pleasure to hear him, but there was one special remark he made to which I have to take, on behalf of my own comrades, a personal objection, when he said that he had led Canadians everywhere except in Africa; because I should like in this house to remind the Field Marshal and to remind this house that, as Commander of the Eighth Army he led the desert air force, in which over five thousand Canadian aircrew served, and which, before Field Marshal Montgomery got to the desert, was led by the greatest Canadian airman who ever took wing, Air Vice-Marshal Raymond Collishaw, and in which desert air force, after Field Marshal Montgomery took command, there was one 63260-3471
all-Canadian squadron, the City of Windsor squadron, of which I was a very humble member.
More than that, before I sit down I should like to pay a personal tribute to one of the staff of this House of Commons. As I stood in my office, which fortunately fronts on parliament hill, and listened to our excellent Royal Canadian Mounted Police band play tunes of the last war, and tunes which I did not recognize, it occurred to me that these bands are missing one thing; because for Field Marshal Montgomery of Alamein one piece should have been played. The ceremony ended, and our carillonneur of the peace tower here, who is, I am glad to say, a former airman, played the one piece of the desert, the piece of the Luftwaffe and the Afrika Ivorps, the piece of the Eighth Army and the desert air force, "Lili Marlene."
I hope that Field Marshal Montgomery will accept this correction, for there were a great many Canadians who did fight very gallantly in the desert.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
76. Departmental administration, $170,340.
Hon. II. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Chairman, in presenting the estimates for the Department of Fisheries for this year, it is not my intention to make any prolonged or extended remarks, but there are some observations regarding the reorganization and expansion of the department which I feel I should make at this time.
When speaking before the committee of the whole house on my estimates, December 17 last, I made the following statement;
No doubt the future will entail certain expansion and changes in the department. I cannot go into detail at this time but we have hopes of producing adequate staff of high calibre and properly trained. In this connection I might mention that we shall be looking for recruits from among those of our young men who have been in the three armed services and who are now returning from overseas. These new recruits will be given proper courses of instruction which, it is hoped, will make them educationists as well as police officers.
I am pleased now to be able to report to the committee that, in so far as the outside administrative service of this department is concerned, those plans have now become crystallized and steps are now being taken to bring 100 new fisheries inspectors into the field service on the east and west coasts. A basic feature of this plan is an arrangement under which a group of applicants on each
Supply-Fisheries
[Stage Direction]
coast will undergo a period of probationary training carried on under the joint auspices of the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the vocational training branch of the Department of Labour. Thirty-five appointments to inspectorships are to be made in British Columbia; and in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where our problems are different and local conditions necessitate a greater enlargement of field force there will be sixty-five all told new inspectors appointed, making the total of 100 for both coasts.
Increase in our inspectorship strength in British Columbia and the maritimes has been made necessary by the increase which has taken place in recent years in departmental functions and by changes in their nature and scope. In order that we may serve present-day needs of the fishing industry as effectively as possible and assist in further fisheries development, the department must have additional field officers, and we are setting out to get them from among men who not only show natural qualifications for this sort of work, but have also been specially trained for the job.
The core of our recruitment scheme is in this arrangement to obtain the new officers from among people who have satisfactorily completed specific probationary training. I am told that we are breaking new ground in requiring applicants for positions in the public service to qualify for appointment by taking prescribed training under departmental control, but I do not think there is any question that it is a sound move.
In this connection, only applicants approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs for grants, which it provides for ex-servicemen completing their education or undergoing training, will be considered for these new inspectorships. Preference will be given to applicants not more than thirty-five years old when applications close, but exceptions may be made in the case of men not over forty years of age who are considered to possess outstanding qualifications. Education equivalent to high school graduation will be an essential requirement. Full details as to conditions governing application and appointment will be announced by the civil service commission shortly, but without going into these matters in detail I may add that applicants who are taken on training and complete their work will qualify for appointment as inspectors either grade II or grade I, depending on their rating as trainees. In British Columbia there are sixteen grade II posts to be filled and nineteen grade I positions. On the east coast there are, in New

Brunswick, fourteen grade II and nineteen grade I posts to be filled; in Nova Scotia, seventeen grade II and ten grade I, and in Prince Edward Island, four grade II and one grade I, or thirty-five grade II and thirty [DOT] grade I on the east coast.
As stated before, there will be, in all, thirty-five new inspectorships for British Columbia and sixty-five for the maritimes.
In order to fill these appointments, forty-four candidates in British Columbia and ninety-three in the maritimes will be selected by the civil service commission. The commission will make the selection by "screening" all applications, thus determining by an evaluation of the information the applicants give regarding themselves in their application papers, by interviews and by oral tests, if necessary, w'hat men are best suited to be taken on as trainees. For about the first month of their probationary training period, which will cover something like five months in all, the trainees will be employed in the field as temporary fishery guardians with pay, working under the supervision of some of our present inspectors. Those of them whose work as guardians has indicated that they have an aptitude for fisheries service will then attend a fishery course; for those on the west coast, in the Vancouver area, and, for those on the east coast; probably at Windsor, Nova Scotia. This course will be carried on jointly by fisheries, veterans affairs and labour's vocational training section, and will include a study of such subjects as methods of fish processing and inspection, fisheries biology, and so on, as well as instruction in the duties of fisheries inspectors. During the course the men will receive the basic grants provided under the vocational and educational training plan for veterans, together with the monthly allowances for dependent children. At the end of the course the candidates will be rated on their work, and those who have reached the required standing will be given an oral examination. The course record and the showing made in the oral test will together determine the candidate's final rating. In the maritimes there are, in addition to the new inspectorships, a number of permanent seasonal vacancies which offer employment for from seven to eleven months of the year. Should qualified eligible candidates remain after the full-time positions have been filled, they may be offered seasonal positions.
The established preference for ex-servicemen with overseas service will apply in case of appointments. In addition, preference in appointments will be given, first, to qualified

Supply-Fisheries
residents of the fisheries sub-district in which the vacancy occurs and, second, to qualified residents of the province concerned.
That briefly outlines the present plans for the expansion and improvement of the outside service of the department, and it is expected that all the 100 new inspectors will have completed their training, be appointed and on the job by May 1, 1947. I sincerely hope that, with the training these new inspectors receive, they will prove themselves to be educationists and not mere police officers. I want them to be regarded as friends of the fishermen. I also hope and trust that these plans will meet with the approval of this committee and of the industry as a whole. I further hope that these new younger men in the service will eventually provide, by way of future promotion, many suitable administrative officials for this department in the years to come. I am firmly convinced that the best way to obtain suitable officials is by way of promotion within the service, provided that they have had the proper groundwork and training; and that proper groundwork and training should be in the early years of their employment and in the outside field service of the department.
I am not as yet in a position to make any announcement as regards the reorganization and expansion of the inside service of the department, but I hope it will not be long before I shall be able to do so. I have adopted the policy of reorganizing from the bottom to the top instead of vice versa. By adopting these present plans for reorganization, I hope that in the future, whoever may be minister of fisheries, will not find himself in the position in which I have found myself, in that there is an inadequate number of suitable officials in the department. In saying this, I am not casting any reflections on my predecessors in office, because it must be borne in mind that we had those years of depression when every effort was made to cut expenditures to a minimum, followed by the war years when this department had to be neglected by reason of the prosecution of the war. Nor am I casting any reflection on the officials of this department, I can frankly say that, on the whole, the Department of Fisheries has able, competent and suitable officials, but the one big drawback is that there are not enough of them. To-day we have several senior officials either going out on pension or soon to go out, and we have not, in some instances, suitable men in the department to be promoted to take their places. The officials that we have are good and competent; but, as I have said before, there are not enough
of them. I wish to take this opportunity of paying special tribute to them. I am not going to mention any names. They have given loyal and efficient service to the government of Canada. Many have been overworked and have had to work over a period of years with few or no holidays. This is definitely not a good situation.' With the coming reorganization of the inside service, I hope that I shall be able to improve that situation.
With these remarks regarding the reorganization and expansion of the department, I submit these estimates for the consideration of this committee.
Mr. REID:: May I, first of all, compliment the minister on the statement he has just made. Those of us who have been interested in fisheries for any considerable number of years have long recognized the fact that, if there was any one department that required new blood in the way of officials and experts, it was the Department of Fisheries. But the need for these officials and experts did not merely arise during the war period. It was evident, to me at least, that steps of this kind should have been taken in the pre-war years. However, I trust that the matter will turn out as the minister expects it will, and personally I have no doubt that the step taken is one which will redound to the benefit not only of the department but of the country and fishing industry as well.
The matter I have to deal with is one on which I would not at this time delay the committee, but it has to do with important questions that are more than national. It has to do writh international affairs and therefore, in my opinion, it cannot wait. It has relation to the policy of four countries oujtside Canada, and I trust that the committee will be a little lenient with me if I do something that I have not been in the habit of doing, namely', to follow my notes closely.
Prior to the commencement of the session,
I placed on the order paper a resolution drawing attention to the danger and possible destruction of Canada's offshore fisheries. Unfortunately, however, no opportunity was afforded to discuss this resolution, so that I am taking this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the government in the hope that some action will be taken along the lines I am about to suggest.
May I say at the outset that the matter, although it has to do with fisheries, comes, in the first instance, under the Department of External Affairs. But since the Minister of Fisheries is the minister in the government representing that portfolio, it is his duty, I
Supply-Fisheries

believe, to take the matters I am about to lay before the committee and place them before the government for action.
The question of fishing in offshore areas of the sea, that is, fisheries outside the narrow belt of waters around our shores known as the three-mile limit, is a question which has perplexed many nations since early days. Time will not permit me on this occasion to deal with the history of the rights of nations on the high seas. Suffice it for me to say, however, that, contrary to popular belief, the three-mile limit of jurisdiction is not an accepted international law by any manner of means. Important maritime countries such as Norway, Sweden, Russia, Italy, Portugal and others have never recognized, and do not at the present time recognize or admit the principle of a three-mile limit of jurisdiction.
While it is true that Great Britain and the United States, on the other hand, have generally adhered to the three-mile limit, nevertheless both these countries have on many occasions changed the limit to suit some special occasion. In 1926 the league of nations sent a draft agreement regarding this matter to almost all the nations, the replies to which are most interesting. Norway claimed rights over ten marine miles, a limit which, by the way, that country has maintained for over two hundred years. The Swedish government claimed rights to four miles; Portugal claimed rights to twelve marine miles, and Portugal also stated in her reply that it was absolutely necessary for that country to preserve the species of fish which inhabit her waters, pointing out that, if those species became depleted or disappeared, Portugal's economic position would be endangered.
Canada's position in regard to her fisheries is similar to that of Portugal. The Spanish government has long adopted jurisdiction over territorial waters for six miles out from her shores. Russia has extended and claims sea control for a distance of twelve miles from all her coasts bordering on the ocean. It is not generally known that on September 16, 1821 the Emperor Alexander issued an order in which the whole west coast of America north of the fifty-first parallel was declared to belong exclusively to Russia, foreign ships being prohibited from approaching within 100 Italian miles off the North American Pacific shores under penalty of confiscation.
Although most countries replied to the draft agreement of the league of nations, it is interesting to note that the British government made no statement whatsoever on the matter. The silence of Great Britain and other governments of the British empire is signi-

ficant and would seem to indicate at least some recognition that the three-mile limit is becoming obsolete in view of present-day conditions. As already mentioned, and as could be proved if time permitted, there is no international law designating three miles as the limit of jurisdiction off our shores. Down through the ages the nations have at various times taken jurisdictional powers on the high seas and for greater distances than the distance ancient cannon were able to fire, which in those days was not more than three miles.
I want now particularly to deal with the reasons why I believe it is important and imperative that Canada take steps to control the waters off her shores so as to protect from possible exploitation and destruction our great fisheries. First of all, may I say that few countries are so fortunate as Canada in having their fisheries at their own back door, so to speak. Most nations have to travel far afield for fish supplies or catches.
Many foolishly believe that the fish in the sea or in the ocean are inexhaustible. Such, however, is not the case. It has been incontestably proved that some of the most valuable coastal and ocean fisheries are susceptible to depletion by overfishing, even though such fishing may be carried on more than three miles from shore. The great banks on the Atlantic are proof alone of this statement. The North sea and the Arctic ocean, as well as the great banks of Newfoundland and Labrador, draw the fleets of more than a score of nations.
Canada, however, especially on the Pacific coast, can obtain her supplies of fish within short sailing distances of her shores. The great Canadian fisheries are either in inside waters or offshore within safe distance of our harbours. Canada so far, however, has paid little attention, if any, to fishing on the high seas either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific. The Canadian government has made no effort whatsoever to define Canadian fishermen's offshore limits if they should be challenged by another nation, except in a treaty with the United States covering halibut; nor, so far as I know, has the government disclosed its reaction or intention in regard to the proposal of protective conservation zones in offshore waters made recently by the President of the United States.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian government has scarcely lifted a finger to survey and explore the riches of our offshore fishing grounds in which every nation at the present time could fish with impunity and to the destruction of these fisheries. Whilst what I have to say applies to Atlantic as well as
AUGUST 28, 194t>
Supply-Fisheries
Pacific waters, I want to emphasize the problem from the Pacific outlook, owing to the fact that I am more familiar with the Pacific than with the Atlantic.
The Pacific deep sea fisheries, like those of the Atlantic, are extremely important to Canada and her economy. Canadian fishermen in these offshore waters fish side by side with fishermen of the United States not only for halibut but for pilchard, herring, salmon, cod, tuna, sardines and many other types of fish as well.
It is obvious that at the present time no regulation or limitation can or should be placed upon Canadian vessels fishing outside the three-mile limit, unless similar limitations are enforced upon vessels of the United States fleet. Whilst it is true that the United States fishing fleet has taken the cream of the fisheries, from waters off the Canadian coast, the greatest danger tc our Pacific fisheries, as well as to our Atlantic fisheries in the future, is from the danger of exploitation by nations other than the United States. Take the case of but one variety alone, that of our salmon.
Here is an industry which gives employment to many thousands of our citizens, and one in which many millions of dollars are invested. All the salmon caught either in offshore waters or inshore waters or in our rivers and lakes are all salmon which have been born and reared in Canadian or United States streams and lakes. Where it not for the fact that Canada, and the United States as well, have enacted conservation measures to protect these fish, there would be no salmon fishery on the Atlantic or the Pacific to-day. The importance of the Canadian fishing industry to our economy is shown by the following statistics:
The total marketed value of all
fish in 1945	 $100 million
Total capital invested	 G7 million
Total numbers employed	 81,000
However, this is but part of the story. To preserve this industry, Canada has spent over $122 million in the protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the fisheries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that Canadian rivers and lakes provide the home and nursery beds for all species of salmon. After hatching, the salmon remains from six to eighteen months in the lakes and streams and then goes out to sea. Included in the many salmon streams and rivers we have in Canada is the greatest salmon producing river in the world, namely, the Fraser. Quite a few years ago Canada entered into a treaty with the United States regarding both coasts and with the state
of Washington and British Columbia. Over the entire length of both coast lines there runs an undershelf known as the continental shelf. In some places the water over the shelf of rock is not over a hundred feet in depth. It is to this shelf of rock on the Pacific and the Atlantic that the salmon go and play around until they reach maturity. In the second, third and fourth year, depending on the species and variety of salmon, when fully grown to maturity they return to lay their eggs on the gravel bars of Canadian rivers and lakes whence they came.
Here is the danger. While the fish are playing around in these shallow waters, any country other than the United States and Canada can send fleets of boats to where the salmon are and, by intense fishing, entirely wipe them out. Is Canada, therefore, going to stand idly by while this happens, or shall we be sensible and join with the United States in designating these waters as ours for fishing? Canada and the United States have a just and prior claim to these fish, even though they are out in the open sea, because, but for Canada and the United States, there might not be any salmon there at all, because we provide the home and nursery for them. On the other hand, we not only regulate and control our own fishermen in order to preserve and perpetuate the fish, but we have also expended considerable sums of money in doing so.
The United States is much more alert to the dangers threatening her offshore fisheries than we in Canada seem to be, and therefore is taking action to avoid disaster. As recently as September last, President Truman announced that the United States government had decided to regulate and control fisheries on the high seas contiguous to United States territory. The order by President Truman provides for establishment, under recommendation of the secretary of the interior and the state department, of conservation zones in areas of the high seas contiguous to United States coasts. Until this order was passed, the only sea fisheries which the United States had participated in regulating were those of whales, pacific halibut and fur seals. The new order by President Truman notifies other nations that in areas where fisheries have been, or hereafter shall be developed and maintained by nationals of United States alone, bounded zones will be set up in which United States may regulate and control all fishing activities. This new policy announced by the president will enable the United States to protect effectively at least one of its most valuable Pacific fisheries, that of the Alaska salmon. As the President stated in his proclamation, uncontrolled
Supply-Fisheries

fishery activities and fisheries which allow foreign nations to fish with no thought of conservation, have constituted an ever-increasing menace to the salmon fishery of the United States, and therefore, he declares, to United States welfare.
Canada's position is similar to that of the United States. An underwater shelf of rock similar to that of the continental shelf on the Pacific runs parallel to the Atlantic coasts of the United States and Canada, and it is my information that the United States are considering taking steps also to protect those outside shallow waters on the Atlantic from exploitation by foreign fishing vessels.
The bill introduced by the President goes much farther than this, however, in that an invitation is made to other countries to join with him in this important measure. It is intended that, in areas where the nationals of other countries may be involved, zones will be established by agreements, and joint regulations will be made effective.
Here, Mr. Chairman, I would ask per* mission of the committee to place on record the proclamation of the President of the United States rather than take the time to read it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(The proclamation is as follows:)
Policy of the United States With Respect to
Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Whereas for some years the government of the United States of America has viewed with concern the inadequacy of present arrangements for the protection and perpetuation of the fishery resources contiguous to its coasts, and in view of the potentially disturbing effect of this [DOT] situation, has carefully studied the possibility of improving the jurisdictional basis for conservation measures and international cooperation in this field; and
Whereas such fishery resources have a special importance to coastal communities as a source of livelihood and to the nation as a food and industrial resource; and
Whereas the progressive development of new methods and techniques contributes to intensified fishing over wide sea areas and in certain eases seriously threatens fisheries with depletion ; and
Whereas there is an urgent need to protect coastal fishery resources from destructive exploitation, having due regard to conditions peculiar to each region and situation and to the special rights and equities of the coastal state and of any other state which may have established a legitimate interest therein;
Now. therefore, I. Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, do hereby

proclaim the following policy of the United States of America with respect to coastal fisheries in certain areas of the high seas:
In view of the pressing need for conservation and protection of fishery resources, the government of the United States regards it as proper to establish conservation zones in those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States wherein fishing activities have been or in the future may be developed and maintained on a substantial scale. Where such activities have been or shall hereafter be developed and maintained by its nationals alone, the United States regards it as proper to establish explicitly bounded conservation zones in which fishing activities shall be subject to the regulation and control of the United States. Where such activities have been or shall hereafter be legitimately developed and maintained jointly by nationals of the United States and nationals of other states, explicity bounded conservation zones may be established under agreements between the United States and such other states; and all fishing activities in such zones shall be subject to regulation and control as provided in such agreements. The right of any state to establish conservation zones off its shores and in accordance with the above principles is conceded, provided that corresponding recognition is given to any fishing interests of nationals of the United States which may exist in such areas. The character as high seas of the areas in which such conservation zones are established and the right to their free and unimpeded navigation are in no way thus affected.
Executive Order
Providing For the Establishment of Fishery Conservation Zones
By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered that the Secretary of State and and Secretary of the Interior shall from time to time jointly recommend the estab-lismment by Executive orders of fishery conservation zones in areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States, pursuant to the proclamation entitled "Policy of the United States with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas," this day signed by me, and said Secretaries shall in each case recommend provisions to be incorporated in such orders relating to the administration, regulation and control of the fishery resources of and fishing activities in such zones, pursuant to authority of law heretofore or hereafter provided.
Harry S. Truman.
The White House September 28, 1945


Thomas Reid: This, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important proclamations made by President Truman since he became president. Following the announcement of this policy, the republic of Mexico through its president also issued a proclamation for the control of offshore fishery resources, along similar lines to that of the United States, and likewise instructing the government of Mexico to take steps to negotiate with other countries treaties

Sup ply-Fisheries
which may be necessary. I should like to place on record the proclamation by Mexico, which is along similar lines to that made by President Truman of the United States. '


William Ross Macdonald: Agreed.
(The proclamation is as follows:)
Proclamation of the President of the Republic of Mexico
The President Recovers, in the Name of the Nation, our Submarine Continental Territory Control of Fisheries Resources in the High Seas Present and Future Conservation of Incalculable Natural Riches Which Clearly Constitute Part of the Natural Resources The Executive Recommends the Carrying out of the Bills for the Establishment of Pertinent Law-the Submarine Bed Adjacent to the Coastline Out to 200 Meters Below the Surface is to Belong to Mexico The President of the Republic issued yesterday an order of historic importance in accordance with which the national territory of our nation is to extend to include dominion over all the platform or submarine continental shelf adjacent to our shores provided it not be in excess of a depth of 200 meters with a view to preserving all the natural known or unknown riches that may be found in the seabed, such as mineral products, fauna and flora. Particular pains will be taken for vigilance, use and control of zones of fisheries protection with a view to seeking the development of the resources of the high seas irrespective of the distance separating them from the coastline.
The Chief of the Nation in taking this exceedingly important step announces that he is already giving appropriate orders so that the authorities who have jurisdiction over this new thesis of Mexican territory may proceed to form the appropriate projects of law and the fulfillment of those treaties which may be necessary.
The experience of recent years has shown the increasing necessity for state to preserve those natural riches which throughout the years for various reasons have been beyond their control and beyond integrated development.
As is known, the lands constituting the continental masses in general do not rise in steep slope from the great depths of the ocean but rather rest upon a submarine foundation termed continental shelf which is limited by a line joining points of equal depth (200 meters) from which the slope descends either suddenly or gradually into the zones of middle depth of the seas. Obviously, therefore, this platform or shelf constitutes an integral part of continental countries and it is neither reasonable, nor wise, nor possible that Mexico shall fail to take care of jurisdiction, development, and control of this shelf in those areas adjoining its territory in both oceans.
It is now known, as a result of various scientific investigations, that in this continental shelf there are natural riches, minerals, liquids and gases, phosphates, calcium, hydrocarbons, etc., of an incalculable value contained in the submarine platform the legal incorporation of which to the national territory is necessary and not to be deferred.
On the other hand it is equally urgent that the Mexican nation, which nature has endowed with fisheries resources of an extraordinary
wealth, such as those which are to be found, not to mention others, in the maritime area off Lower California, protect, exploit, and develop these resources in an orderly fashion. This matter is the more urgent today when the world impoverished and needy through the war brought about by totalitarianism, must increase to the maximum its food production.
In the years before the war the western hemisphere had to watch permanent fleets of non-continental countries dedicating themselves to immoderate and exhaustive exploitation of these great resources which, while it is true must help in the welfare of peoples, obviously belong first to that country which possessed them and to that continent to which they belong. Because of its very nature, it is necessary that this protection be carried as far out as those places or zones indicated by science for the development of the fisheries resources of the high seas irrespective of the distance separating them from the coast.
Basing its action upon these reasons, the government of the Republic recovers all the platform or continental shelf adjacent to its coastline and every and each natural resource, whether known or unknown, found therein, and is moving toward that vigilance, use, and control in the zones of fisheries protection necessary to the conservation of such a source of well being.
The above does not imply that the government of Mexico intends to fail to recognize legitimate rights of third parties on a basis of reciprocity or that the government of Mexico intends to affect legitimate rights of free navigation on the high seas since the only thing it seeks is the conservation of these resources for the national, the continental, and world well being.
The government is already issuing orders to the appropriate authorities so that the latter may take steps to formulate the projects of law which are necessary and to negotiate those treaties which may be required.
Manuel Avila Camacho
The President of the Republic.
Mexico, D.F.
October 29, 1945


Thomas Reid: The action of both these countries, particularly that of the United' States, is of such importance that Canada cannot very well ignore what has been done, and I intend to show, before concluding, that for the future peace of the world, as well as for Canada's own future economy, we should without delay accept President Truman's offer.
For a moment or two, let us first look at the Pacific halibut fishery. It is not generally known that more halibut is produced from off the Canadian and United States shores than in any other ocean or area of water in the world. Of the total world production of halibut, sixty-six per cent is produced by United States and Canadian fishermen in the Pacific right off our shores. Here is a fishery which, but for the regulatory measures taken by the United States and Canada, might today be largely non-existent. In the early years of halibut fishing, all fishing was done

Supply-Fisheries

comparatively close to shore. We had not at that time developed the diesel engine. Nevertheless. without regulation, this fishery, owing to over-fishing, commenced a rapid decline after the year 1911. In that year the catch of halibut reached a total of 56.9 million pounds. In 1930 this had gone down to 22.6 million pounds.
The Pacific halibut has always been exclusively a United States and Canadian activity. Employed in that industry in 1941 were 576 fishing boats, 173 of these being Canadian. The gross earnings of the Canadian fishermen in 1941 were well over SI million, which makes this industry both for Americans and Canadians an extremely important means of livelihood for great numbers of citizens. Fifty per cent of all halibut caught are now taken in area 2 in the open waters off British Columbia shores. The halibut fishery banks are divided into three areas by the international halibut commission, one of these areas being in the gulf of Alaska and some seventy-five miles or more offshore.
Do not let us forget that, before the war, the United States had considerable trouble with the Japanese in regard to fishing in Alaskan waters, and so serious was it at one time that there was almost open warfare. Prior to the. war, the Japanese had been for years in the habit of sending out large ships on extended investigational and fishing trips to various parts of the world. These ships are known as mother ships and able to go a long way from their home port, for a year at least, without the necessity of returning for supplies. Japan claimed she was merely testing the salinity and the temperature of the sea *water in Alaskan waters but admitted, when pressed, they were fishing for crabs as well. Japan denied most emphatically she was catching salmon. When it was reported to Washington that the real purpose of Japan was to engage in salmon fishing, as well as at the same time mapping out the Alaska coast for military purposes, the authorities at Washington refused to believe such statements. The fishermen of Alaska, however, were able to procure the services of a plane which flew a number of times over these mother ships, and by taking actual photographs were able to show that the Japanese were deliberately lying, and were actually fishing for salmon and using nets between three to four miles in length. It was only when the American fishermen of Alaska, however, threatened to take direct action themselves, that Washington officially protested to the Japanese government, and so Japan had the mother ships withdrawn. Bear in mind that Japan was not then quite ready
[Mr. Re*H..J
for war. It is a well known fact, however, that, had war on the Pacific not intervened, these mother ships from Japan would have increased fishing operations there. They would later have moved down the Alaskan and Canadian coasts, and by the use of their intensive fishing methods and three to four mile long nets destroyed not only the halibut banks, but the salmon and other fisheries off our coast as well. It is to prevent this kind of exploitation and destruction from taking place in the future that President Truman has issued the recent proclamation with the view of extending control over all these offshore fisheries in the Pacific and Atlantic, and inviting Canada or any other country to join with them in the matter of control and conservation.
For the future peace of the world, now is the proper time to join with the United States in designating these offshore areas as areas in which Canada and the United States have distinct claims and justifiable priority rights.
No country can dispute the fact that all varieties of salmon frequenting the continental shelf in offshore Canadian waters have been born and reared under protective and conservative measures in Canadian rivers and lakes. No country can dispute the fact also that the halibut and salmon banks would be largely non-existent were it not for the regulatory and conservation measures enforced by Canada and the United States under mutual agreement, and carried out under an international treaty between the two countries. Let us boldly face the fact that other nations, with no thought or consideration for conservation, may desire to invade these offshore north Pacific fisheries.
The total world production of fish and fishing products in 1940 was around 40,000 million pounds. Of this quantity Japan, prior to the war, produced twenty-two percent of the world's total fisheries production. The United States came second with eleven per cent, and the Soviet Union produced ten per cent, while Canada came tenth on the list with our share amounting to only 3-3 per cent.
Recent reports from Tokyo indicate a systematic campaign by the Japanese government and fisheries officials to break out of the fisheries areas assigned to Japan since their surrender, and with a view to Japan's gradually regaining something of their former dominant fishing empire.
Just what part the Soviet Union will take in the fishing areas of the Pacific formerly controlled by Japan is something which has not yet been made clear. In all likelihood, Russia will take back from Japan the fishing rights and areas around Kamchatka, which

Supply-Fisheries
fishing rights, as we know, were forced from Russia following the Russo-Japanese war of 1911.
Information has only recently come from Moscow that Russia has set up two distinct ministries of fisheries, one for the Black and Caspian seas areas, and the other for the northern Pacific. Before that country gets time to become wholly equipped for fishing or before Japan once again sails the seas of the world with her large mother ships, notification should be served on the world by Canada in conjunction with the United States of the justifiable rights and protective interests both countries have in these important fisheries off the British Columbia and Alaskan coasts. By doing so now, all countries will know in advance what our claims are and the reasons for our claims in these areas and will, I believe, be reluctant, in the face of these justifiably claimed rights, to invade the designated fishing areas. Action of this kind by Canada and the United States may be one practical way of keeping peace and preventing war. It will certainly be much more difficult in the future, if action of this kind is not taken, to remove fishing vessels belonging to other nations, if they invade these fisheries, and who might have no hesitation in sending vessels to fish in these areas, we're no such protective regulations in existence.
Three countries, Russia, the United States and Canada, have an equal stake in the potentialities of the north Pacific fisheries, and a vital interest in how modern mechanized methods of fishing will affect the fishery of their respective territorial waters. All the salmon found in the north Pacific ocean propagate in the rivers flowing into the north Pacific from the hinterland of Russia, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.
Following an agreement being reached between Canada and the United States regarding regulatory and protective measures on the fishery off United States and Canadian territory, a further step could then be taken jointly by both governments looking toward the pooling of all the scientific information now available within all three countries, and with the further object of the establishment of an international commission, through which to assess all the facts upon which regulations should be based. The examples of the international halibut commission and the international Pacific salmon commission, both of which are under the joint control of the United States and Canada, places us in a 63260-348J
position to make a valuable contribution to the greater objective, embracing the fisheries of the entire North Pacific.
Here is a further opportunity for Canada to show leadership in world affairs, by first joining with the United States along the lines contained in the recent proclamation and then later moving forward conjointly with the United States in friendly discussions with Russia, and invite that country to join with the United States and Canada in any protective measures deemed desirable for the development of the fisheries in north Pacific waters, in, which all three countries have special interests.
It has been stated that one of the difficulties which might confront Canada, were we to accept the invitation outlined in President Truman's proclamation, has to do with the fisheries on the Atlantic. Whilst this may or may not be correct, it will be most unfortunate if we close our eyes to the situation, and nothing is done by Canada, owing perhaps to some seeming difficulties, which certain high officials at Ottawa think may arise, regarding any protective regulation of fisheries off the Canadian or Atlantic coast.
In the past, Canada has been far too reluctant to protect her own interests where other countries were involved. Two striking instances of the truth of this statement have occurred on the Pacific coast. By our negligence we lost all the rights on the Columbia river given to Canada under a treaty with the United States in 1845. So far as I can find out, no protest was ever made by Canada against the loss of these rights.
I have brought this matter before the house on two occasions, under Prime Minister Bennett and under the present Prime Minister. The only answer I could get was that I had introduced a matter of a delicate nature affecting another nation. But we had rights; we were given rights in 1845, under a treaty. I shall not take time to read the treaty, but as Canadians we had rights of sailing from the interior of British Columbia right to the Pacific coast. But we sat quietly by and allowed the Americans to close up the entire river by the construction of large dams.
Another case I have in mind, where Canada has been derelict in her duty to defend her rights, is that on the coastal waters known as Hecate strait between the mainland of British Columbia and Queen Charlotte islands. Here is a stretch of water, which is strictly Canadian waters and was so regarded by Canada up until at least the year 1907. However, for quite a number of years past United States fishing vessels have been fishing with impunity in these Canadian waters, and without objection or protest by Crnada. Prior to 1907,
Suppl v-Fish eries

United States fishing vessels had attempted to fish in Hecate strait, but on every such occasion instructions were given by the Canadian government to the Canadian fisheries patrol service to chase them off and prevent what was then termed illegal fishing.
Back in 1905 the government of that day set up a commission to investigate all fishing matters on the Pacific coast. One of the particular matters investigated by the commission was that of Hecate strait, and a report of their recommendation was made in 1907.
While it is not my intention to quote the entire recommendations, I shall quote an excerpt from them, because I believe it is necessary that I do so at this time. I quote from page 29 of the Report and Recommendations of the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1905-1907, where it states:
This strait has always been regarded as British Columbian waters, and no fishing operations by parties not British subjects were carried on there until about fifteen years ago. As soon as it was realized that the halibut banks between Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland coast were being marauded by foreign vessels, an order was issued by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the time, warning all fishing vessels, not flying the British flag, out of these waters. The wire conveying these instructions to the officer in command of the dominion cruiser Quadra is dated April .18, 1896.
I am going to read only one or two further excerpts from these recommendations. I would say, however, that they deal with the matter completely. The recommendation to the government was that these waters were strictly Canadian, and they said that no other fishing ships should be allowed to fish there. The report states further:
The waters are territorial Canadian waters, from which United States and other foreign fishing vessels are legally excluded.
And again:
In these waters occur the most valuable halibut and salmon resorts in the world, and no measures should be neglected to preserve them, and to prevent their threatened depletion by foreign poachers.
That was the last that was heard of the report. The Canadian government just shut their eyes or went to sleep in the matter, and appeared to be afraid, although right along, up to that time, they had been asserting that these waters were our waters. As I say, Canada has, since then, simply closed her eyes to the entire matter.
Action should certainly be taken by the Canadian government to clear up the matter as speedily as' possible, making clear to the United States and to other nations that Hecate strait is, without any peradventure of doubt, Canadian waters and entirely under
fMr. Reid.]
the jurisdiction and control of the Canadian government. I quite realize there may be difficulties now that Canada has entered into a treaty with the United States in regard to the regulation of halibut fishing in Hecate strait and in the gulf of Alaska. In view of this treaty, I am not suggesting that steps be taken now to chase the Americans off these waters. I am suggesting, however, that we should make it clear to the United States that, although we have entered into a treaty with them to preserve and control halibut fishing in the waters of the British Columbia and Alaskan coast, this does not give them any vested right of law, to fish with impunity in Hecate strait.
In Alaskan waters, the United States had no compunction back in 1924 in chasing a Canadian fishing boat in Clarence strait out of there, and later fining the owners for fishing illegally in those waters, even though the Canadian vessel was twenty miles off shore.
One way out of the difficulty with the United States in regard to Hecate strait would be for Canada to take the advantage offered us in President Truman's proclamation, In coming to an agreement with the United States to act conjointly in protecting the fisheries on the continental shelf off the United States and British Columbia coasts, we could come to some agreement with the United States regarding these waters. Such an agreement wiould strengthen Canada's position in the event of any attempted future exploitation by fishing vessels belonging to other foreign nations. In doing so, however, Canada should take a firm stand that the waters of Hecate strait are entirely and strictly Canadian waters. A further advantage in taking action of this kind now would be to deter, in the future, Japanese, Russian or citizens of any other country from fishing there. As the matter stands at present, there is nothing to hinder any country from sending vessels to fish there and in any protests or representations made by Canada against such exploitation, our position in the matter would be weakened owing to the fact that we have allowed the United States to fish there without protest and have not officially declared Hecate strait to be Canadian territory.
I urge the government that now is the opportune time for Canada to take action similar to that of the United States and the republic of Mexico. By so doing, it would indicate to the world that the governments of the three countries were in entire agreement on the matter, and that any exploitation by foreign fishing vessels on the continental shelf off the shores of the North American

Supply-Fisheries
continent would be an unfriendly act and an encroachment involving the governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada. It is my belief that an agreement of this kind between the three governments mentioned, especially an agreement with that of the United States, would have a deterrent effect on other countries and thereby help preserve peace.
Before closing, may I mention one further cogent argument in favour of Canada accepting the invitation announced in President Truman's proclamation. Canadian fishermen at the present time fish for tuna and pilchards right off the coasts of Washington and Oregon. They do so side by side with fishing vessels of the United States. When the provisions of President Truman's proclamation are put into effect, the restrictions as to fishing will undoubtedly cover the offshore waters of Washington and Oregon. If no treaty or agreement is entered into with the United States, what will the position of the Canadian fishermen be, especially when one considers that under the proclamation the chief purpose of the United States is to protect for her own nationals the fisheries adjacent to United States territory. President Truman's proclamation, if ignored by Canada, will undoubtedly have the effect of preventing, in the future, Canadian fishermen from fishing in areas preserved solely for United States nationals.
I repeat, no time should be lost by Canada in taking action similar to that of the United States and Mexico. A committee of competent officials and representatives of the entire industry should be set up immediately to explore and examine the entire situation. It cannot be too strongly pointed out that in this matter time is extremely important for us. The world just now is in a state of flux. Japan at the moment, whilst in a strait-jacket, will not always be kept there. Soviet Russia, although having set up a ministry of fisheries for the Pacific, will require time to gather a fishing fleet together and get fully organized. Russia's first move may undoubtedly be the taking over from the Japanese all the Kamchatka fishing rights, which she was forced to relinquish to Japan by the terms of the Portsmouth treaty in 1911.
As I say, now that the United States is taking action to protect her national interests and realizing what might and could occur in the future, there should be no further hesitation or delay on the part of Canada to do likewise. One particularly strong factor, in favour of our doing so, is that we would have the assurance of the backing and support of the United States in whatever conservation and protective measures may be deemed
desirable and necessary to prevent the exploitation, if not destruction, of the valuable fisheries off our shores.
Finally, in urging the government to accept President Truman's offer and in suggesting that Canada join with the United States in measures to protect our offshore fisheries, I quite realize that this may involve some change of policy in external affairs. I say this because, since confederation, Canada has made no foreign commitments involving matters as important as this without first seeking the advice of British authorities. This policy is quite understandable when one considers that we have had to depend on Great Britain for protection should Canada be attacked or become involved in serious difficulties with other countries. We cannot escape the fact, however, that in so far as our offshore fisheries are concerned, our interests are more closely allied with those of the United States, rather than with those of Great Britain. It is my belief that any measures taken by the United States to protect that country's offshore fisheries from exploitation by other countries, such as an invasion, would certainly affect the interests of this country. Canada could not very well in that event remain neutral or silent on such an important issue, for the exploitation of these offshore fisheries would affect the economy of Canada equally with that of the United States.
My chief purpose in appealing to the government at this time is to draw their attention to the grave dangers facing Canada's salmon fisheries, and to urge that we take action now, and before it is too late.


Mr. McLURE:: Mr. Chairman, you and this committee must -have appreciated the wonderful ministerial address or outline of his stewardship which the minister gave us to-day, and also the direct plans he has laid out for the benefit of fisheries in Canada. He was followed by the hon. member for New Westminster who gave us one of his classics on the history of fisheries, not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada generally. During the session we have listened to debates on bacon, wheat, milk and so on; I hope we can now make the fish diet as appetizing.
Before we pass on to the estimates, I should like to make a few remarks which may not be quite along the lines of the remarks of the minister or of the hon. member who has just spoken. I desire to make my remarks relative to the fisheries of the maritimes, and to the fisheries of Prince Edward Island particularly. Last year it was my pleasure to congratulate the minister on his appointment to
Supply-Fisheries

the position he now holds. I hoped at that time that, being a maritimer, he would endeavour to give us some special benefits. After hearing what he said to-day, I am in duty bound to say that he has launched a policy which will be of benefit, not only to fisheries in general, but to those of the maritimes as well.
Last session I brought t'o the attention of the minister certain complaints which had been made by the fishermen in my riding. On their behalf I want to thank the minister for agreeing to their requests. They greatly appreciate his doing these things to which I will refer in a moment.
It is important to have a capable deputy in the Department of Fisheries. In the past the department has had capable deputies, one of whom I should like to mention, the late Doctor William Found. He was a Prince Edward Islander. The department was fortunate in securing as his successor another capable deputy, Doctor Finn. I regret that the department has since lost the services of Doctor Finn, at least for the time being. His ability has been recognized abroad, and I understand that almost 100 per cent more valuation has been placed upon his services, so that we could hardly hope to hold him. But if a man is as valuable as that to the fisheries of some other country I would think he would be just as valuable to the fisheries of Canada. We should not let dollars and cents take such a man away from us. I only hope that he will be available to assist at any time that he may be needed by the department.
The appointment of deputies is generally a political matter, but promotions should be in order. The minister has in his department men with excellent practical training, and I should like to mention a few of them. As director of fish culture he has J. A. Rodd; as director of western fisheries he has A. J. Whitmore; as assistant deputy minister he has
D.	H. Sutherland. I could go on and mention a number of others, all of them capable men. When a deputy is being appointed to assist the minister I hope that qualification for the position will be considered more than political affiliation. I feel that the man selected for this high position should be one with practical knowledge and experience gained from a contact with fisheries.
I am afraid that during the last five years of the war the controls which have been imposed have not always been for the benefit of the fishing industry. This was true in the case of the allocations made, and it was certainly true in the matter of price ceilings. For instance, the fish administration of the

wartime prices and trade board made a distinct differentiation between the prices of canned chicken haddock and canned mackerel. Why? I do not know, because it should have been known to the department that there was no difference in the food value, nor was there much difference on the open market before the controls were instituted.
Another matter is the price ceiling which was set on canned shad, in which case the calculations were based on the cost of the raw materials. Then it was found out that, with the development of the industry, competition arose and the industry had to stop this particular variety because the price ceiling prohibited its production. In my opinion this matter should have been immediately investigated and the price ceiling adjusted, so that this fish could have been added to the already needed food supply; and it should have been investigated by the Department of Fisheries.
Another friendly criticism I have to make with reference to departmental affairs is that apparently they carry on those affairs without proper consultation with the industry itself. In case after case they have made regulations which in principle probably are right, but which in detail lack much. Usually it has happened, prior to the war and during the war, that these regulations-


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Would the hon. member tell me whether he is referring to regulations made by the wartime prices and trade board or by the department?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The wartime prices and
trade board. They have been dillydallying around, over and over, and they made the regulations law by order in council and sprung them on the industry without its foreknowledge but, almost invariably in the last years, after canning or processing was well under way. The point which must be emphasized is that if these new regulations are to be instituted they must be considered w'ell in advance of the packing season, and proper notice given to the parties concerned so that plans can be made accordingly, and the man who should boss this proceeding is the Minister of Fisheries, not the wartime prices and trade board. The minister should have the final say, and I must add that this year he has had his say; the minister, when making some changes in regulations, did notify the fisheries and the fishermen throughout the maritime provinces and, probably, all over Canada.
Another little item I wish to speak on for a moment relates to the supervisors, similar to

Supply-Fisheries
the men envisaged in the plan which is being put forth at the present time. What the department needs are good practical men as supervisors, men who, besides seeing that all regulations are properly carried out, will promote and improve all matters pertaining to local fishing conditions. We realize that they are not able to make policy or regulations for the department, but we believe that in many cases they are in a position to recommend things which would be beneficial to the industry, if they are capable of seeing these improvements.
Another matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister may not affect the maritimes generally as much as it affects Prince Edward Island: I refer to fishing facilities of the nature of navigation aids, wharves, boat harbours and shelters. Much provision of this kind is needed in various places, but I believe that it should only be carried out after the minister has consulted the local committees or the fishermen direct. .1 know that, in the past, engineers of the Department of Public Works have gone to work and put up structures which have been a mere waste of money because they were entirely unsuited to local conditions. Therefore the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works should always get together with the local people to figure out the best possible way to provide satisfactory structures. This might be a little embarrassing to the engineers, but they do not seem to understand where or how to place many of the things that need to be built for the fisheries.
I believe that at present the trend of postwar fish business will be toward frozen products, and with this in view some definite plan might be drawn up to provide proper cold storage facilities at the right places. With this goes the question of transportation. Prince Edward Island is particularly hindered in this respect. I need not elaborate on this because the minister knows of our difficulties. I should, however, like to mention one instance, this last year, where the fishermen were promoting a new industry in Prince Edward Island fishing, namely, the trimming, shooking and marketing of frozen scallops taken from our own waters. The frozen product was to be marketed in central Canada; the buyers had to hold their goods in anything but reliable storage, where they were in anxiety day and night lest the machinery might break down, until such time as a truck load could be assembled, and this in turn was routed via the Canadian National main line at Moncton,
via the Wood Island-Cariboo ferry. We could not entertain for one minute the idea of crossing at Borden because of the tremendous freight and truck charges involved therein. Neither could the C.N.R. express give the fishermen any suitable express service from Charlottetown. Incidentally the fishermen were not always able to get proper facilities on the main line of the C.N.R., and they had to await the dispatch of iced fish cars from Halifax. These had no definite schedule, and we were only given a very few hours' notice that shipments could be dispatched in those cars. Our fishermen intend to improve this industry if possible these coming years, and they certainly must have better handling facilities in order to do this in competition with other areas producing the same kind of fish. This is only one instance, and many other problems will develop as we try to invade the frozen fish market.
I am going to take only a few minutes to bring to the attention of the department the rope supply situation. Probably this has been rectified, but in the spring of 1946 it gave the fishermen a great deal of concern, and I had many letters with regard to it. The shortage of supplies of fishing rope gave supply dealers and fishermen in lobster fishing many headaches last spring, and the condition continues even now and affects the fall season of 1946. I am not placing any blame for this condition upon the minister or his department, but I am firmly convinced that the minister should dictate to the wartime prices and trade board, or their cotton administration, or the director of twine and cordage, instead of these bureaucrats controlling the situation and dictating to him and his department, In the quotas for 1946-I want the minister to understand that I am now dealing with and criticizing the wartime prices and trade board-


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Thank you.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: -suppliers and distributors were not given any extra quotas to take care of the reestablishment of war veterans in lobster fishing. They had been led to believe that, while priorities were filled for veterans, that would not affect the regular quota for these suppliers or dealers. But the distributors who were desirous of assisting and cooperating with the veterans were placed in a precarious condition. I have on my file letters from large distributors who had considered the case of the veteran, so much so that many old-established civilian accounts did not get their requirements. I want to tell the minister and his department that they should make demand on the wartime prices and1 trade board for a

Suppl y-Fish eries
fairer allocation of rope to the veterans by an extra quota for them. All would have been well if the department had been dealing with this matter entirely themselves. As a matter of fact, some of these veterans who in the spring of 1946. had priorities filed were never taken care of, and some fishermen had to leave their gear on the shore and go to some other occupation. A set policy pertaining to the control and distribution of cordage for fishing purposes should be established in time, and I hope that the minister will not take any instructions from the wartime prices and trade board. He and his department are the ones who can give satisfaction to the fishermen and the dealers. I might say further that the bungles which were so far-reaching might have been investigated, by the department, but I suppose it was a difficult thing to do. It would have been worth investigating just to find out whether the cordage companies are trying to erect a kind of tent over this whole business of rope, twine, et cetera. I believe that charity should begin at home, and, if we have rope and twine we should first supply our own fishermen, our own veterans who are going into the fishing business, and then, if we have any left over, we can ship it to foreign countries.


Mr. WINTERS:: May I at first associate myself with the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Queen's in" saying, on behalf of the Nova Scotia members, that we welcome the statement just brought down by the Minister of Fisheries. It shows a direct and healthy outlook toward the problems facing his department and those facing the fishing interests in Canada. Long-range planning of this type will do much for the fishing industry in years to come. I would also compliment most highly the hon. member for New Westminster on his splendid presentation of a problem that affects the west coast. I have never heard it presented so directly or clearly before, and we in the east have now a much better appreciation of what western fishermen are up against. I would say, too, that I enjoyed listening to the constructive speech of the hon. member for Queens, since it shows some of the problems facing the fishermen of Prince Edward Island.
I should now like to say something about the fishing problems of Nova Scotia. On the west coast there is definitely an international problem involving oriental nations. In Nova Scotia we have an international problem involving European nations. In the light of present-day world affairs, it is natural to be internationally minded, and I think Nova Scotians, by virtue of the fact that they have

seafaring traditions, are probably more internationally minded than the average citizen. They are interested in such matters as the peace conference, UNRR<A and the other international conferences that are taking place to-day. But of more immediate interest and direct concern to the fishermen, in the constituency of Queen's-Lunenburg in particular and Nova Scotia in general, is the international situation arising out of the destruction by trawlers of foreign registry of trawl gear set out by our fishing schooners on Quero bank off the coast of Nova Scotia. Quero bank is known officially on most maps and charts as Banquereau, and is located approximately 115 miles off Canso in a southeasterly direction and approximately 245 miles off Lunenburg.
The Department of Fisheries as well as the Department of External Affairs are fully familiar with the situation. It is acknowledged that it poses a difficult problem so far as prevention and redress are concerned because, in the absence of adequate proof of nationalities, the Canadian government is not in a position to approach the foreign government or governments concerned.
It has been known for several years that in some instances foreign trawlers have interfered with Nova Scotian fishing schooners and there have probably been rare cases when our own trawlers have been at fault. This destruction may or may not be intentional. Basic methods of fishing involved are widely different and isolated accidents are understandable. Nova Scotia schooners fish by setting out on the banks long lengths of line equipped with hooks attached at intervals. These lines thus equipped are called trawls. They are quite long and normally are set out in a radial pattern around the schooners. Trawlers, on the other hand, are mjuch more like conventional steamships. They are larger, usually of steel construction, and their method of operating is to drag a net behind them and scoop up the fish, so that, although the gear of our schooners is well marked by buoys, it is understandable that a trawler could cut through it accidentally in isolated cases.
Our fishermen realize that accidents of this kind can happen and they would like to think that these recurrences are accidental. But one must be broad-minded indeed to accept this view in the face of repeated incidents in clear weather, in broad daylight and despite adequate warnings by the schooners. In fact, Quero bank was so congested recently with foreign trawlers, that our schooners oftentimes found it necessary to go around the bank in order to avoid collisions. The fre-

Supply-Fisheries
quency of these incidents has, of course, increased since the war, because the banks are now safe from enemy craft and foreign nations are turning more to peacetime pursuits.
In May of this year the interference by foreign trawlers was brought to the attention of the government, but at that time the evidence was meagre and the government could not establish the identity of the trawlers concerned. The Canadian Fishermen's Union, which entered the complaints, did not provide this information. Skippers were reasonably sure of the nationalities of the offending trawlers, but presumably they did not have sufficient evidence to satisfy themselves completely and, despite repeated attempts, the government was not able to establish these identities.
It is understood that the foreign trawlers have now returned temporarily to their home ports to discharge their cargoes and to refit; but until they did leave the banks, the situation was becoming considerably worse, and it is likely it will deteriorate further when they return. A number of fishing schooners experienced losses of gear in the early summer, and at the request of the Department of Fisheries their skippers prepared sworn statements for submission to the government. It was hoped that these most recent statements would specify the nationalities of the trawlers, but it is understood that they did not. They did set forth much valuable information and evidence of specific instances of destruction, but in no case did they identify the offending trawlers by nationalities.
Both the Halifax Chronicle and the Halifax Herald have been emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, and the Financial Post of August 3 treated the matter rather fully. This last mentioned paper designated the offending trawlers as being of Spanish, Portuguese and French registry, and in an editorial dated August 16 the Herald said the offenders were Spanish, but I am not aware on what evidence these statements were based. The Financial Post further stated that in one instance a Spanish trawler deliberately swept through the well-marked gear of the schooner Irene Mary, but I understand that in his sworn statement the skipper of this schooner designated the offender only as a "foreign" trawler. The captain of this schooner is a neighbour of mine. As is the case with most fishing skippers, he is not given to exaggeration and, in fact, will tolerate a great deal before entering complaints. Under the circumstances, one can assume that the situation is intolerable. However, it is regretted that, although the nationalities of the offending trawlers appear to be common knowledge locally, and some newspapers are sufficiently sure of themselves to designate nationalities in print, the Department of Fisheries is having difficulty in obtaining this information in sworn statements from authoritative sources.
The department is, of course, aware that there are Spanish, Portuguese, and French trawlers on the banks, but no evidence has been presented which will permit it to associate a particular trawler with a specific act of destruction. The most recent affidavits submitted on August 20 and 22 are much more complete than any submitted prior to that time; but, although they again state in three instances that the trawlers were thought to be Spanish, none of them is specific as to country of registry, and the captain of the schooner Irene Mary, Capt. Leo Corkum, says that he cannot identify the nationality of the trawler that damaged his gear. I understand also that on June 3 an R.C.A.F. plane made a reconnaissance flight over Quero and found that, of twelve foreign trawlers on the bank that day, eight were of Spanish nationality. This situation has developed to the point where the existence of our fishing industry may very well be at stake. It is understood that foreign nations are building trawlers in large quantities. For example, it is reported that France is having thirty trawlers constructed in the United States at the present time, and that these trawlers are larger in size than those used by either Canada or the United States. Portugal is assuming an ambitious trawler programme. There is no doubt that these trawlers will fish on the banks which have always been ours by tradition, and it is greatly feared that these fishing grounds will suffer early depletion, just as the European banks have been depleted. Some international understanding is necessary, but pending a satisfactory understanding our fishermen must have adequate protection.
The nature of the protection presents a real difficulty. It is conceivable that this government can declare its rights to control the coastal waters extending to the edge of the continental shelf, just as the United States has done. In fact such a policy would appear highly desirable. The hon. member for New Westminster covered that situation exceptionally well in his treatment of fishing conditions on the west coast. I may say that we support his views entirely; we feel that there is a great deal of merit in his proposal, and I would recommend that the government consider it seriously. I do not deny that there are problems involved, nevertheless it is one approach
Supply-Fisheries

to the problem which must be considered. Quero bank and other fishing grounds which we have long regarded as our own are well within the limits of the continental shelf. But having declared jurisdiction, it would still be necessary for us to provide adequate control measures to protect our rights, unless there were a workable agreement between the nations desirous of using the banks. The last thing in the world we want is unfriendly relations on these banks. Our fishermen do not want to fish surrounded by protective craft in the numbers that would be required if the foreign trawlers chose to ignore our proclaimed rights. Let us hope that enforcement measures of this kind will never be necessary.
In my opinion, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that this government take whatever action is necessary to satisfy itself of the identity of the offending trawlers, and that it come to understandings with their governments at the earliest possible date so that the rights of our fishermen may receive the consideration to which they are entitled. I was pleased to hear the minister say, in his statement on August 14 as reported in Hansard at page 4816, that the matter is being given further detailed investigation not only by his department but by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Quite apart from the problem of patrolling the fishing grounds under these extraordinary conditions, it is important that adequate patrols be provided even if fishing conditions are normal.
There are no patrol craft in operation on the banks at the present time. The minister provided this information on August 21 in reply to a question I placed on the order paper. Prior to the war, two patrol craft, Arras and Arleaux, did good work, but they were used for war purposes and are no longer available. The department has acquired another ship, the C.G.S. Cygnus. It is understood that this craft, which was formerly the Melville-a minesweeper of the Bangor type-will be ready for operation within the next week or two. It is a sizable craft, approximately 162 feet long and with a speed of seventeen knots. It is understood that she will carry a crew of twenty-seven. Her function will be primarily to provide protection and general services for our fishermen on the offshore banks. It would appear that consideration should be given to obtaining additional such craft to perform general coast guard duties.
It is the opinion of local fishermen that the services of boats such as C.G.S. Cygnus should be supplemented by craft which could travel at high speed and would be available for inshore work. It would seem to me that motor

torpedo boats would lend themselves ideally for this purpose with a minimum of modification.
The R.C.A.F., the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Transport and Department of Fisheries all have need for some rescue service, patrol service or other type of service along the coast. It is known that lawbreakers use speedy craft and, in order to cope with them, the departments concerned must also use fast boats. I would suggest, therefore, that the four departments I have just mentioned consolidate their efforts in this field and purchase several high speed craft of the motor torpedo boat or similar type. The combination of the Cygnus type craft and these smaller craft would provide more adequate offshore and inshore coverage.
The inland waterways in my constituency are presenting a problem of increasing magnitude. In the first place, there seems to be some uncertainty as to the present and future division of responsibility between the federal government and the provincial government of Nova Scotia, in this field. It seems to me that the first problem is to establish these responsibilities clearly and beyond any doubt. This clarification would remove uncertainty from the minds of many departmental employees and thus result in greater over-all efficiency. It would result, too, in a programme which, by virtue of being clearly defined, would bo more energetically executed.
There are in my constituency several first-class salmon and trout rivers. They present a major attraction for tourists as well as provide food and revenue for local residents. The condition of these rivers has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where they are losing their attraction for tourists and, if corrective steps are not taken in the very near future, this country will lose a valuable source of revenue.
When one sees the benefits accruing from improvements made to streams and rivers on the west Coast, it becomes apparent that we must insist on prompt action to protect these resources in Nova Scotia. The minister knows that I speak particularly of the Mersey and Medway rivers in Queens county and LaHave river in Lunenburg county. But there are others of which the same can be said. The Department of Fisheries is fully familiar with the circumstances and knows the problems involved. I feel that the department is giving the problems full consideration, but I would urge that action be taken. If, as I intimated before, corrective action is impeded in any way because of uncertainty as to responsibilities between the

Supply-Fisheries
dominion and the province, then I would say that it is most important that this vital matter be clarified without delay.
At this point, may I say that the Minister of Fisheries has at all times shown himself to be most anxious to cooperate. He has always taken a realistic and practical view of any problems I have placed before him, and in no case has he dismissed a reasonable request simply by saying that it was not the policy of his department to do "things of that nature."


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it his opinion that the provincial government has failed to cooperate with the minister in taking the measures necessary?


Robert Henry Winters: I did not say that. I do not care to give a detailed opinion. In brief, I would say, no; I did not mean that at all. I do not know of any case in which the provincial government has not cooperated; but, as hon. members know, where there is any uncertainty as to who is responsible there is always inefficiency.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the hon. member mean-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: The hon. member must not interrupt the speaker without his consent.


John Horne Blackmore: I asked for consent.


Robert Henry Winters: What was the question?


John Horne Blackmore: I wondered whether the hon. member would tell the committee what were the corrective measures necessary. I am very much interested in his speech, and I am just seeking information as a westerner who does not know anything about the problems.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to proceed, and, if time permits, I shall be glad to hnswer the question after-wards. Is that satisfactory?
I was speaking about the minister. At this particular point I was saying that the minister has shown himself to be willing to try new approaches to problems, and we have every confidence that, so long as he holds the portfolio, our fishing problems will receive every consideration.
Wherever there are shore fishermen, there is also the problem of dredging. Dredging, as such, is a matter for the Department of Public Works, but I mention it here because it is so integrally associated with the lot of inshore fishermen. These men leave their homes around two, three or four o'clock in the early morning; go offshore eight or ten
miles to fish, and come back the same afternoon with their catch. Many times they return with a boatload of fish at low tide and, because of shallow water, they are forced to- lie outside the harbour waiting for the tide to rise. Hon. members can well imagine that this is a precarious and uncomfortable situation in rough weather. There are one or two particularly bad places in my constituency where harbours have become filled up with sand or mud. The Minister of Public Works is fully familiar with them and is sympathetic to the predicament of the fishermen. The trouble is that dredging equipment is limited and, where a heavy programme is on the books, all projects cannot be carried out at the same time. The various jobs must, therefore, be listed in order of urgency. I can assure the committee, however, that when fishermen are lying offshore in a storm with a boatload of fish waiting for the tide to rise so that they can enter the harbour, it is not easy to persuade them that their need for dredging is less urgent than that of some other locality. I would, therefore, impress upon the Minister of Public Works through the Minister of Fisheries that any steps he can take to increase his dredging capacity will be well directed in the interests of the fishermen and the economy of this country.
Before concluding, I would say a few words about the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. As is the case with any organization, the board has its opponents and supporters. Scientific or research bodies seem more likely to be the object of misunderstanding and resulting criticism than almost any other type of agency.
The popular impression of scientists and researchers is that they are long-bearded- mentally if not physically-and that not only do they not have their feet on the ground, but their heads are in the clouds.
This thinking is often applied to a lesser extent to engineers. I recall that, in discussing the research council, an hon. member was concerned about the administrative ability of engineers and asked the minister if a practical businessman would be placed in the capacity of administrator over and above the engineers.
These are misconceptions. There are, of course, dreamers and theorizers in science and engineering just as there are in every other field of endeavour. It cannot be said that all who are not scientists or engineers are necessarily good administrators, and by the same token it must not be assumed that all scientists and engineers are poor administrators.
Supply-Fisheries

Research is normally a slow process. It usually requires long-range planning and a long period of work before results are achieved. It is not the sort of field in which one can approach a researcher and say, "Well, what did you discover to-day?" and expect to get a satisfying answer.
The fisheries research board has produced results since it was formed in 1937, and some of them have been outstanding. It is often criticized for what it has not done; that it has not given full help to industry; that it does not have a practical approach to problems and so on, but in all fairness one should give the board due credit for its achievements.
The annual reports set forth clearly the programme and achievements, and I would imagine that all hon. members are familiar with them. But, in particular it is desired to remind the committee of the work of the board in rehabilitating oyster culture in the maritimes; protecting the lobster industry by laying down policies based on long and arduous statistical studies; and the rehabilitation of shad fishing in the headwaters of the bay of Fundy with resultant increase in catch. It has also found the answer to the toxic condition in clams at certain times of the year in the bay of Fundy and has made the public aware when these clams are safely edible. The Nova Scotia department of health on the 17th August issued an official warning to the public, based on the findings of the research board. Fishermen on the east coast are optimistic that the herring investigation will result in herring being available on a year-round basis, rather than on the seasonal and uncertain basis as at present.
The programme laid down for the west coast will undoubtedly result in benefits in a variety of fields. The Skeena salmon investigation alone is an undertaking of great magnitude and great promise. Judging from the reports, I would imagine that whitefish fishermen on the prairies realize the value this board has been to them. The board has made many other contributions and advances w'hich are clearly set forth in its reports, and it would not seem necessary for me to mention them at this time. But judging by the number of requests the board receives from the fishing industry for assistance in various projects, I would gather that its value to this industry is fully appreciated.
I have no particular reason or desire to defend the fisheries board. As far as I am concerned, it must be capable of standing or falling on its own merits. The board consists of a good cross-section of representatives from industry, government and science. Its terms of reference, as set forth in the Fisheries Re-

search Board Act, appear to me to be sound, and the principle of having an organization established to do research, in the fishing industry is sound.
That there is need for such a board is well indicated by the fact that it has already done much valuable work that would otherwise not have been undertaken either by private industry or any other agency.
In conclusion, I would say that we are keenly interested in the development of foreign markets for fish. The termination of the war has resulted in a decreased demand for our fish abroad and has increased the number of nations competing in the struggle for markets.
Recent action by UNRRA in suggesting that this organization be relieved of some of its obligations to accept large quantities of Canadian fish is an indication of the trend in the European market. New markets must be sought and old ones developed. I would, therefore, strongly urge that the Department of Trade and Commerce, through the Canadian Commercial Corporation and its other facilities, leave no stone unturned in its endeavour to develop foreign demands for our fish.


Mr. BARRETT:: I shall take only a
moment or two to say a few words about fresh-water fishermen and particularly the Ontario federation of commercial fishermen. This is a newly formed organization which consists of an amalgamation of regional fishermen's associations along the Canadian side of the great lakes and the lake of the Woods. One of its chief purposes is to make scientific and thorough investigations into the habits of useful species of fish in the great lakes, their feeding and spawning habits, with a view to conserving useful species and controlling predatory and useless fish.
I bring this matter up now because the federation feels that the federal department can be of great assistance;, owing to the fact that the waters of the great lakes are international waters. I am particularly interested in the federation because one of its laboratories is situated at Port Dover, in my constituency. Port Dover is the home port of what is reputed to be the largest and best equipped freshwater fishing fleet in the world.


Thomas Reid: Is that a provincial or federal organization?


Theobald Butler Barrett: It. is all in Ontario, and many of the regulations are provincial. However lake Erie in particular is concerned on account of the international feature, because on that lake there are bordering no less than four states of the United States.

Supply-Fisheries
My main purpose in rising is to express the appreciation of the federation for the cooperation of and the assistance given by the minister and his department. I know the federation is well pleased with the help it has been given, and I am sure that help will continue.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I should like to make only a few remarks at this time about the one department concerning which I have no criticism. I would show my appreciation to the minister for the appointment of Mr. Whitmore, because I believe he will have the confidence of the rank and file of fishermen on the coast.
I would also thank the hon. member for New Westminster for his address this afternoon, in which he dealt with both the national and international aspects of the matter. As it applied to fisheries on the Pacific coast I would say the hon. member's speech was a masterpiece, and I know that in years to come it will be used as a reference.
I would point out, however, that, taken as a whole, our fishing fleet on the coast is not as modern as that of the United States, nor is it as well equipped to compete in fishing operations. I would suggest to the minister that some organization be set up by the department under which loans could be given to fishermen in respect of their floating equipment, on a basis which would compare with loans to industry inland. In this way the fishermen could have modern equipment and be better fitted to compete with other countries.
I would associate myself with what the hon. member for New Westminster said respecting Hecate strait. That is a problem facing the halibut fishermen especially, and I have a keen interest in it because the strait is in my riding.
There is one other small matter which, though small, is important. When I was home last, it was brought to my attention that fishermen, when out on the grounds, operating in their cramped quarters for hours, must depend upon refreshments in the nature of a cup of tea and a piece of bread and butter. The feeling is that the butter ration is not adequate. I do not know whether the ration has been increased since last winter, but they ask that a more adequate supply be allowed, because they depend upon it for quick energy.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: At the outset,
may I say I support the views expressed to-day by the hon. member for New Westminster. I heartily endorse everything he has said. I am sorry to say the remarks I am about to make will, I realize, be critical to some extent.
I can assure this committee that what I say will, I feel, be expressing the opinion of ninety per cent or more of the fishermen on the Atlantic coast. I know my remarks may not meet with the approval of the Department of Fisheries; but I am sincere when I state no other industry in Canada has a better outlook for the future, if given proper direction and guidance, than the fishing industry of this great country. I regret I have not had an opportunity of visiting my friends in British Columbia to view at first hand their fishing interests, so that naturally my remarks will be confined to the fisheries of New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces, with which I am more familiar.
This industry has gone a long way in the past twenty years toward producing a better commodity and the chief aim on the Atlantic coast over a great period of years has been to give the fishermen better equipment to work with, better boats in which to work, whereby there is less exposure and much more comfortable accommodation. The great improvement in this respect is readily seen if one visits the fishing villages to-day. Unquestionably this improvement is responsible for a much greater investment by the fishermen, because modern equipment is to-day costly, particularly boats which are costing several thousand dollars. Twenty years ago a boat used for the same purpose would cost a few hundred dollars. The size of the modern boat is much larger and, as I previously stated, in most cases it has all modem conveniences, making the life of a fisherman less hazardous and more desirable. This improved equipment makes it possible for fishermen to go farther afield to carry on their fishing activities; distances that a few years ago would have been prohibitive with the inferior boats, engines and gear that were at their disposal at that time.
Since I did not speak during the budget debate, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance on amending the Income War Tax Act to permit fishermen and farmers to average their incomes for a period of three years moving average. In 1948 all farmers and fishermen who have made returns for 1946 and 1947 will be entitled to average their incomes for the three years and pay their tax on their average earnings at the end of 1948. Since the incomes of these primary producers fluctuate to so great an extent, this amendment will rectify an injustice that has been imposed on these people for several years, and I can assure the Minister of Finance that the proposed change will be greatly appreciated by the people of Charlotte county.
Supply-Fisheries

Another matter I wish to deal with is the matter of floor prices. As I have stated before, this is the major problem confronting fishermen to-day. True, they have enjoyed, during the past few years a period of prosperity, which was long overdue. This was greatly appreciated, but the future must be faced, and without some security as to floor prices there is little enthusiasm.
To let the committee have some idea as to how prices paid fishermen fluctuate, I wish to give one illustration. During the months of January, February, March and April of this year, herring scales which are produced by sardine fishermen were sold to the processors in the state of Maine for prices ranging from sixty cents a pound to as high as three dollars a pound. Very recently the several buyers got together, and during the past few weeks the price has been ten cents a pound. Hon. members can readily understand the uncertainty with respect to prices paid these fishermen and the absolute necessity of legislation to rectify this unbearable situation. As has been explained to the committee previously, fishermen are producers of a perishable article that cannot be held indefinitely awaiting better marketing conditions, but on the contrary, it must be disposed of immediately or it will be a total loss. Therefore the fisherman is always at the mercy of the manufacturer.
At the same time, the manufacturer would be utterly helpless without the primary producer, because his great investment in buildings and machinery would be of little value if the fishermen, through adverse conditions, are compelled to leave this industry and seek some other form of employment in which they feel more secure and in which they would receive better protection. I am convinced that these men do not wish to have floor prices established that would be unreasonable or that would in any way inflict hardship upon buyers and manufacturers of their products, since we all realize these manufacturers must compete with similar manufacturers in other parts of the world. Canada is an exporting nation and, in respect of fish, seventy-five per cent or more must be sold in other parts of the world. The greater portion exported would go to the United States which is the market the maritime provinces have enjoyed over a great period of years.
In December, 1945, I brought this matter to the attention of this department, pointing out the deplorable situation the fishing industry would inevitably find itself drifting into unless it was safeguarded and protected by floor prices. At that time I suggested an

international agreement as the solution, owing to our dependence upon United States markets for our products. Since that time, no action has been taken regarding this matter, and there are already signs of declining prices, as was explained in the great decrease in the prices paid for herring scales. It also shows how little control fishermen have of their own business and how rapidly prices can fall without some sort of protection. This matter is of vital importance to all our fishermen to-day and steps should be taken immediately, because it would perhaps be more opportune at the present time than to wait until prices begin to fall. It would be utterly impossible for these fishermen to carry on at the present time with prices that prevailed during the depressions period, on account of the fact that prices which they are obliged to pay to-day for materials and equipment necessary to carry on their work, have greatly increased1, and any major decline in prices paid to producers would be disastrous to the fishing industry.
I trust the department is fully aware of the situation and of the necessity of stabilized prices to all primary producers. The migration of our young men from the maritime provinces to the New England states was brought about by this very condition, because prices paid to primary producers other than during war years have been out of all proportion to prices paid by the consumer. In other words, prices paid by the consumer to retailers did not compare in any way with prices paid to the fishermen. The price spread has always been too great.
If the fisheries department are desirous of assisting this great industry, in no way could their effort be better exemplified or in no way could they please the fishermen of this dominion to a greater degree than by guaranteeing stabilized prices. If a poll could be taken within this industry and the question asked as to what the fisheries department could do that would benefit the greatest number of fishermen, the answer from ninety per cent of the fishermen would be, by establishing floor prices.
Regardless of this fact, nothing has been done in connection with this important matter. It has been brought to the attention of the department on different occasions, but apparently the feeling is that their effort can be put to better advantage, so that they have governed themselves accordingly.
I am of the same opinion to-day as last December and still feel confident that an international agreement can be worked out that would meet with the approval of the canners and fishermen on both sides of the

Supplementary Estimates
border, and, as long as I am the member for Charlotte county, I will press the fisheries department for some action.
In 1942 a price ceiling was placed on sardines in the fresh state. This was done by the can-ners in New Brunswick and the state of Maine. The ceiling price was not unreasonable to either the producer or the canner. It has been strictly adhered to by both parties and, to my knowledge, no breach has been made, although during that period since the ceiling price was set we have had times of scarcity and times of plentiful supply. However, regardless of supply, the price has never been broken and has worked out advantageously and beneficially to both parties. During the first great war, in 1918 a ceiling and floor price were placed on sardines with exactly the same effect, although in the previous year, 1917, the price had fluctuated from $10 to $95.
If this regulation of prices is necessary in war time to protect the consumer, why should the same consideration and protection not be given the primary producer at all times to accord him adequate security and encouragement, to enable him to establish his business on a more sound basis in order that he might look to the future with a more optimistic viewpoint?
During the past few years, while conditions were more encouraging in the fishing industry, the fishermen have made large investments, particularly the younger men who, in order to establish themselves in the sardine industry, were obliged to build sardine weirs in deep water and locations which necessitated large expenditures, because the privileges that could be maintained at a more reasonable cost had been secured over a great period of years by the older fishermen and are handed down from one generation to another.
If the price of sardines should fall to prewar levels the fishermen would be obliged to abandon a great proportion of these expensive structures and seek some other form of employment and, if past history repeats itself, you will again see the youth of the maritime provinces migrating to the New England states, not through choice perhaps, but by force of circumstances beyond their control. In fact many investments during this period of prosperity in expensive boats, nets and equipment cannot be maintained or replaced when necessary if prices paid to producers during that same time are reduced to such an extent that, after expenses are paid, the producer cannot make a profit.
I realize that no programme is fruitful if it is merely opposed to something. Successful programmes are those which are constructive and creative. What we need at this critical
juncture is an affirmative demonstration that we have the qualities needed for survival. We must be resourceful and. persistent in seeking ways to meet any emergency that may appear, and be in position to surmount any obstacle that might obstruct our path to higher standards of living. Retaliatory barriers would serve to increase distrust and express lack of cooperation. This would prove fatal, because the only solution to our problem is to have voluntary cooperation, both nationally and internationally. That security depends primarily upon ourselves, since we have the support of practically every primary producer in Canada and have also the authority to administer the cure through the cooperation of the primary producers and government officials in Canada and the United States. The old adage that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" could be applied in this circumstance, because it would appear to be a much more simple matter to have the necessary adjustments made at the present time than to postpone taking any action until such time as prices have started to decline.
These primary producers have no C.I.O. or A.F. of L. to look to for protection and would not wish to exert their authority if such an organization did exist, as long as agreements can be reached through friendly cooperative and intelligent discussion.
I have been given to understand that it would be an enormous task to have adjustments made whereby this protection would include all primary products. During the war the necessary machinery was assembled and put into effect to enforce price control. We all agree, I believe, that a very fine job was done in this country under capable management.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, August 29, 1946